Pharyngula

Posted by: bam | June 3, 2009 8:05 PM

He is my hero.

Posted by: littlejohn | June 3, 2009 8:06 PM

Y'see PZ, if you manipulate the stapes bone into correct alignment, you'll correct yer subluxation thingamabob...

Posted by: truthspeaker | June 3, 2009 8:11 PM

PZ there is an error in your post. Singh has not been found guilty of libel. In a preliminary hearing, the judge ruled about what the meaning of the potentially libelous statements were. His ruling was that Singh said something even Singh doesn't claim he said, and it would be a very hard claim to prove, meaning that Singh would probably lose once the case got to trial. Singh is appealing that ruling. The actual libel issue hasn't been decided yet.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 3, 2009 8:24 PM

Ichthylic, are stalking me?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 8:24 PM

His ruling was that Singh said something even Singh doesn't claim he said,

that's actually an interesting question.

It basically seems that Singh was accused of saying that the BCA was lying about the positive effects of some treatments.

However, if the BCA has no independent scientific evidence that the treatments under discussion were effective, and they are aware of this, doesn't claiming they do constitute lying under UK law?

I'm a bit confused that if one accuses an obvious liar of lying, that one can call that libel?

Posted by: BaldySlaphead | June 3, 2009 8:25 PM

Have just added the Guardian story and the British Sense About Science's "Keep Libel Laws Out of Science" campaign to Digg. If you have an account, please consider Digging these stories to raise their profile.

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Keep_the_libel_laws_out_of_science_Simon_Singh_Case

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Singh_to_appeal_against_libel_judgement

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 8:26 PM

Ichthylic, are stalking me?

yes, yes I am. I'm outside your window right now.

Run!!!!

*snort*

Posted by: Chupacabras | June 3, 2009 8:26 PM

Just out of curiosity, is Mr. Singh alone in this? In other words, is anybody backing or supporting in a non-monetary way, such as legal advice or offering to expert-witness or anything?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 8:35 PM

No, but you stalk stupid ideas.

Stimpy's idea of "stalking":

Go to a shopping mall.

Find the first person who recognizes him.

Accuse them of being a stalker.

Posted by: truthspeaker | June 3, 2009 8:45 PM

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 8:24 PM It basically seems that Singh was accused of saying that the BCA was lying about the positive effects of some treatments.

However, if the BCA has no independent scientific evidence that the treatments under discussion were effective, and they are aware of this, doesn't claiming they do constitute lying under UK law?

Well if we follow that logic, that means Tony Blair was lying about the WMD intelligence before the Iraq war!

In other words, yes, the law should treat making a false statement out of willful ignorance the same as lying.

Posted by: John Morales | June 3, 2009 8:50 PM

It's not easy to find the actual text of the ruling.

Jack of Kent seems to have it.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 3, 2009 9:00 PM

Nerd of Redhead said:

I doubt any experiments you came up with would match my rigor for the four experiments I'm running this week.

Maybe so. But they might be fun to try anyway. You could try them in class. PZ just sent me a note and said he is going to try them in his class.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 9:06 PM

Ichthylic, that was in interested artical. And how did you know I was sitting next to an open window?

I always figure you're just about ready to jump out of one whenever you decide to post here.

But they might be fun to try anyway.

stop trolling the thread, asswipe.

Posted by: MikeM | June 3, 2009 10:05 PM

Speaking of quacks getting busted, head over to Newsweek to see their takedown of Oprah. It is magnificent.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

Posted by: Brian | June 3, 2009 10:16 PM

This is going to be an interesting case to follow, I suspect. But poor Simon if so -- he's going to be living in interesting times.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 10:34 PM

Here good example of alternative medicine.

Randy, I'm not sure why, but I do kind of like you.

This however was information I could have lived my life without.

That bottle of makers mark in my pantry, well now I'm going to have to put a serious dent in it to drown some visuals.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 10:37 PM

ok I didn't read all the comments until now

Randy are you drunk?

Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 3, 2009 11:35 PM

What truthspeaker @ #5 said, but also, AFAIK you can't be "found guilty" of libel. Libel is a tort, not a crime. You can only be "found guilty" of crimes.

In any case, as #5 said, this was a pre-trial hearing in which a ruling was made on language construction. Still a ways to go, but, as frequently happens, the results of pre-trial hearings have made the outcome at trial all but inevitable.

