Comments on: Simon Singh Has Won

By: HHC

HHC — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:31:45 +0000

BCA discontinued the legal action. Their point was that Singh’s comments could be interpreted as libelous. Legally, they did succeed with their initial interpretation. Their legal cost for public relations was estimated to be $300,000. Also, there was the public removal of an inferior advertising pamphlet for chiropractic care. This doesn’t mean Simon Singh has won. He has earned the right to make adverse comments according to the British court and defend them. He’s lost $300,000 for this process and his lack of written “clarity”. But all the writings on this post indicate that he truly meant what he said. Then we can say he is merely posturing for purposes of the lawsuit to avoid further costs of defense for his hostile, dismissive comments.

By: daniel.oliveira

daniel.oliveira — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:13:26 +0000

That’s Science 2 x Pseudoscience 1
Congratulations, Simon!
Steve, thanks for keeping us up to date.

By: jwlbailey

jwlbailey — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:18:38 +0000

How do these guys sleep at night? (cognitive dissonance I guess). Really looking forward to the rogues reaction on the next SGU podcast especially Rebecca’s. It’s funny that Simon Singh did an interview on For Good Reason two days before this press release came out. I hope he gets knighted.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:36:19 +0000

The BCA statement http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20Statement%2015th%20April%202010.pdf says they accept Simon’s word that he never meant to accuse them of fraud. I wonder if they accept his further explanation that they are ill-informed.

By: Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:33:59 +0000

Fortunately for him, Simon Singh is able to afford the insane costs of defending himself against libel action.

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:15:38 +0000

“(Having said that, if I were in Simon’s shoes, I’d have done exactly what he did – I don’t have that kind of money either.)”

Actually the BCA threw in the towel, not SS

By: SteveA

SteveA — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:17:32 +0000

Like JustinWilson I would have liked to see the BCA challenged on a matter of fact rather than opinion. They represent themselves as a profession offering medical treatments with proven benefits – they should have the ‘facts’ to back up these assertions.

I know the law courts are not an appropriate arena for discussing science, but sometimes you have to make the best of what you have.

It could have been a knockout blow.

(Having said that, if I were in Simon’s shoes, I’d have done exactly what he did – I don’t have that kind of money either.)

Overall this appears to be a big win. I think the headline messages the public will absorb are:

‘Simon Singh says homeopathy is bogus’;
‘Simon Singh wins case’.

Hopefully journalistic shorthand will be working in the skeptics’ favour for a change.

By: HHC

HHC — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:18:04 +0000

According to Jack of Kent, there is a dent in England’s libel case law. This really sounds to me like a ding and not a dent. So now Singh can say he made an adverse comment in the Guardian against the practices of the BCA. His comments were not clear to his reading audience, including the judges. American style slang can’t be so easily understood by less ” hip” legal professionals who take their English language skills seriously. Maybe Singh should leave his co-author to make the accurate medical statements regarding the chiropractic profession.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:49:27 +0000

Oh, and the BCA’s wording was clearly a minor re-wording of a previous public suggestion by the excellent skeptical blogger, Dr Aust.

http://draust.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/they-think-its-all-over-it-is-now-bca-drop-lawsuit-against-simon-singh/

http://tinyurl.com/y4qk8jy

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:44:51 +0000

Time wounds all heels.