Science author Simon Singh successfully sued for calling chiropractary "bogus"

nesf

Details: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227083.000

Very interesting decision by the British High Court.

AtomicHorror

Not "successfully sued", but rather the pre-trial hearing has basically made it impossible for him to win. The judge decided to define bogus in such a manner as to make it possible for Singh's team to win if they pitch their argument to say that the BCA were being knowingly misleading. So showing their claims about asthma etc to be false won't win the case. And it's just down to how the judge decided to define "bogus".

nesf

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not "successfully sued", but rather the pre-trial hearing has basically made it impossible for him to win. The judge decided to define bogus in such a manner as to make it possible for Singh's team to win if they pitch their argument to say that the BCA were being knowingly misleading. So showing their claims about asthma etc to be false won't win the case. And it's just down to how the judge decided to define "bogus".

Yeah "successfully sued" is perhaps too strong a phrasing but this decision has utterly screwed him over and makes any criticism of these groups in the British press more complex.

John

It's a bogus case.

AtomicHorror

nesf wrote: »

Yeah "successfully sued" is perhaps too strong a phrasing but this decision has utterly screwed him over and makes any criticism of these groups in the British press more complex.

Very much so. What sort of science reacts to criticism with a lawsuit? Last I checked, we backed our claims up with evidence.

tallaght01

The fact that they respond to criticism with a lawsuit instead of some good evidence makes those of us who often have the ear of patients so much less likely to ever recommend chiropractic.

That is a very badly constructed sentence. A bogus sentence, you could say :P

406C

nesf wrote: »

chiropractary?

Is that like a part chiropractor part actuary? :rolleyes:

nesf wrote: »

Yeah "successfully sued" is perhaps too strong a phrasing but this decision has utterly screwed him over and makes any criticism of these groups in the British press more complex.

screwed him over? :rolleyes:


Making unjust criticism of any group harder is a good thing....

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Last I checked, we backed our claims up with evidence.

really? :rolleyes:

tallaght01 wrote: »

The fact that they respond to criticism with a lawsuit instead of some good evidence makes those of us who often have the ear of patients so much less likely to ever recommend chiropractic.

Pretty much sums things up - you have clearly said before you don't refer to chiropractors and unjustly use your influence over people to prevent them seeing a chiropractor and getting relief and or better......

Patients first, healthcare politics and professional gain second heh? :rolleyes:

Prime Mover

406C wrote: »

Making unjust criticism of any group harder is a good thing....

How is it unjust? Did you even read the article? His point was that there is no evidence that it can “treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying”

What would be the mechanism for treating ear infections? Can you show me any evidence that this is possible via chiropractic treatment.

tallaght01

406C wrote: »

Pretty much sums things up - you have clearly said before you don't refer to chiropractors and unjustly use your influence over people to prevent them seeing a chiropractor and getting relief and or better......

See I've never actually said the above. Misinterpreting what I've said...misinterpreting evidence.....it's all the same, eh?

406C wrote: »

patients first, healthcare politics and professional gain second heh? :rolleyes:

Pretty much the reasons I don't recommend groups who use the judicial evidence rather than scientific evidence to deal with criticism.

Interestingly, I went to a CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) lecture today by a naturopath. I put it to him that doctors would be more than happy to recommend alternative medicine if there was a solid evidence base...ie we knew WHO benefits, and from which exact type of therapy, as CAM undoubtedly benefits some people under some circumstances.

I had high hopes of a decent scientific debate. But instead he gave the usual chat about big pharma, and their financial backing. I put it to him that CAM is now a multi billion dollar industry in Oz, and the resources are there to perform RCTs etc. BUt he just said CAM isn'r amenable to the same type of analysis as conventional medicine, and that an RCT wouldn't neccessarily reveal it's benefits.

I thought that was a copout. But would be interested in alternative viewpoints.

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

Making unjust criticism of any group harder is a good thing....

Criticising any therapy that lacks an evidence base is a good thing. Always. You as a member of the public, as a journalist or as a scientist, may criticise any element of mainstream medicine or science in general in the most aggressive tones that you like and you will not be sued. Science works as an adversarial system. Attack with evidence and defend with it. Not with lawsuits.