Posted by: Little Boots | June 4, 2009 12:18 AM

Oh, Britain, you are so good in so many ways, with your health care and your castles and your health care, but jesus fuck, what is with the shitty libel laws? Explain!!!!

Posted by: Little Boots | June 4, 2009 12:23 AM

No. I can actually count the number of beers I have consumed in my 51 year life on 2 fingers.

Now that's horrible. Intelligent Design is one thing, but, goddammit, that is just sad.

Posted by: Little Boots | June 4, 2009 12:34 AM

I'm waiting, Britain!

And what is with the Queen not getting to go to the D-Day thing? What is that about? Just what are you up to?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 4, 2009 12:48 AM

Stimpy finally says something all can agree on:

I better shut up

yes, plz do.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 4, 2009 1:19 AM

I tried sex toys once.

Nothing kills the mood faster than wondering whether to drive to the ER or wait for the little Lego® guy to reappear on his own.

As for Meccano, well, wrenches and nuts go together everywhere but the bedroom.

After that I'm sticking with plain ol' vanilla ice cream sex. Seriously sticking; it's melted all over the bedspread and I'm out of laundry tokens.

At any rate, leave us out of your perversions please, Stimpy.

Posted by: Bob O'H | June 4, 2009 1:24 AM

In other words, yes, the law should treat making a false statement out of willful ignorance the same as lying.

so, let me get this straight.

Singh either:

never said BCA was lying (his current contention).

or

said BCA was lying, in essence, but decided to retract it because of the legal complication.

If he did in fact say BCA was lying (and they fucking well WERE), is it really the case that legally he's better off claiming he didn't?

You're getting confused. Singh never said anything about lying. He said that the claims of the BCA were "bogus". In a preliminary hearing the judge decided that meant he was saying not just that the BCA's treatments didn't work, but that Singh was saying that the BCA knew this. Singh's contention is that this is a mis-interpretation of what he wrote, so if it goes to court he'll have to defend a position he doesn't hold.

There's more at the Quackometer (Andy had similar legal trouble a couple of years ago, even having his site taken down by his ISP), in particular Sense about Science has started a campaign. You can even sign a statement!

Posted by: Martin_z | June 4, 2009 2:20 AM

I did actually read the article, but (a) IANAL and (b) I'm working from memory, so I may not have it exactly right.

But I believe the article said that chiropractors had listed advertisements (in the chiropractor house magazine? not sure about that) in which they'd said that they could cure earache and other things. Singh stated that it was wrong for the BCA to accept these adverts for bogus treatments. The BCA claimed this implied all chiropody was bogus; Singh claimed he only meant that curing earache et al via chiropody was bogus. He actually clearly made it absolutely clear what he's meant by "bogus" in the next paragraph.

The judge, unfortunately, agreed with the BCA.

Posted by: Chris Doms | June 4, 2009 3:03 AM

How can we donate to his cause?

http://skeptikiwi.com

Posted by: Sili | June 4, 2009 3:53 AM

Has the Grauniad said anything about doing the right thing and supporting the lawsuit? They helped Goldacre, but they were sued, themselves, in that case.

One of the early commenters on Phil's post about this turned out to be a true believer. Very disappointing - I'd hoped there'd be an amusing punchline to what read like over-the-top satire.

Posted by: Drosera | June 4, 2009 4:30 AM

It is sad that just writing the truth can be considered libel. I wish Simon Singh the best of luck in this Dickensian affair.

Posted by: Samuelm0 | June 4, 2009 4:45 AM

@#56, the reason British libel laws are so disparaged in other countries is that they are strict to the point where they discourage free speech - look at the not-so-recent scandal where Prince Charles was supposed to have engaged in a sexual relationship. No english paper could actually report on that story or even seriously discuss it's veracity because to do so would have put them at risk of being sued.

Referring to bogus medical practices as being "bogus" is something that would be not only allowed under US law but actively protected. I know which system I prefer.

Posted by: Chris Doms | June 4, 2009 4:55 AM

Faithless, thanks for your posts - it help with some perspective. As a New Zealander I can see why you're so unhappy with the inaccurate characterisation of the Westminster legal system.

Posted by: Faithless | June 4, 2009 5:07 AM

Truth is only libellous when a statement is made maliciously. For example, if you know something slightly seedy about someone's private life and publicise that information in order to embarrass them commercially and financially, the fact that you only told the truth will not necessarily provide a defence.

That seems reasonable to me.

