Breaking news....Victory for Simon Singh

source: Maria MacLachlan 15 April at 10:02

According to his lawyers' website, the British Chiropractic Association are giving up their misconceived libel case against Dr Singh. Thanks to everyone who supported him and for everyone who has signed the petition for libel reform in the UK. The reform of our ridiculous libel laws - which potentially affect anyone from any country - is now firmly on the agenda with all three main political parties including a commitment to it in the manifestos for the forthcoming general election.

The petition now stands at around 50,000 signatures - please, please add yours if you haven't already done so.

Here's the lawyers' announcement.

http://www.elyplace.com/index.aspx?p=1&articleId=208

Simon Singh - 10:23 campaign

Simon Singh campaign gathers support

Support Simon Singh by Richard Dawkins

source: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/ via http://richarddawkins.net/article,3925,n,n

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments:

• Sign the statement of support http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/326

• by Simon Singh - BCA v Singh The Story So Far, 3 June 2009.

• Follow Jack of Kent’s blog
• Bar chart showing a Comparative Study of Costs in Defamation Proceedings Across Europe
• Sense About Chiropractic By Professor Edzard Ernst Read more

• More Simon Singh News on HASSNERS.

Support Simon Singh

by Richard Dawkins

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

Sign the statement here

Also see: "Singh the Blues"

The respected science writer Simon Singh is being sued under the British libel laws (which are rapidly becoming an international laughing stock). Despite the setback of a perverse decision by a judge in a preliminary hearing, Simon has taken the courageous decision to fight the case. If he loses, it will be serious for freedom of speech, not only in Britain but throughout the world, because our notoriously fatuous libel laws are threatening to turn Britain into a goldmine for litigious chancers. If Simon wins, it will be a victory for freedom of speech, and for science, everywhere. Support for Simon is being coordinated by the admirable pressure group, ‘Sense about Science’ who have today released the following statement, together with the list of those who signed it, followed by comments from some of them.

Please do all in your power to support Simon Singh in his brave fight. Please CLICK HERE to sign up to the statement of support and encourage others to do the same."

Richard Dawkins

4th June 2009

This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

What you should know about chiropractic

Simon Singh is being sued by British Chiropractic Association - go to the Facebook site to support Simon and for information about the case.

BCA Press statement 29 may

and Jackofkent comments on this statement.

THURSDAY, 28 MAY 2009 BCA v Singh: The Official Ruling

source: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-official-ruling.html

This is the OFFICIAL text of the ruling of the English High Court on the question of meaning at the preliminary hearing of British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh on 7 May 2009

The key paragraphs are 12 and 13 have added emphasis.

4. The words complained of were taken from the third paragraph of the article.
"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

12. What the article conveys is that the BCA itself makes claims to the public as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for certain ailments even though there is not a jot of evidence to support those claims. That in itself would be an irresponsible way to behave and it is an allegation that is plainly defamatory of anyone identifiable as the culprit. In this case these claims are expressly attributed to the claimant. It goes further. It is said that despite its outward appearance of respectability, it is happy to promote bogus treatments. Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.

13. It is alleged that the claimant promotes the bogus treatments "happily". What that means is not that they do it naively or innocently believing in their efficacy, but rather that they are quite content and, so to speak, with their eyes open to present what are known to be bogus treatments as useful and effective. That is in my judgment the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them of thoroughly disreputable conduct.

source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227101.100-what-you-should-know-about-chiropractic.html?full=true

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

What you should know about chiropractic

29 May 2009 by Edzard Ernst Magazine issue 2710.

FOR many people, chiropractic appears almost mainstream. Some chiropractors even call themselves "doctor". In the UK, chiropractors are regulated by statute, and in the US they like to be seen as primary care physicians. It is therefore understandable if people hardly ever question the evidential basis on which this profession rests.

The origins of chiropractic are surprising and rather spectacular. On 18 September 1895 Daniel Palmer, a "magnetic healer" practising in the American Midwest, manipulated the spine of Harvey Lillard, a janitor who had been partially deaf since feeling "something give in his back". The manipulation apparently cured Lillard of his deafness. Palmer's second patient suffered from heart disease, and again spinal manipulation is said to have effected a cure. Within a year or so, Palmer had opened a school, the first of many, and the term he coined, "chiropractic", was well on its way to becoming a household name.