If the pharmaceuticals companies pulled a stunt like this, suing a journalist who claimed their meds were not effective, you'd be hailing the journalist as a hero and the company as a villain. And I'd be agreeing with you.

406C wrote: »

really? :rolleyes:

Yeah really. Go to a conference, read some research papers or leaf through the correspondence in the journals. Show me an example of a reputable scientist threatening to sue someone because they attack his position. Just one, go on. Ridiculous behaviour. Real science would grind to a halt if that was our attitude. You can paste as many tired old eyerollies as you like, but the evidence is there for you to see for yourself. We all hold a variety of opposing views on many issues, we all attack each other to get to the truth, but we're not suing each other to win the argument.

Who sues to win arguments? AIDS denialists and creationists. So you've got that in common with pseudoscientists at least. Way to boost your credibility, BCA.

406C wrote: »

Pretty much sums things up - you have clearly said before you don't refer to chiropractors and unjustly use your influence over people to prevent them seeing a chiropractor and getting relief and or better......

Show us the evidence that chiropractic can relieve the symptoms of asthma and you may have a point. Otherwise all you've got is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, some really lame sarcasm and a bunch of emotes.

406C

Prime Mover wrote: »

How is it unjust? Did you even read the article? His point was that there is no evidence that it can “treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying”

What would be the mechanism for treating ear infections? Can you show me any evidence that this is possible via chiropractic treatment.

Stop being lazy arrogant and demanding and look it up in journals via the internet.

Do you support manual medicine's claim to all of th above?

tallaght01 wrote: »

Pretty much the reasons I don't recommend groups who use the judicial evidence rather than scientific evidence to deal with criticism.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The fact that they respond to criticism with a lawsuit instead of some good evidence makes those of us who often have the ear of patients so much less likely to ever recommend chiropractic.

Sorry Tallaght01 you have made it clear all round this forum that despite the overwhelming evidence for chiropractic and LBP you would not refer to them - unjust when it is simply a case of professional bias and you would leave the patient to suffer.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I put it to him that doctors would be more than happy to recommend alternative medicine if there was a solid evidence base...ie we knew WHO benefits, and from which exact type of therapy, as CAM undoubtedly benefits some people under some circumstances.

There is a solid evidence base you just choose to ignore it.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I put it to him that CAM is now a multi billion dollar industry in Oz, and the resources are there to perform RCTs etc.

Disagree since it is a different industry from the medicopharma industry but no reason why research should not continue despite the medical profession ignoring it.

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUt he just said CAM isn'r amenable to the same type of analysis as conventional medicine, and that an RCT wouldn't neccessarily reveal it's benefits.

I thought that was a copout.

I agree - it would be all about the trial design.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You as a member of the public, as a journalist or as a scientist, may criticise any element of mainstream medicine or science in general in the most aggressive tones that you like and you will not be sued.

Not sued but your work undermined and your life ruined.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Science works as an adversarial system.

Stop being naive.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Show us the evidence that chiropractic can relieve the symptoms of asthma and you may have a point.

I have seen it as I posted many moons ago here on the forum and it works. Try it.

charlieroot

Who sues to win arguments? AIDS denialists and creationists. So you've got that in common with pseudoscientists at least. Way to boost your credibility, BCA.

Don't forget the Church of Scientology. Just thought I'd add that for completeness sake.

Prime Mover

406C wrote: »

Stop being lazy arrogant and demanding and look it up in journals via the internet.

Well if the BCA had actually posted some valid research instead of suing Singh I wouldn't have to be so "demanding". Imagine, the cheek of me to ask for a reference!

Ihaveanopinion

There is indeed a volume of research on Chiropractic and other nonsense in the treatment of various conditions. It is all low level stuff, focusing mainly on case reports to determine outcomes.

A pretty extensive review in a CAM journal stated that this type of thing is not suited to being studied using RCTs - basically you cant scientifically study CAM treatments. Its all smoke and mirrors. You can't study it because its not effective.