My dictionary says bogus: spurious or counterfeit, not genuine; thesaurus: artificial, counterfeit, dummy, fake, false, forged, fraudulent, imitation, phoney, sham, spurious.

The online thesaurus adds: fraudulent, ersatz, fictitious, pretended

Would anybody like to explain to us how a judge - who starts off from the point that he does not have an opinion as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong - can possibly disagree with the submissions of the BCA that the word does not simply mean 'based on faulty science and ineffective', or whatever similar formulation for which Mr Singh contended?

Posted by: Jason S | June 4, 2009 5:12 AM

Just to echo Chris Doms at #53.

Does anyone know if there is a defence fund we can contribute to?

Posted by: AndyD | June 4, 2009 5:20 AM

@ Faithless:

Mr Singh now has to show ... that the BCA believes that the treatments it prescribes are useless and nevertheless carries on recommending and charging for them.

IANAL but unless I've seriously misread the situation, Singh is not yet required to show the BCA "believes that the treatments it prescribes are useless".

He is appealing Eady's ruling on that very matter and presumably hopes to defend the case based on his stated reasoning that the BCA are likely deluded in their belief of efficacy but that the treatments are ineffective all the same.

As for the word "bogus", as I recall, Singh explained HIS meaning in the article at the centre of the dispute.

Posted by: JCmacc | June 4, 2009 5:51 AM

Faithless in ~63 asks:

"Would anybody like to explain to us how a judge - who starts off from the point that he does not have an opinion as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong - can possibly disagree with the submissions of the BCA that the word does not simply mean 'based on faulty science and ineffective', or whatever similar formulation for which Mr Singh contended?"

This is exceedingly simple: the Judge in question could read the full piece Singh originally wrote in which he carefully defined a "bogus therapy" as a therapy with no merit regardless if the therapist had genuine belief in the efficacy or not. In other words, Singh clearly defined the BCA's dishonesty as being an accidental dishonesty, not the deliverate fraud they claim.

Singh's original piece allowed the position where the BCA believe in their therapies and don't deliberately lie about them.

That's why the Judge is an idiot, he's making Singh try to argue and defend a definition of "bogus" that contradicts what Singh originally wrote.

Posted by: Paul Browne | June 4, 2009 6:01 AM

I'm delighted that Simon Singh has decided to appeal, and that so many great people have come out in support.

I'd like to do something to support him, and I suspect many others reading this blog would too, so can you tell us if there is a legal fund to which we can contribute?

Posted by: pmacgowan | June 4, 2009 6:21 AM

Can we donate $ to help him ???

Posted by: bsk | June 4, 2009 7:19 AM

Faithless (#56 and #58):

Do you honestly believe a writer (especially a professional one) is obliged to check the dictionary definition of every word before publication?

Even disregarding the linguistic problems with that position (dictionaries are simply codified reflections of the "standard" dialect, not authoritative instruction manuals), having to do this would prohibitively increase the time needed to produce an article.

The most the BCA should have been able to ask for was that Singh publicly clarify what he meant by the word "bogus"... which, as far as I'm aware, he did - in the very next paragraph of the same article.

Posted by: Dancaban | June 4, 2009 8:09 AM

Surely the BCA could be caught out with the Trades Descriptions Act over here in the UK?

Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 8:19 AM

Ah. I see someone's mentioned it above, but here's more about McLibel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Restaurants_v_Morris_&_Steel

And, even better, here's the doc:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=547901963081075342

Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 4, 2009 8:38 AM

A proper defence for Singh would be to demonstrate that the BCA does, in fact, have an intent to deceive by producing published scientific evidence on the non-efficacy of chiropractic. That should make it easy to establish both that the use of the word "bogus" is completely an accurate description - no matter which definition is selected; and should demonstrate that the BCA knows, or ought to know, that their treatments are ineffective.

That would be a real volley to the BCA which would then have to prove that all those scientists are also lying.

Posted by: Epikt | June 4, 2009 9:39 AM

Brownian, OM:

Nothing kills the mood faster than wondering whether to drive to the ER or wait for the little Lego® guy to reappear on his own.

Be careful. If he's in there for more than a minute or two before extraction, Gingi will start shrieking about murder.