Palmer convinced himself he had discovered something fundamental about human illness and its treatment. According to Palmer, a vital force - he called it the "Innate" - enables our body to heal itself. If our vertebrae are not perfectly aligned, the flow of the Innate is blocked and we fall ill. Chiropractors speak of these misalignments as "subluxations" (in conventional medicine, a subluxation means merely a partial dislocation). The only true cure is to realign the vertebrae by manipulating the spine, and in the logic of chiropractic it follows that all human illness must be treated with spinal manipulations. Many chiropractors also assert that we need regular "maintenance care" even when we are not ill so that subluxations can be realigned before they cause a disease.

In the words of Palmer "95 per cent of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints".

All diseases are caused by 'subluxations' blocking the flow of the 'Innate' - This bit of history is important because it explains why many chiropractors treat all sorts of conditions, not just back pain. In fact, in the early days, back pain was not an issue for chiropractors at all. Today they are divided into roughly three camps. One adheres religiously to Palmer's gospel - indeed, at one stage Palmer considered establishing chiropractic as a religion. Another has moved on and now employs a range of non-drug treatments in addition to manipulations, mainly for treating back pain. The third group is situated somewhere in between these two extremes and, at least occasionally, treats many conditions other than back pain.

If you find this hard to believe, here is the evidence. A 2004 survey by the UK General Chiropractic Council revealed that most chiropractors believe they can treat asthma (57 per cent), digestive disorders (54 per cent), infant colic (63 per cent), menstrual pains (63 per cent), sport injuries (90 per cent), tension headaches (97 per cent) and migraine (91 per cent). According to a 2007 survey, 69 per cent of all UK chiropractors see themselves as more than just back specialists, and 76 per cent consider Palmer's original concepts to be "an important and integral part of chiropractic".

So, are they right? Palmer's concepts of the Innate and subluxation are pre-scientific and wacky, but that in itself needn't mean that the treatment is not helpful. We therefore need to ask, how good is chiropractic spinal manipulation in treating anything?

The answer is not clear-cut. For back pain, there is some encouraging evidence. Chiropractic manipulations have been shown in several clinical trials to be as effective as standard treatments. One needs to know, however, that standard care is not very effective for bad backs, and studies that adequately control for placebo effects tend to arrive at less positive conclusions. When my team in Exeter reviewed data from these more rigorous trials we concluded that "spinal manipulation is not associated with clinically relevant specific therapeutic effects" (Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol 22, p 879).

For virtually all the other conditions which chiropractors treat, where rigorous trials have been done, the evidence is weaker. In some cases, the most reliable studies have found that spinal manipulation is ineffective.

Chiropractors and many of their professional associations often claim otherwise, but a few do acknowledge this problem. In 2001, one team of chiropractors looked at this issue, and their conclusion was blunt: "The largest professional associations... make claims for the art of chiropractic that are not currently justified by available scientific evidence". Since then, several investigators have come to similar conclusions.

The issue is not just whether chiropractic treatments work. There is also the question of the safety of chiropractic spinal manipulation, a matter that few people seem to be aware of. Several big studies have shown that a large proportion of patients experience side effects after receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation. Luckily these complaints - mostly pain - are not normally very severe and are usually gone after a day or two.

There have, however, been several hundred cases of potentially very serious complications associated with this treatment. Extreme chiropractic manipulation of the neck can damage one of the two vertebral arteries that run roughly parallel to the upper spine and supply part of the brain. The consequence of such a "vascular accident" can be a stroke, and several deaths are on record. Such disastrous events are, of course, rare; this is one reason why it is difficult to investigate this phenomenon systematically and not all studies show the same result.

In the book I co-wrote with Simon Singh, Trick or Treatment? Alternative medicine on trial, we dedicate a chapter to chiropractic. After weighing all the evidence, our conclusions were not flattering: "Warning: this treatment carries the risk of stroke and death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo."

Simon later wrote an article in The Guardian newspaper about chiropractic. In it, he quoted from the website of the British Chiropractic Association which, at the time, made fairly clear claims that chiropractors can effectively treat a whole range of childhood diseases, including asthma. The evidence for treatment of this condition is less than weak: no fewer than three controlled trials have found that chiropractic spinal manipulation has no beneficial effect. The best of these studies, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that "the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit".