The main body of research is on safety of these manipulations, not on outcomes. They are largely safe because they have no effective, hence no side-effects.

Ihaveanopinion

Just one other thing now that I have noticed it - Chiropractic and Asthma.

Cochrane reviews are extensive unbiased trawls of the published literature to come up with a consensus view. This is a quote from one entitled 'Manual therapy for asthma'.

'There is insufficient evidence to support the use of manual therapies for patients with asthma. There is a need to conduct adequately-sized RCTs that examine the effects of manual therapies on clinically relevant outcomes. Future trials should maintain observer blinding for outcome assessments, and report on the costs of care and adverse events. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of manual therapy for patients with asthma.'

Alas, you cant study this treatment with RCTs . . . . . . pity

tallaght01

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

Alas, you cant study this treatment with RCTs . . . . . . pity

But why not? Or are you being sarcastic :P

Ihaveanopinion

ha ha I guess the . . . . does come across quite right. Sarcasm more than anything else. The party line from proponants of alternative or complementary therapies, including that review I referred to, is that they can't be studied using the scientific method.

bummer

tallaght01

Sorry mate. My sarcasm detector has been numbed by my time in Oz :P

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

Stop being lazy arrogant and demanding and look it up in journals via the internet.

I have. The evidence says it doesn't work. It's possible I haven't read what you've read. Now you've got an unusual claim so you can back it up or retract it. Burden of evidence is on you.

406C wrote: »

Do you support manual medicine's claim to all of th above?

I'm an asthmatic, so I can tell you that mainstream medicine has helped me and not one of the alternative remedies my mother tried out on me ever did a thing. Anecdotal evidence, but in line with what the big studies are finding.

406C wrote: »

There is a solid evidence base you just choose to ignore it.

Link it and I'll read it.

406C wrote: »

Not sued but your work undermined and your life ruined.

Give me an example of this happening to any critic of some element of mainstream science. Papers are published that contradict other findings every single day and nobody gets undermined or ruined. Hell, I'm publishing data that contradicts another paper myself- shall we see if they ruin me? I'll let you know.

406C wrote: »

Stop being naive.

I've been to the conferences, read the papers. Even written one. It's all about the evidence. If you're wrong in a damaging way, sure there'll be personal consequences, but that's the risk. Would be nice if the Chiropractors were willing to play by the same rules and be accountable for their claims. Sorry fella, but it's painfully obvious who the naive one is here. You've bought the "alternative" scam hook line and sinker. Right down to the scepticism of mainstream science itself. Scepticism of scepticism. What the hell is that?

406C wrote: »

I have seen it as I posted many moons ago here on the forum and it works. Try it.

Well could you give us the link please?

Also, a question. The chiropractic industry must take in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of euros every year. Groups like the BCA maintain enough funds to mount multiple legal challenges. So we know there's lots of money in there. Why have there been no large scale randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled trials investigating the use of chiropractic to treat asthma? It can't be a funding issue, surely.

406C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I have. The evidence says it doesn't work. It's possible I haven't read what you've read. Now you've got an unusual claim so you can back it up or retract it.

retract it? are you having a laugh? Are you calling me a liar?

You read it and answered in the same thread - look it up..

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm an asthmatic, so I can tell you that mainstream medicine has helped me and not one of the alternative remedies my mother tried out on me ever did a thing. Anecdotal evidence, but in line with what the big studies are finding.

Congratulations

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Link it and I'll read it.

I refuse to waste my time on you - google it - Meade trials, Manga

here

End Medical Mis-Management of LBP


The medical "debate" has been going on for years...is spinal adjusting (a.k.a manipulation) effective for Low Back Pain? The original Meade study (British Medical Journal 1990) demonstrated that chiropractic was much more effective for LBP than conventional medical care.

