Blogs / Bad Astronomy

Skeptic Michael Shermer wrote an open letter to antivaxxer Bill Maher, and to be frank, Shermer hit it out of the park. There’s nothing I need to or can add to what he wrote. Go read it.

A new study shows that copper bracelets don’t relieve arthritis pain.

Now, you might think "wire they even doing that," but the study was well-grounded, conducted thoroughly, and had little resistance. I think it strikes a cord, and so I’m willing to plug it.

I even hope they make it into a movie. It could be directed by Stanley Cupric.

Note added after posting: I see that James Randi his own self wrote about this today on Swift as well. Great minds, yadda yadda. Thanks to Travis Roy for pointing this out.

Tip ore the hat to Fark.

Hero journalist Simon Singh has written a fantastic article for The Times Online about his libel case in the UK and libel in general: how it gags journalists and keeps people from learning important information.

If this article makes you angry, good. Do something about it.

Fighter for truth and science Ben Goldacre tweeted a link to a nifty blog post showing just how safe the Gardasil HPV vaccine is. Using easy-to-understand graphics, the post (on the very nice Information is Beautiful blog) makes it very clear that comparing the good it does to the very tiny risk, Gardasil is a monumental achievement. Actually, just all on its own it’s a big advancement in the fight against cancer. The post also puts it in place among other low-risk dangers like getting hit by lightning or being killed in an earthquake. I like that; I myself have compared it with dying from falling off a chair.

Also, there is a website called the Vaccine Information and Awareness Service (gotta love that URL) which provides a great repository of info about the truly awful shenanigans of Meryl Dorey and the (ironically-named) Australian Vaccination Network, the loudest and — amazingly, given how reality-free these people tend to be — perhaps least-accurate antivax group in Australia. It’s a good place to go when you hear the latest health scare nonsense from the AVN. I’m glad so many people are rising up against the voices of scare-mongering and antiscience. They pose a real health threat, as far too many people have learned.

While I’m at it, my friend and pediatrician Joe Albietz has another slam-dunk article about the awful antivax nonsense being spread about the H1N1 vaccine.

In my last post, I said that the British Chiropractors Association — which is suing Simon Singh for libel — put out a press release saying that Simon was acting maliciously, and then hastily put out a modified release with that part taken out. This is a huge development in the case, since this is arguably a defamatory statement on their part about Simon. If he countersues, or threatens to, they may be forced to drop the entire suit.

Because it’s too delicious not to point out specifically — and because I think it’s vital that skeptics raise awareness on this issue — here are the two versions of their press release: the original, and the modified one.

The difference? This paragraph (emphasis mine):

Original: "The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper."

Modified: "The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is a simple claim based on the fact that the BCA was libelled by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper."

Yeah. Oops.

I’ll be keeping a close eye on this indeed. Simon Singh has my full support in his effort to overturn his own suit and these awful UK libel laws.

Simon Singh is a science journalist being sued by the British Chiropractor Association for saying they "happily promote bogus treatment". The libel laws in the UK are ridiculously draconian, putting all the onus on the person being sued, contrary to the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also contrary to the libel laws of essentially every other nation on the planet.

A judge looked over the case and said that Simon’s use of the word bogus meant that he was ascribing ill motivations to the BCA, and allowed the case to continue. Simon was initially denied an appeal to this ruling, but then appealed that… and yesterday a court said he does indeed have the right to appeal! This is definitely a victory, but what it means is that Simon can now continue fighting this ridiculous suit and this ridiculous libel law. So there’s a long way to go.

But in a weird twist, the ever-vigilant Jack of Kent saw a press release by the BCA today that ascribed malice to Simon’s motivations for writing the original article. That’s a big deal; if they pursue this line of attack then it may limit Simon’s ability to defend himself. What’s funny is that saying Simon is malicious is itself defamatory, and to me it seems that he could sue them for libel. I don’t think he will, but… Jack of Kent later discovered that the press release was quickly edited, and the words about malice on Simon’s part was removed. However, the ‘net being what it is, the originally-worded press release is still out there.

[UPDATE: Jack has written a follow-up blog post about this, saying that the BCA has defamed Simon, and it appears Jack and I are in agreement. He also mentions that if Simon threatens to countersue the BCA -- which he has every right to do -- it may end the case right then and there. I know Simon well enough to know that he will think carefully about this; he wants to do the right thing in the long run, which is defend himself and show that the libel laws are awful. A happy aftereffect of this would be the global shaming of the BCA, which has been underway for months now; they have the most amusing ability to bend over backwards to make themselves look foolish... an ironic feat for a chiropractic association.]

Interesting. I know Jack is writing more on this, and I’ll update this when he has more.

Recently, science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for having the audacity of telling the truth in a newspaper article about chiropractic: while it may have some small efficacy when treating back problems, there is exactly zero good evidence that it can treat illnesses, and in fact can be very dangerous when people get their neck manipulated.

The Australian Skeptics posted Simon’s original article so that it would get more attention. And it worked, kinda: like a fly to honey, one chiropractor took offense at what was written, and decided to send them a nearly logic-free letter. That’s fine, and pretty much what I expect from a vocal alt-med devotée. As justified, Eran Segev, president of the Australian Skeptics, responded.

All well and good, until…

… two weeks after responding we received a letter from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) indicating Mr Ierano [the chiropractor] has lodged a complaint against Australian Skeptics. The letter attached to the complaint was the same one that Australian Skeptics had received and responded to.

Well, that’s a bit odd! I mean, why go to the trouble to pursue legal action against someone responding to your claims when it should be easy to present a simple rebuttal based on the evidence that chiropractic works?

… oh, right.

What’s funny is that originally, the BCA (the group suing Simon in the UK) tried to defend their position, and presented a poorly-researched, off-topic press release that somehow managed to make them look worse. Apparently, that’s a theme amongst chiropractors trying to support some of their less reality-based claims.

And while I’m using a light-hearted tone here, I’ll note that this is a very serious issue: there are people out there trying to stifle free speech. It’s that simple. The UK libel laws are draconian and designed to shut up any protest, making scientific objections and investigations into potential and real quackery very difficult. As Eran says on the AS page:

Australian Skeptics sees this complaint as lacking any merit even if it did not include some factual errors (e.g. the claim that a British court ruled Simon’s article is biased). We have prepared a detailed response to the HCCC and will be defending our right to publish articles relating to any scientific issue, as long as they are backed by scientific evidence.

Good on ya, mate!