For alerting the public to all of this, and possibly preventing harm to unsuspecting children, Simon deserves much credit. Instead, he is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. I think this is a serious issue that raises two crucial questions. Is it acceptable that scientists and journalists are restricted in their criticism by the legal muscle of those who are being criticised? And is it acceptable that professional bodies, such as the British Chiropractic Association - or indeed any other organisation - are able to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by scientific data? I leave it to the reader to decide.

Profile Edzard Ernst is professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, UK. In his investigations of alternative therapies, he has found only about 5 per cent are supported by scientific evidence; the rest are either ineffective or have not been tested properly.

This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3857,n,n

HASSNERS.org highlights

Most complete summary online to date.

Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim

by Facebook Group

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634

Simon Singh, the highly respected science writer (Fermat's Last Theorem, etc), is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

(Chiropractic is an alternative/complementary therapy which purports to treat various ailments by manipulation of the spine.)

The BCA are promoting Chiropractic as treatment for children with (potentially serious) ailments such as asthma and frequent ear infections.

Simon Singh criticised this in a Guardian "comment" piece. In particular, he criticised the BCA for doing this without appropriate clinical evidence.

He is now being sued for libel.

The BCA want damages and an injunction against him saying such things in future.

Fundamentally this is about free speech and the use of evidence.

An informed and responsible science writer should be able to write about genuine concerns on an important public health issue (the correct treatment for children) without the threat and expense of High Court libel claims.

Even if he was wrong, it would surely be enough for the BCA to simply show their supporting evidence. But they are suing him instead.

In the words of Frank Frizelle: "Let’s hear your evidence, not your legal muscle."


*****************************************

Message from Simon Singh!


Dear Supporter,

For legal reasons, I am very limited in what I can say at the moment, but I hope to be back in touch soon.

In the meantime, I would like to take this chance to say thanks to everyone who has joined this group - your support is much appreciated and your postings are a real morale booster.

Bye for now.

Simon Singh

*****************************************

A primer on English libel law:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-english-libel-law-brief-guide-for.html

Read more at the facebook group page:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634

---

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
Jack of Kent’s blog is well informed and written from an expert’s point of view. Recent update postings include:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html

Googling words such as SIMON SINGH, BCA, LIBEL will take you to lots of blogs and articles about the libel case. Google news is particularly helpful (search “SIMON SINGH”, and you can also then click on the blog option.
http://news.google.co.uk/news

Coverage
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973 

This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Simon Singh case v Brit. Chiropractic Assoc

source: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/quackometer-on-bca-vs-singh.html

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Costs of libel cases in UK are extraordinarily high compared to other European countries. Simon Singh faces potentially huge costs if he tries to defend himself against the BCA.

The role of a sceptic could be costly... More...



This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Careful how you use "bogus" by Stephen Law

source:http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/careful-how-you-use-bogus.html

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Latest developments on Facebook.

Careful how you use "bogus"

Stephen Law (noreply@blogger.com)May 09, 2009 08:59:00 GMT Share

The Simon Singh court case had its preliminary hearing on the 7th and the news was very bad for Singh.

The two key decisions made by the judge are reported by Jack of Kent here.

The passage from the article in question is this:

"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

The judge ruled that this passage is not "comment" but statement of fact. Second he ruled that "bogus" means deliberate and targeted dishonesty. Singh maintains this was not his intended meaning (he just meant the BCA was being reckless advocating treatments for which no evidence), but the judge has decreed that is the meaning - the meaning on which the case will turn: Singh was claiming the BCA were actually being dishonest, rather than just, say, stupid and reckless.

I do find this a very peculiar reading of Singh. Look, for example at the following piece by Robert Park (link below) about "bogus science". Park clearly is not suggesting that those promoting bogus science are necessarily dishonest (though some are of course). His criteria for bogusness are not criteria for dishonesty.

The seven warning signs of bogus science.

This author also clearly is not suggesting deliberate and targeted dishonesty when talking about the "bogus science of second hand smoke".

Yet the judge has now declared that by "bogus" Singh meant deliberate and targeted dishonesty. As a result, it is hard to see how Singh can win.