In 1993 the province of Ontario, Canada hired the esteemed health care economist Pran Manga, PhD to examine the benefits of chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP) and to make a set of recommendations on how to contain and reduce health care costs. His report A Study to Examine the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Management of Low-Back Pain[/COLOR][/B] cited research demonstrating that: (1) chiropractic manipulation is safer than medical management for LBP; (2) that spinal manipulation is less safe and effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals; (3) that there is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating that chiropractic management of low-back pain is more cost-effective than medical management; (4) and that there would be highly significant cost savings if more management of LBP was transferred from medical physicians to chiropractors. He also stated that "A very good case can be made for making chiropractors the gatekeepers for management of low-back pain in the Workers' Compensation System in Ontario."

In 1994 Medicine was horrified when the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) confirmed the untested, questionable or harmful nature of many current medical therapies for LBP , and also stated that, of all forms of management they reviewed, only chiropractic care could both reduce pain AND improve function.

Meade did a 1995 follow-up study in theBritish Medical Journal, that once again demonstrated that those treated by chiropractic derive more benefit and long term satisfaction than those treated by hospitals, especially for chronic (long-term) LBP!

A recent study in SPINE Journal revealed that health care expenditures for back pain sufferers were a staggering $90.7 billion in 1998 and that prescription drugs accounted for more than 13% of that figure. Considering that muscle relaxants are associated with slower recovery, and that steroid injections offer minimal relief, one has to ask why drug use costs continue to climb? Even care by physical therapists has been shown to prolong low back pain.

A chronic pain study at the University of Washington School of Medicine recently compared which treatments were most effective at reducing pain for neuromuscular diseases and found that chiropractic scored the highest pain relief rating (7.33 out of 10), scoring higher than the relief provided by either nerve blocks (6.75) or opioid analgesics (6.37).

A recent 4-year retrospective study of 700,000 health plan members revealed that offering chiropractic services within a managed-care environment could save insurers 27% in back pain episode-related costs!

In December 2004, the British Medical Research Council published 2 papers in the British Medical Journal demonstrating both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic compared with medical management. These two papers found:

• Manipulation, with or without exercise, improved symptoms more than medical care did after both 3 and 12 months

• The authors concluded: “We believe that this is the first study of physical therapy for low back pain to show convincingly that both manipulation alone and manipulation followed by exercise provide cost effective additions to care in general practice.”

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Give me an example of this happening to any critic of some element of mainstream science.

Wakefield

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've been to the conferences, read the papers. Even written one. It's all about the evidence. If you're wrong in a damaging way, sure there'll be personal consequences, but that's the risk. Would be nice if the Chiropractors were willing to play by the same rules and be accountable for their claims.

see above

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sorry fella, but it's painfully obvious who the naive one is here. You've bought the "alternative" scam hook line and sinker. Right down to the scepticism of mainstream science itself. Scepticism of scepticism. What the hell is that?

It involves critical unbiased thinking

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also, a question. The chiropractic industry must take in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of euros every year. Groups like the BCA maintain enough funds to mount multiple legal challenges. So we know there's lots of money in there. Why have there been no large scale randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled trials investigating the use of chiropractic to treat asthma? It can't be a funding issue, surely.

see above

Prime Mover

I am quite prepared to believe that chiropractic therapy can be beneficial to LBP. If the back is the area they specialise in, it would make sense.

However my earlier point, and also one of the points in the court case this thread is about, is that there is no evidence that chiropractic therapy can treat ear infections. How could chiropractic therapy have direct anti-microbial actions?

Ihaveanopinion

They can't. Its nonsense. The whole premise is that manipulation of the spine can lead to treatment of a wide range of conditions from your ear to your big toe. No more effective than a foot massage.

The Meade study is daft - both the earlier one and the later one. Not sure it was necessary to post that in two different threads. It studies a wide variety of different treatments which it loosely groups into 'hospital-based' which consist of Cyriax manipulations versus 'chiropractic' manipulations. There are no strict treatment protocols - at least not described in the study. There is huge loss to follow-up in the study.

So as such its not stating what 'treatment' it is studying.

Oh dear

Dr Galen

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

They can't. Its nonsense. The whole premise is that manipulation of the spine can lead to treatment of a wide range of conditions from your ear to your big toe. No more effective than a foot massage.