Posted by: Sidheag | June 4, 2009 10:01 AM

This is silly beyond belief. It's clear that "bogus", like many others in English, has several distinct meanings. One of those meanings implies an intention to deceive; another does not. Personally when I use the word "bogus" I most often do not mean to imply any intention to deceive ("I found out that my proof was bogus") - maybe the same is true of Singh. Regardless, given that there IS an interpretation of the word that is widely recognised and means what Singh intended, AND that he went on to disambiguate, how on earth can be be culpable here? If I write that something is a fluke, meaning that it's a chance event, may I then be required to prove that it is a parasitic worm?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 4, 2009 11:18 AM

Pikemann Urge (#60):

Brownian, OM #47, "plain ol' vanilla ice cream sex"

Don't take this personally but... god fucking dammit. Seriously. God fucking dammit. VANILLA IS NOT PLAIN. It is a delicious flavour, every bit as nice as caramel, chocolate or mocha. Plain ice cream would taste pretty bland.

I don't know what quality of ice cream you eat (maybe you've always been served that cheap, crumbly shit) but where we shop we have damned good stuff - vanilla or otherwise.

Ha! You and I are actually in complete agreement, my friend.

But unfortunately, vanilla's good name has again been besmirched and entrenched in the lexicon as a dysphemism for missionary position sex sans anything more exciting than perfunctory foreplay.

Come to think of it, sex in the missionary position sprinkled with perfunctory foreplay is pretty nice on a hot day as well.

Posted by: A Dog Smirk | June 4, 2009 11:51 AM

Vanilla ice cream also goes great with sweet stout in a stout float. Mmmm...

Posted by: Vinstonas | June 4, 2009 1:04 PM

SCEPCOP - Debunks CSICOP and the pseudo-skeptics. Come check it out if you're a truth seeker! :)

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 1:26 PM

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

Wow.

Posted by: truthspeaker | June 4, 2009 1:40 PM

The article in question has been reposted here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/the-libellous-simon-singh-article-on-chiropractors/

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 4, 2009 2:23 PM

From the website the 'Truthseeker' linked to:

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." - Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher

Way to mystify what non-stupid people understand statistically as Type I (α) and type II (β) errors, respectively. Did you choose that quote because you're genuinely ignorant of the scientific method (and particularly the concept of statistical power), because it impresses the flakes who frequent your site, or some combination of both?

"Hey, he quoted Kierkegaard! Take that, Eggheads. Just because you can't see something that doesn't exist doesn't mean...um, I mean you can't see what you can't believe...er, um...science can't explain why things exist that...um...you guys are just closed-minded so shut up!"

Here's a test of the paranormal: if you can really read my mind you'll be able to tell us all just how many variants of 'fucking moron' I'm thinking applies to you right now.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 2:39 PM

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." - Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher

Last night somebody broke into my apartment and replaced everything with exact duplicates... When I pointed it out to my roommate, he said, 'Do I know you?' - Steven Wright

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 4, 2009 2:41 PM

Seven?!?

Close. But definitely wrong.

[Brownian presses a button, delivering a mild electric shock to Rev. BDC through an electrode attached to his finger.]

Posted by: Faithless | June 4, 2009 3:46 PM

@62, Peter Ashby: I was a little surprised at Jack of Kent's attitude on this. Personally I am more than a little relieved when the judge comes into court showing that he has read all the papers and understood the arguments being made. This means that the time in court will be shorter and costs will be reduced. There were no especially difficult legal concepts to be argued about, and no complex factual ones either. The question was: did the judge agree with the submissions (which would have been made in writing) of the claimant or with those of the defendant? The fact that he did not listen to or pay attention to oral argument did not mean that he was biased or prejudiced, simply that he had been able to reach a conclusion on the papers. To show that this is OK, imagine that he had decided against the BCA: would you have asserted that this was improper merely because he did so on the basis of written rather than oral argument?

@67, AndyD: Quite right; if successful the appeal would mean that Mr Singh would then be arguing that there is no objective truth backing up chiropractic. I think the appeal is likely to be dismissed, if only because I cannot see that the CA will wish to overturn a first instance decision that is so obviously within the ranger of reasonable decisions.

@64, concerned joe: It is my view that chiropractic is highly spurious as a medical theory; your post makes what could be an effective argument in favour of the position that Eady J's decision has put him in. I don't know what his lawyers are telling him about that.

@68, tybo: unfortunately your last sentence is just wrong in law.

