A quick recap- Simon Singh wrote an Op-Ed piece saying the British Chiro Ass’n (BCA) saying they offered “bogus” treatments* and the BCA sued him for libel. The judge (Eady) in the case found Singh’s comments were meant as fact, not opinion, and that “bogus” meant fraudulent (as-in, chiros know their methods don’t work).

He was “barred” from appealing Eady’s findings. Except, under British law, he could ask the higher court for permission to appeal.

Last Wednesday (Oct. 14) the appeals court granted Singh permission to appeal Eady’s findings.

Then, the spit hit the fan and we await the repercussions. The BCA posted a press-release saying that Singh had written a malicious attack on them. According to a lawyer involved peripherally with the case, the BCA has libeled Singh by saying he was “malicious” and now Singh can counter-sue. http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-defame-simon-singh.html In fact, the judge on Wednesday noted that malice was not involved. The BCA quickly changed the wording in the PR statement; but they were too late make it like it never happened.

The lawyer has noted that it is up to Singh to decide how to proceed; but it gives him a good option.

* Singh mentioned specific, bogus treatments (for colic, ear infections, etc.), not everything they do.

How does this differ from what I said?

If I accuse a cat-food manufacturer of mixing rat meat with their tuna, and the manufacturer accuses me of libel, then it’s up to me to prove my claim, it’s not the manufacturer’s job to run around and try to prove me wrong. This arrangment is practical, fair and just.

My objection to Steve’s original post was that he seems to think this arrangement is somehow ‘cockeyed’ and that the opposite ought to be true, ie that the manufacturer should be the one trying to prove themselves innocent of wrongdoing in the face of any claim anyone might want to make about them.

As to the ‘quacks’ comment. I didn’t say that the case had anything to do with the BCA being ‘quacks’, I just used the term to describe them.

Did neurology develop from phrenology? Nevertheless, chiropractors have had ample time to adopt legitimate practice, as osteopaths have done (only in the USA). All the information they need is available, free, in libraries. Chiros clearly don’t want to become legitimate practitioners because they will lose too much business, or they will have to spend a lot of money to make their schools into something professional, and competitive, such as PT. Chiropractors who do try to reform are reviled by the rest.

Suppose chiros domanage to move beyond their fairy-tales. Can you explain to me why chiros should be allowed to continue to ply their bogus trade as if it were legitimate until it becomes so?

It depends on what you mean by “subject matter.” If you mean UK libel law, sure; but he has previously made decisions that shocked the legal community there, to the extent that he has been remonstrated by higher courts. Does he know more about the meaning of “bogus,” perhaps; I would like the opinion of lexicographers. The judge certainly is not better informed on the subject of chiro than I, and many others here.

If Singh loses the case, it will be based on the judge’s definition of “bogus” not the legitimacy of chiro for treatment of the conditions (colic, asthma, etc.) cited in Singh’s article. When the BCA laterly published their data “supporting” such treatment claims, it was a joke, see here http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=555 and here http://layscience.net/node/598 among many deconstructions.

You can read legal commentary on the case here http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

I beg to differ. When you assert anything (e.g., libel) you must prove your claim.

In this particular case, the question is not whether chiros are quacks. The judge has ruled that when Singh called their treatments “bogus” that meant “deliberately fraudulent.” Which means, a proper defense requires him to show that they know the treatments don’t work (what is on their minds); whereas, we think they believe their bogus claims because they are deluded.

“In England suing for libel is an effective strategy for silencing critics. The burden of proof is on the one accused (guilty until proven innnocent) and the costs are ruinous. Simon has persisted, however, at great personal expense.”

If I’m carrying on a business and someone publishes an article saying I’m up to no good, then I’M the injured party, I’M the person who is innocent untill proven guilty. It’s up to my accuser to prove their case.

Having said that I’m confident that Simon will expose the BCA for the bunch* of quacks they are.

*What’s a better collective noun for quacks? A fraud? A conspiracy?