The Meade study is daft - both the earlier one and the later one. Not sure it was necessary to post that in two different threads. It studies a wide variety of different treatments which it loosely groups into 'hospital-based' which consist of Cyriax manipulations versus 'chiropractic' manipulations. There are no strict treatment protocols - at least not described in the study. There is huge loss to follow-up in the study.

So as such its not stating what 'treatment' it is studying.

Oh dear

and thus why I posted in the other thread that I'd prefer to read and digest papers for myself, no matter where they have been published

ZorbaTehZ

Why should anyone here spend their time trying to find evidence to back-up some claim made by another? You make a claim, then the onus is on you to back it up. If it as obvious as some individuals make out then it should be little work finding a few links.

406C wrote: »

Wakefield

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
As an example of someone who unjustly had their reputation destroyed?!!!!
You have got to be having a laugh...

DrIndy

for the record - 406c will not be able to continue this discussion as he has been banned for a week.

AtomicHorror

406C wrote: »

retract it? are you having a laugh? Are you calling me a liar?

No, I just don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm suggesting you are ignorant.

406C wrote: »

You read it and answered in the same thread - look it up..

A trial on asthma or the other conditions listed by the BCA? I don't remember that one at all. If anyone knows what 406C is talking about, please post it here. I'm intrigued.

406C wrote: »

I refuse to waste my time on you - google it - Meade trials, Manga

here

*blurb about LBP*

Singh was not calling treatments for LBP bogus and I'm not asking for data on that at all. I'm asking you for data which shows efficacy versus asthma, allergy etc. As claimed by the BCA.

406C wrote: »

Give me an example of this happening to any critic of some element of mainstream science.

Wakefield

Wakefield was scientifically attacked for making profound recommendations about the MMR vaccine on the basis of a non-randomised, non-controlled cohort study with n=9. Dozens of studies (not legal threats) refuted his work. Although it would have been appropriate for the incident to have ended his career in medicine, he is still employed in the US.

The only legal action taken came much later, when the public hype over the issue had died down. It had nothing to do with Wakefields opinions on MMR nor the evidential basis for that. He was legally attacked because it became clear that he had not disclosed conflicts of interest relating to the publication and his funding. Such disclosure would have put that paper in a much clearer context at the time it was released. The legal action also reflects evidence of fraud and possible unethical use of invasive procedures.

None of that relates to Wakefield's position on MMR and indeed his position is shared by other scientists who are not currently being subjected to investigation, just scientific rebuttal.

406C wrote: »

see above

What, "Wakefield"? My point ("If you're wrong in a damaging way, sure there'll be personal consequences, but that's the risk.") particularly applies to him. He took a huge risk. Went on public record direct to the press making a claim not supported by his data that has now caused damage to public health.

406C wrote: »

Scepticism of scepticism. What the hell is that?

It involves critical unbiased thinking

Go round in logical circles much? The actions of the BCA should be setting off alarm bells in the heads of anyone with "critical unbiased thinking". Tell me something, do you think it's okay that mainstream medical corporation NMT Medical is currently suing a consultant cardiologist who worked on one of their clinical trials because he made comments about one of their products? Is this behaviour still okay now that it's taking place in the arena of mainstream science? Or is it still a grotesque affront to how science is conducted?

The BCA are trying to silence dissent, and it's not okay. If they're right, they should just be able to point to scientific data and make Singh look like a hack. Fact is, they don't care about that evidence, because they know public won't read The Lancet. But they will read the newspapers, and they'll read the lying leaflets that the BCA will now feel even more secure in distributing. They're fighting the battle in the public arena, and not the scientific one.

406C wrote: »

Why have there been no large scale randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled trials investigating the use of chiropractic to treat asthma? It can't be a funding issue, surely.

see above

Cut the terse BS please, you impress nobody. Above I see talk of lower back pain, not asthma.

DrIndy wrote: »

for the record - 406c will not be able to continue this discussion as he has been banned for a week.