@69, JCMace: it ought to be clear that you cannot use a word in ordinary use and insist that all readers understand it by your own definition. That would leave the field clear for people to launch a defence of egregious defamation by saying "oh, in this case I intended paedophile to mean a man who is interested in girls young enough to be his daughter, and he's 50 so a 21 year old girl fits my definition." The court has to decide what the ordinary meaning of the word is when there is a dispute over definition. It's likely to go with the dictionary definition and - although I too would have thought the word was OK in the circumstances - it's clear that the dictionary definition does carry inescapable connotations of fraud.

@75, bsk: I can assure you that before the BCA launched their claim they would have corresponded with Mr Singh, the Guardian and their lawyers and there would have been opportunities to settle out of court (apology; correction; nominal damages). Mr Singh stuck by his guns - kudos to him - and relied on being able to prove that 'bogus' doesn't mean 'with deceit', and similar. He lost that gambit.

Can I just close by saying that, since chiropractic is clearly non-scientific and there are insufficient proper controls over people who purvey it, my view is that it is dangerous, and offensive to rational persons.

Posted by: Drosera | June 4, 2009 4:11 PM

Faithless @103,

It is my view that chiropractic is highly spurious as a medical theory

Careful now, you do realize that spurious is one of the dictionary meanings of bogus?

Posted by: NoGurus | June 4, 2009 5:05 PM

#62, Peter Ashby,
Your comments are right on the button. When I lived there I also remember the case of an MI6 operative who was muzzled and imprisoned under The Official Secrets Act for submmitting a 4-page outline to a publisher criticizing MI6. After his release, he wrote and published the book (The Big Breach) in Russia. Although the book was initially denied publication in Britain, it is now available. We have no real equivalent law here in the U.S. In the U.S., books written by our ex-CIA and ex-FBI agents helped expose the fraud and double dealings of the Bush administration, and helped take down the Republican party in the 2008 election. This critical self-examination is often ugly, and puts out our dirty laundry out for the world to see and criticize, but it usually succeeds in washing away the sewage.
On the other hand, the press in countries like the U.K. and Canada were very effective in criticizing the American and British government for their war efforts over the past eight years, much more effective than our own press, which was bamboozled and hoodwinked by the Bush administration.
The British public has always been overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq, while it took the American public several years to come to its senses.

Posted by: NoGurus | June 4, 2009 5:44 PM

Memo to Cheney:

The best part about you is rather than shut up and keep some dignity you continue to lampoon yourself and make great fodder for the comics. Keep it up and thanks for the laughs.

CC: SC,OM

Posted by: Drosera | June 4, 2009 6:34 PM

If the application of common sense were all there is to it, Simon Singh wouldn't need to spend a fortune on legal assistance. Sadly.

Posted by: frog | June 4, 2009 8:27 PM

This case is actually kind of interesting.

It pits a series of psychic-mind-reading interpretations.

On the one hand, Singh is trying to claim that he didn't mean by "bogus" that the chiropractors were lying -- but what should anyone care about what he meant; the only thing that should matter is what is generally understood by bogus. We shouldn't try to read his mind -- if bogus is generally understood to be a lie, then the court should go with that. Merriam-Webster says bogus is "sham, counterfeit". That would seem to imply intentional lying.

On the other hand, if the chiropractors are claiming efficacy for a treatment that is known to be useless -- then this should be no disadvantage to Singh. We shouldn't have to read the chiropractors intent; we're not mind readers. If they should know better, then it is a sham or a counterfeit.

I always hate it when someone uses as a defense "it's only a lie if I knew it was a lie". No mind readers -- if the suspect should have known, that should be sufficient evidence of lying. That's what I mean by a lie -- not that they confessed, or that I vivisected them to find the "lying network" in their brains.

Posted by: frog | June 4, 2009 9:28 PM

SC, OM: Is it fraud to sell a therapy for which, after decades or centuries, in contrast to thousands of others, you have no supporting evidence?

That's not this case, as I understand it. If there is no evidence for or against, I wouldn't think it's appropriate to label it "bogus". But if studies have been done disproving the efficacy, that's another matter altogether.

Lack of evidence either way, even after centuries says nothing. It could be a particularly difficult problems that's not easily amenable to research; it could be no one has bothered to research it; it could even be that research has been suppressed (unlikely, but it has happened in ages past).

But you don't have the right to claim a belief in something that is inconsistent with the known facts. That's not a belief -- that's just insanity. You can't believe that you live on the sun; if you say that, you're either lying or insane.

Belief is not a big philosophical problem, except to the lowlife philosophers who are trying to create work for themselves. This is one of those problems dealt with pretty handily by Wittgenstein and ilk -- basically, use your damn common sense; in things like belief, it's the only appropriate thing to do.

