Comments on: Simon Singh stands up to libel claims

By: screaminggreenconure

screaminggreenconure — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:03:46 +0000

BigH, there’s nothing to stop a journalist writing a damning piece about NHS healthcare or overprescription of antibiotics either, and that’s the way it should be. And what do you mean by “all the answers?” Do you think that’s remotely possible within our lifetimes, or even the lifetime of our species as a whole?
Also, what’s stopping you spending your cash on a chiropractor? If you think listening to Bjork will cure colic you’re free to buy all her albums, just don’t expect your claims to go unchallenged.

By: screaminggreenconure

screaminggreenconure — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:59:19 +0000

The knock on effects are great and I am happy about this. If someone cannot prove that their treatment is really, really working significantly above placebo level then what makes it ok that they pretend otherwise? Is it fair to lie to sick people to make money? Modern science works on evidence, which is why it doesn’t always fit in with the way CAM treats things. If you do not have the evidence, do not make the claim – and if you DO have the evidence and are criticised by someone like Simon Singh, don’t fight it with libel laws. Fight it with EVIDENCE. Prove it. If a CAM practitioner finds themselves being called bogus, then if they can prove otherwise they win – no libel law required.

By: kei

kei — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:23:07 +0000

Has anyone considered the knock on effect of this case before jumping on the “free speech” band wagon? Due to this case libel laws will be reviewed which certainly has it’s benefits but it also means any alternative practitioner, not just chiropractors, will be harshly restricted in what they can claim to treat. Modern science does not always fit into the way CAM therapists work yet thousands of people every day benefit from treatment. So even if a therapist has successfully treated hundreds of children with colic over many years they will not be able to claim this as it has not be proved modern scientific language, how’s that for free speech? Is it fair to destroy so many people’s lively hoods and restrict patients treatment over a tittle tattle case? More informed debate is needed!

By: BigH

BigH — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:54:35 +0000

Simon Singh\’s attempts to defend himself by claiming science is under attack are manipulative. if his article had merely presented the lack of evidence for some chiropractic services, of course he would never have been sued. He chose to write a damning piece of journalism, not a considered scientific piece of writing. Why should journalists with a scientific background be free to libel? Until evidence-based healthcare has all the answers, which it clearly doesn\’t, we should be free to spend our money on other forms of healthcare if we wish – and individuals like Simon Singh are encouraging moves which restrict that freedom more and more.

By: pv

pv — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:11:24 +0000

L Said:
“SS has used all his contacts, Ernst who seems to have the ear of every paper in the UK, to put a story in the national press stating there was not a jot of evidence. Obviously there is some evidence or almost certainly the desicion would have gone in SS favour. ”

This is completely wrong. The case was not about whether there is evidence (which there isn’t for the most part in fact). The case on which the Judge has made a preliminary ruling is about whether the BCA knowingly make evidence-free claims. The operative word is “knowingly”.
The matter of evidence, its existence or otherwise, is entirely outside Judge Eady’s remit and has no bearing on his ruling. But if you are interested then you should consult the various chiropractor associations, like the BCA, to see what they think constitutes “evidence”. I can assure you that it barely gets past the consumer questionnaire level, and when it does it seems to be restricted at best to improperly blinded trials comparing one chiropractic treatment with another – not with either proven real treatments or placebo treatments. The reason for doing shoddy trials I think is obvious when properly blinded and well run trials constantly fail to produce the evidence they so desire.

By: Badsciencemonk

Badsciencemonk — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:36:28 +0000

I don’t think people should sign if they don’t understand but if you want more information look here (this is not my site)

http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/05/loads-of-bloggers-have-been-well.html

By: L

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:31:18 +0000

SS has used all his contacts, Ernst who seems to have the ear of every paper in the UK, to put a story in the national press stating there was not a jot of evidence. Obviously there is some evidence or almost certainly the desicion would have gone in SS favour. The BCA could have responded to SS by merely showing this evidence, but the BCA could never get the headlines that SS had in a national news paper. A 2 line article stating Oh there is some evidence could not undo the damage caused by SS massive headline. And lets not forget this massive headline grabbing story was there to promote SS new book.

By: TheMathGuy

TheMathGuy — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:12:25 +0000

Mike, this is not so much a question about whether Simon Singh is right or wrong about chiropractic, it is a question of whether or not the accusation of libel correctly applies to him. The purpose of libel law is to protect people from smear campaigns designed to attack their personal character by making false accusations about them. It is not intended to stop debate about the scientific evidence or lack thereof for a particular claim. The proper rebuttal to a claim that scientific evidence has not demonstrated a particular effect is to cite evidence that DOES demonstrate that effect–this is how the BCA could have honorably opposed Simon Singh. Now if Simon Singh has attacked chiropractic by accusing SPECIFIC chiropractors or organizations of misconduct but had no evidence of said misconduct, then he is guilty of libel. ( Note the “no evidence” part. It isn’t libel if the accusation is justified. ) I haven’t read Simon Singh’s works so I’m not familiar with the specific claims he makes, but I’ve seen enough quack science being promoted by chiropractors that it would not surprise me in the least if their accusation of libel turned out to be completely unjustified.

By: pulse

pulse — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:01:46 +0000

Prof Edzard Ernst has added to the debate, questioning whether chiropractors are destroying their own reputation by continuing to promote chiropractic for conditions for which there's no evidence it works.

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:10:18 +0000

I should rephrase a previous comment…

‘come on lads, look into the issue and make sure that you understand it fully before you go off and sign just because you were asked to!!’

to
‘come on lads, look into the issue and make sure that you understand it fully before you go off and sign just because you think that you were asked to!!’

Just to be correct!