Shame I didn't read this before basically writing an essay... :P

Capt'n Midnight

http://skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/

The judge, Sir David Eady, had to first decide if the statement was comment or a statement of fact. He also had to decide what the meaning of the passage was. This will set the stage for the full trial, because it will determine what Singh will have to prove. Singh’s original article was published as commentary on the comment page. Never-the-less, the judge decided the passage was a statement of fact.

...


Where does this now place this litigation?

The ruling means that, as it stands, Simon Singh would have to prove at full trial that the BCA were being deliberately dishonest. This is not only extremely difficult but it was undoubtedly not Simon Singh's view in the first place. The BCA, as with many CAM practitioners, may well be deluded, irresponsible, and sometimes rather dangerous; but calling their promoted treatments "bogus" was not an express statement of their conscious dishonesty.

Indeed, unless there is hard evidence of dishonesty, it may not even be professionally possible for Simon Singh's lawyers to put the required case to the court: English barristers and solicitors are prohibited from alleging fraud unless there is sound and cogent evidence before them on which to base the allegation.

darjeeling

The Guardian, 01/04/2010 wrote:

The science writer Simon Singh has won his court of appeal battle for the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action.

Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) over an opinion piece he wrote in the Guardian in April 2008. He suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors make on treating certain childhood conditions including colic and asthma. The BCA alleged that Singh had in effect accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.

In May last year, high court judge Mr Justice Eady, in a preliminary ruling in the dispute, held that Singh's comments were factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion – which meant he could not use the defence of fair comment.

Today, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, master of the rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley allowed Singh's appeal, ruling that the high court judge had "erred in his approach".

The full story is here.

goose2005

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

The main body of research is on safety of these manipulations, not on outcomes. They are largely safe because they have no effective, hence no side-effects.

Actually some have rather nasty side-effects- the spine isn't a toy, after all, and chiropractic has been linked to stroke, and also overuse of X-rays.

Dave!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8621880.stm

The British Chiropractic Association has dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh.

Dr Singh was being sued by the organisation because of comments he had made in the Guardian in 2008 about the effectiveness of chiropractic.

The case itself had sparked an intense debate about the role of libel actions in areas of scientific controversy.

Dr Singh recently won an appeal that would have allowed him to use the fair comment defence in the case.

On Thursday, the website of William McCormick QC, one of the barristers acting for Simon Singh, said the British Chiropractic Association has served a "Notice of Discontinuance". This means the case is now over.

Dr Singh said he was hugely relieved, but expressed his annoyance that libel actions continued to be used to block what he viewed as legitimate scientific inquiry and debate.

"Other scientists, science writers, bloggers, investigative journalists, human rights activists - all get threatened with these libel suits," he told BBC News. "And at the end of the day, the people who lose out are the general public because we don't get to find out the real truth because these libel suits just stop good journalism."

Dr Singh said he was still waiting to find out how the costs of the case would be borne. He said his defence had so far cost him in excess of £100,000.

In the article in April 2008, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors made on treating certain childhood conditions such as colic and asthma.

The BCA alleged that Dr Singh had effectively accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.

The case had become a cause celebre for the science community and led to calls for defamation law to be rewritten so it did not interfere with scientific discussion.

The BCA issued a statement [PDF] confirming its withdrawal from the action. It said the recent appeal won by Dr Singh on the terms of his defence had prompted its decision.

"While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the [recent appeal] decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side," its statement read.

"As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position."

Chiropractic is regarded as a complementary or alternative therapy, and is offered in some areas of the UK on the NHS.

It involves the use of physical manipulation to treat problems with joints, bones and muscles, with particular emphasis on the spine, which is why chiropractors tend to be associated with treating bad backs.

Good on ya Simon!

Is he stuck paying 100,000 pound for the defence now?

JuliusCaesar

Although my article was published in The Guardian, I am being sued personally. Fortunately, thanks to the success of my books, Fermat’s Last Theorem and The Code Book, I have the resources to fund my own defence. The case might seriously damage me but it will not bankrupt me. For bloggers, such a case could lead to financial ruin.

Simon Singh writing in the Sunday Times

ZorbaTehZ

The article that started the whole farce has been reposted by the guardian a few days ago.