Posted by: frog | June 4, 2009 10:29 PM

SC: Well, you're wrong. :)

Well, it happens. I thought Singh was talking about research that showed a negative effect of chiropractic for chronic cases, or placebo level effects for acute cases (the ear stuff, in the short term).

As much as I hate to agree with nothing's sacred about anything, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Nope. Some problems are too complicated (not saying that that's the case here). For acute problems, you hugely reduce the variables by limiting time -- either they get better right away or they don't. Then the placebo level can actually tell you something. But for chronic situations, all you know is that you don't know -- no matter how many centuries you've been studying the matter.

Let's take "healthy foods". I don't believe a bit of the research -- other than some acute cases (aka, stuff that poisons you), the number of variables are so large as to be intractable. There are foods that are good for you -- but we have no way of knowing which ones. Each time you had a possible hit, you'd have to redo all previous research -- it would be nullified by a new uncontrolled variable. Since the number of unresearched possibilities will be much larger than the researched ones, it's going to take you a few centuries before you can honestly say you have a controlled study -- that you know something.

Basically, short of massive effects that can overwhelm all other variables (smoking, for example), chronic problems should be part of very, very long range research projects -- and we only started accumulating data about a century ago. Give it a few more.

Posted by: Tybo | June 5, 2009 12:20 AM

Actually, to rephrase: it's not solely about character. From the ruling "by reference to Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB), that one is not permitted to seek shelter behind a defence of fair comment when the defamatory sting is one of verifiable fact"

In other words, if Singh had said they were dishonest and made no reference to specific treatments, then it would be a comment, not statement. It was the context of fraud possibility and specific treatments that took it from simple name-calling (comment) to something that can be verified (statement). It's not about the BCA simply being an underhanded organization, but about the fact that they have published X item, and X item promotes falsehoods (according to Eady, knowingly).

Posted by: Faithless | June 5, 2009 4:51 AM

@ Tybo:

· If a treatment is characterised as bogus,

· and bogus is held to mean sham, counterfeit, fake, forged, fraudulent

· and there is a 'professional' body that promotes that treatment, which represents practitioners who advocate and provide that treatment

it seems inescapable that the persons and the body are tainted with the character of the treatment, and therefore - by necessarily implication - potentially defamed.

Clearly, of course, the chiropracters should prove that their treatments are safe and effective rather than sue for defamation. However, I think the publicity is probably killing them. It may be a pyrrhic victory.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 5, 2009 8:52 AM

This is what he said:

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.

Where is the evidence that chiropractic treatments help treat these conditions?

Nope. Some problems are too complicated (not saying that that's the case here).

I'm talking about the case here (and I don't think I agree with this as a general statement, either).

For acute problems, you hugely reduce the variables by limiting time -- either they get better right away or they don't. Then the placebo level can actually tell you something. But for chronic situations, all you know is that you don't know -- no matter how many centuries you've been studying the matter.

Baloney. People selling an intervention should be able to demonstrate the efficacy of that intervention over centuries of research. Studies can be and are refined and variables controlled for (not to mention mechanisms specified - what are the scientific mechanisms through which chiropractic treatments are supposed to treat these conditions?).

Let's take "healthy foods". I don't believe a bit of the research...

And if you've reviewed the long-term, solid research on a particular food touted to treat a specific condition and it shows no efficacy, you would be perfectly justified in calling that specific food peddled as a treatment for that condition "bogus."*

As one more aside, I've noticed apparently in US law, one can be charged with fraud without an element of belief or knowing being brought into question if, in fact, said professional had "no reasonable basis" upon which to base given statement.

Thus, a broker who BSes a ridiculous expected return value will not know what the actual return rate will be, but can still be charged with fraud in civil courts if that statement was completely unfounded upon a reasonable basis.

Too bad UK law doesn't follow similar grounding.

Ah. That adds another wrinkle.

*There may be a British/US English thing going on here. There's a colloquial use of "bogus" here (look it up in the Urban Dictionary) that equates more to "bullshit." Of course that isn't really relevant if such a use doesn't exist there, but it might explain some differences in interpretation here.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 5, 2009 9:16 AM

From Wikipedia:

An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case Arkell v. Pressdram. The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "[We] would therefore be grateful if you could inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off". In the years following, the magazine would use this case as a euphemism for an obscene reply: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"; or, perhaps, "His reply was similar to that given to the plaintiff in Arkell v. Pressdram".[15]

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | June 5, 2009 11:00 AM

Faithless #103 ...

