Skepti.net » Litigation instead of Evidence… [ "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." - Jerry Falwell ]

August 18, 2008

Litigation instead of Evidence…

Filed under: Medicine, Pseudo-Science — jeff @ 10:03 am

Seems the Chiropractic association in England is choosing litigation instead of evidence to “support” their claims.

Amazing science author Simon Singh (author of several books I’ve read) is being sued, personally, for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he had published in the Guardian.  The article has since been pulled from the Guardian but is mirrored here.  The article itself is pretty tame and, as detailed here, the claims made are supported by peer-reviewed studies.

Litigation is becoming an alarming trend with practitioners of pseudo-science and quackery.  If you can’t win with the evidence, win by bullying your opponents until they sit silent.  I imagine their choice to sue  Simon Singh personally, and not the paper, is no accident.  By suing the individual they are discouraging future article writers from writing critical articles because they too could be sued personally and, presumably, the Chiropractic Association has a much bigger war chest.

Share/Save

2 Comments »

  1. [...] deplores what seems to be a growing trend: Litigation Instead of Evidence. Litigation is becoming an alarming trend with practitioners of pseudo-science and quackery. If you [...]

    Pingback by British Chiropractors Join the Legal Intimidation Party « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science — August 18, 2008 @ 2:31 pm

  2. Unity over at the Ministry of Truth asks an interesting question: Can you libel woo? She has some plausible insights into what might be driving the chiropractors’ agenda in this action.

    “Conceivable, the public kicking that another bunch of woo merchants - homeopaths - has gotten over the last year or so may have spooked the BCA but, casting around for information presents a rather more enticing and plausible explanation as to why they might want to prevent the publication of adverse commentary in the press and any kind of critical public debate surrounding the efficacy and risks of chiropractic…

    …and to see that explanation first hand one need only take a short trip over to the website of NICE the National Institute for Clinical Evidence, where we find that one of things they’re working on is a new set of clinical guidelines for the treatement of non-specific lower back pain.

    Yep, its the key to the NHS gravy train. If NICE approves the use of chiropractic manipulation as part of the treatment regime for lower back pain then the door opens to chiropractors taking referrals from the NHS under contracts in which the NHS pays their fees and before you can say ‘vested interest’ you’ve got a whole bunch of chiropractors on what is effectively the public payroll. Little wonder then that just about the last thing that the BCA want right now is science journalists asking all sorts of awkward questions like ‘is there any evidence to show that it works?’ and ‘what kind of risks might patients face when referred for a course of woo?’. [Emphasis added.]”

    All of which does sound plausible.

    Comment by HolfordWatch — August 20, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

20 queries. 0.284 seconds.

Back to Top ©2008, Jeff [license]