http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/05/simon_singh_loses_first_round.html

I read about the origins of chiropractic in “Suckers – How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All” by Rose Shapiro and found it difficult to believe it could be taken seriously at all. Seems it’s all due to one person being good at PR.

This site shows the BCA comment on it;
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/Press%20Statement%2007%2005%2009.pdf

I haven’t even started on Time Travel. It is real.
Art

“What’s interesting is that Singh could have simply argued that what he said was a free speech comment (or the UK equivalent), which is what’s usually done in these kinds of cases.”

This wouldn’t work in the UK. As others have mentioned, UK libel laws are ridiculous, and “free speech” is not a sufficient defense.

You are right, though you can actually argue a defence of “Fair Comment” in UK Libel Law, as in:

“This was my sincerely held opinion, based on the accepted facts, and is a reasonable opinion to hold (i.e. not totally left-field and crazy) – thus fair comment”

- this is the standard libel defence that tends to be used by UK newspapers if they get sued. One of the interesting things about the case is that Singh has apparently decided NOT to go this way and is arguing the much tougher (for him to prove) defence of “Justification”, as in

“What I said (i.e. the stuff you claim was libellous) was in all respects true“.

More on this on my and Jack of Kent’s blogs if you’re interested.

The “Justification” line is a much, much, more “bring it on, we’re not giving an inch” sort of defence, but carries with it the chance for the complainant (i.e. the chiros in this case) to be wholly discredited, as their entire reputation, in the sense of “how true any of the stuff they say is”, gets hashed over point by point in court. The classic example of a case like this rebounding on the complainant is the libel action brought by holocaust denier David Irving against the writer and academic Deborah Lipstadt, a case which made Irving a pariah and a laughing stock, and bankrupted him into the bargain.

You are right, it would be better just to have a free speech guarantee, but there you go…

It’d be neat if they’d contribute to Singh’s case, but I doubt they have the funds (haven’t been able to attend the AGM for the last coupla years).

I’m not sure I can trust this Dr Sarfatti of yours. Here’s a quote from him on wikipedia:

“On the basis of further experience in the art of conjuring, I wish to retract my endorsement of Uri Geller’s psychoenergetic authenticity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti#cite_note-11

You mean there was a point buried in there somewhere?

Why was that gentleman in a wheel chair? What was his condition and how did the chiropractic treatment help?

Chiropractics haved helped many people and if it had not, would have already been shut down.

“Scams have helped many people and if it had not, would have already been shut down.”

Um, no, I don’t see any significance in this – scams happen.

Don’t let your selfish need to prove your misguided beliefs affect my and others’ freedom to choose the treatments we want for what ails our bodies.

Besides the reversal in who is actually (using misguided beliefs) trying to affect others’ freedom here, Singh is only treating proved cases of scam.

While we are on that subject, a good practice to avoid being scammed is to use language logically. If a proposed procedure has no proved effect (or worse in Singh’s cases, have been proved to have no or bad effects) it should not be labeled a “treatment” – in medicine a treatment is used for amelioration (or even cure) of a problem.

In modern EBM this is supposedly a requirement even. But even so it is probably better all around to think of a proposed medical procedure as “a scam” until proved effective, rather than the reverse.

Debunking is not being skeptical. It is having an opinion and then trying to prove it without actual scientific proof, using one sided arguments and opinions.

Debunking is to expose false or exaggerated claims, so to try to prohibit science is non-descriptive of most debunking. Or rather, it is a crank’s wet dream about what his antagonists do.

All Singh and we are doing are writing about things and examining the evidence.

Who is seeking to restrict the other’s freedom? The only answer to this renders your contentions as perverse.

I have known and been lucky enough to have known some very good and qualified Chiropractors throughout my life, starting with my father who earned his degree from Tulane Medical College in NO, LA back in the early 1960′s.

I watched my father’s patients come and go, including one gentleman who was in a wheel chair when he first visited. He went from wheel chair to walker and then to walking on his own through the treatments he received.

There are things that we still do not understand about the human body and medicine of all sorts. I do know that more people die in the U.S. from allopathic medical mistakes by physicians than from gunshot wounds and that allopathic medicine treats symptoms and not the cause of disease. Did I mention my mother was an RN? I had a healthy dose of learning about each approach to wellness growing up and to this day will seek alternative treatment over allopathic when given the choice.

Chiro is not a scam. Chiropractic practicioners are NOT MDs, they are DCs. They are not allopathic doctors and cannot diagnose or prescribe medications. I have never been to one who even attempted to do anything other than manipulate my spine just as they are taught. I believe the “quacks” referred to by Singh are the few, just as quacks in the mainstream medical community. And there ARE quacks there.

I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion, but keep your ill feelings to yourself. Chiropractics haved helped many people and if it had not, would have already been shut down. Don’t let your selfish need to prove your misguided beliefs affect my and others’ freedom to choose the treatments we want for what ails our bodies.

What’s interesting is that Singh could have simply argued that what he said was a free speech comment (or the UK equivalent), which is what’s usually done in these kinds of cases.

This wouldn’t work in the UK. As others have mentioned, UK libel laws are ridiculous, and “free speech” is not a sufficient defense.