".. effective argument in favour of the position that Eady J's decision has put him in.."

Sorry -- probably is clear but I do not know what you mean exactly. Would my "argument" be advantageous to Singh? or to the plaintiffs? If to the plaintiffs and you have the time and could be so kind briefly explain why to a layperson.

Thanks.

Posted by: astrounit | June 5, 2009 11:37 PM

stogoe #88, "Vanilla's big problem is that it goes well with everything. Vanilla ice cream is the perfect substrate for any and every topping..."

Say, I must try that on bacon. I bet it's better than ketchup!

It has always puzzled me why such legal matters as "libel" aren't recursive. If someone files a bogus suit over the use of the word "bogus", however it may be interpreted or defined, that seems to me pretty bogus.

An implied bogus claim should pretty much be equivalent to one that actually employs the word "bogus", nay?

But then, I've never quite understood lawyers, whatever country they practice in. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that they intentionally blur the line between "advocacy" and "objectivity" in their "logic". Perhaps my estimation of them is bogus. I can't tell one way or the other.

I rather like Citizen of the Cosmos' idea, #54:

"Maybe he can simply do a 180 and agree that they are right and he is wrong, on the condition that they present evidence that chiropractic treatments can cure ear infections. Then watch as they don't present any evidence."

At least the outcome of that kind of tack might actually inform people, including the legal community.

Otherwise I fear Simon Singh may find the message in his original article hopelessly lost in the minutiae of legal "logic"...and people will simply come away having been reminded that this sort of thing - you know, like the freedom to express one's views using legitimate words that aren't bogus - is how it is done, and bogus challenges (or bullshit) of any kind will not be tolerated...by wealthy interests.

On the other hand, of course, the BCA could always manufacture bogus evidence to strengthen the appearance of their bogus claims...

Hang in there Simon Singh! Lots of us are behind you!

Posted by: Alex Pryce | June 6, 2009 1:36 PM

There seems to be a bit of confusion from some people not entirely sure what's happening.

Basically, Simon said that "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, Mr justice Eady is stating that by using the word "bogus" Simon was ACTUALLY saying that the BCA know that this treatment doesn't work and they are intentionally and knowingly lying and deceiving people.

Of course this is not what was said, but the preliminary hearing came to this conclusion and it is that charge Simon would have to defence in a full trial. Of course he didn't say that, and its also nearly impossible to prove someone intentionally lied.

the libel laws over here are a load of crap and science should not be stopped from criticisng potentially dangerous techniques. i would also point out that in the context of the newspaper article in which Simon's alleged libellous comment was made AND in his book "Trick or Treatment" it is quite clear what he actually means by bogus. Simply it could mean ineffective in the context it is used, and not deceptive which was the Judge's verdict. And you know what, manipulating someones back to cure an ear infection is not bogus as Simon said..... its Fu**ing retarded!

The whole idea of Chiroppractic is stupid in the extreme and science should not be stopped or stifled. Chiropractic HAS KILLED, manipulation of the neck has lead to strokes in some cases.

Simon has a lot of support from the skeptical community here in Britain. He has had celebrities and world famous scientists supporting him. Names such as James Randi and Richard Dawkins crop up quite a lot. There is support from lawyers and legal experts, and there are numerous petitions to change the current libel laws. This case highlights the problem with libel laws. On a positive note, i would assume sales of "trick or Treatment" have gone up as a result.

This law suit is an abomination and should never have started. Over here the BCA doesn't have to prove one way or another if what Simon said was libellous. It is Simon who has to prove that what he said WASN'T libelous.

If things carry on like this it'll be atheists who have to prove god's non existence!

That's basically what English libel law is- the atheists have to prove there is no god, not the other way around.

Alex Pryce
Edinburgh Skeptics Society

Posted by: Alex Pryce | June 7, 2009 1:04 PM

Kismet #132

Basically it does simply mean bullshit or untrue. Problem is, Mr Justice Eady has decided that Bogus means to intentionally and knowingly lie.

He obviously didn't have a dictionary to hand and had to really on a dodgy Thesaurus

Posted by: aunt benjy | June 21, 2009 5:01 AM

Whatever the outcome, he seems to be having an effect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/19/chiropractic-bca-mca-singh