So, be very careful how you use the expressions "bogus science" and "bogus treatment", for the legal precedent has now been set, and you may be sued. Perhaps "bullshit science" and "bullshit treatment" are safer (following Penn and Teller).

Obviously there will need to be a whip round to support Singh.

Simon Singh sued by the British Chiropractic Association

Stephen Law Source: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/11/simon-sigh-sued-by-british-chiropractic.html says
"Alternative medicine calls in the lawyers

Science author Simon Singh (who is speaking at the CFI London Science and Religion event in April) is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).

The action is being taken over a passage in an article Singh wrote for the Guardian about the BCA.

The case was reported here by the Telegraph.

The excellent Jack of Kent sets out the alleged libel here.

This case is important because if the BCA wins there is a host of other alternative medical practitioners (homeopaths, etc.) who will probably also sue if it's suggested there's no evidence their treatment works.

If the case goes ahead, we'll see the evidence for and against the efficacy of chiropractice as a treatment for various ailments set out in court - which will be interesting!"

Facebook Site: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=33457048634
have following key supporters:

Ben Goldacre (London)

Supporter

Nick Cohen

Supporter

Chris French (Goldsmiths)

Supporter

David Colqhoun (UCL)

Supporter

Tracy King (London)

Supporter

Sid Rodrigues (London)

Supporter

Nick Pullar

Supporter

Jack Of-Kent (London)

Correspondent

Simon Singh sued by the British Chiropractic Association

Alternative medicine calls in the lawyers

Science author Simon Singh (who is speaking at the CFI London Science and Religion event in April) is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).

The action is being taken over a passage in an article Singh wrote for the Guardian about the BCA.

The case was reported here by the Telegraph.

The excellent Jack of Kent sets out the alleged libel here.

This case is important because if the BCA wins there is a host of other alternative medical practitioners (homeopaths, etc.) who will probably also sue if it's suggested there's no evidence their treatment works.

If the case goes ahead, we'll see the evidence for and against the efficacy of chiropractice as a treatment for various ailments set out in court - which will be interesting!

Evening with James Randi and Friends - Science, Pseudoscience, Scepticism & the Paranormal

An Evening with James Randi and Friends

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/randi/

.. share an evening with James Randi and his associates in an evening of discussion about science, pseudoscience, scepticism and the paranormal.

Scheduled speakers:
Prof. Richard Wiseman; Psychologist, University of Hertfordshire.
Prof. Chris French; Psychologist, APRU, Goldsmiths, University of London.
Dr Simon Singh; author, journalist and TV producer.
Dr Ben Goldacre; award winning writer, broadcaster, and medical doctor.
Dr Susan Blackmore; freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster.
James Randi; sceptic and magician.

Tickets cost £11 (standard), £5.50 (concessions: students & OAPs).
The booking fee is included in the price.

Time: Doors open at 6pm, close at 6:30pm.
Date: Saturday 19th April 2008.
Venue: Conway Hall, London WC1.

Proceeds go to The James Randi Educational Foundation which is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

Contact the organisers:
The event organisers can be contacted at pub{ @ }skeptic.org.uk.


Book tickets for the event:

Telephone
Telephone bookings are accepted between 10am and 5pm only, Monday to
Friday. There is no answerphone service. To book tickets by telephone,
call 020 7404 3126. Telephone bookings need to be paid for (in cash) on
the door. A maximum of four tickets can be booked by telephone.

Online
Tickets can be booked online through the links following links:

Standard rate tickets are available here:
http://www.wegottickets.com/event/29398

Concessionary tickets are available here:
http://www.wegottickets.com/event/29399

Please bring evidence of status for concessionary tickets (student ID
card, etc) on the night. Tickets are allocated on a strict first come,
first served basis. If you book a ticket and cannot attend, please let
us know.

Publicity:
If you can publicise this event in your organisation or workplace, this
flyer is provided for your use: click to open or download:
http://www.skeptic.org.uk/randi/Flyer.pdf

Associations:
The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF): www.randi.org
The Skeptic Magazine (UK): www.skeptic.org.uk
Skeptics in the Pub: www.skeptic.org.uk/pub
The Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, University of
London: www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru