Simon Singh
The agents of counterknowledge are busy in the legal courts. The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) is bringing a libel claim against the eminent science writer Simon Singh. The libel case brought by the vitamin salesman Matthias Rath against The Guardian and Ben Goldacre has only recently collapsed. The case brought by Gillian McKeith against The Sun is understood to be still ongoing.
Far away from the steps of the court, the agents of counterknowledge routinely threaten libel proceedings against those who scrutinise their claims and expose their failings. These would-be litigants range from psychics to homeopaths and from chiropractors to religious fundamentalists. Their response to criticism is to assert some legal right to ban what is being said.
This is of course a misconceived approach. There is no legal remedy which renders the criticism as invalid. The question of the truth or efficacy of whatever is promoted by an agent of counterknowledge is unaffected by an award of damages, an injunction, or even a prison sentence. The counterknowledge is still false or still does not work: vitamins still do not cure AIDS and chiropractic still does not treat certain ailments. To invoke Churchill’s insult, counterknowledge remains ugly in the morning.
So why is the law used in such a way?
There appear to be two interconnected reasons, and these are perhaps shown in current case brought by the BCA against Simon Singh.
First, it provides an illusion that something is being done. According to statements posted on sympathetic sites, the BCA has grown tired of simply writing letters to “correct” unwelcome statements in the press. They wanted to adopt a more robust approach.
One may not be surprised that the clear failure of one kind of “intervention” has led CAM practitioners to switch to a more drastic and costly “intervention” with serious wider implications. After all, this is the habit of thought which drew them into CAM in the first place.
And this desire leads into the second reason, the sheer ease with which a libel case can be brought under English libel law.
All a libel claimant has to show to get a case off the ground is that the statement is such that society would think worse of them, that is that their reputation would be adversely affected. It does not matter if the statement is true or a fair comment, or even if the person making the statement had a duty to say it. For under English libel law, all these matters then have to be proved by the defence. This reverse burden of proof is the discredit of English libel law at home and abroad, and the cause of many abuses.
When faced with a libel claim, the defendant must make an awful choice. Should the claim be defended, with the costs and time? A properly defended libel case will usually cost more than £100,000 and the successful defendant will usually not get all their costs back. Or should one surrender straight away?
For the commercial publisher or broadcaster this becomes a simple commercial decision. Most regional newspapers will never defend a claim; and even quality broadsheets will only defend a few claims at any time. For the private individual, there is often no real choice at all, unless one has private means or want to spend a couple of penniless years as a latter-day McLibel Two.
However, the agent of counterknowedge with the libel claim can see their actions backfire. This is what happened to Rath, just as it happened to David Irving who sued Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books. And in the BCA v Singh case, this backfire looks as if it will happen again.
The background to the case is straightforward. The BCA published an article promoting chiropractic for six particular children’s ailments, including the serious matters of asthma and frequent ear infections. Singh, in a comment piece in the Guardian, stated that there was not a jot of evidence for these assertions and that the BCA was promoting bogus treatments.
The BCA issued a libel claim. Perhaps they expected Singh to capitulate. For some unknown reason they chose not to sue The Guardian. Perhaps they sought a “quick win”.
I expect they were stunned by what followed. Singh not only put in a defence, but in a lengthy and highly detailed document, he set out the “particulars” of justification and fair comments, with frequent reference to all the relevant scholarly sources. Singh went even further than this, setting out the inadequacies of the supposed supporting sources for the BCA’s claims for chiropractic in respect of the six named ailments.
Singh did not ask to do this. The claim was brought by the BCA. No one would have thought badly of him if he had apologised, who as a private individual could not be expected to take on a body like the BCA. However, he is taking advantage of this opportunity to – in effect – put chiropractic on trial in respect of these six ailments.
But he should not need to do so. The appropriate response of the BCA to having its claims doubted would be to show the evidence on which they rely. Perhaps they could have even organised a seminar or conference for Singh’s concerns to be addressed. Instead, they chose to sue him as a private individual, to place him under incredible financial strain, and to get a court order to ban him from saying such things again.
Such an evidence-based approach is of course alien to the CAM mindset. Even if they were correct, and Singh’s complaints were misconceived and ill-informed, then they should not fear criticism. An eminent science writer should be able to express his concerns in a quality paper on the important topic of public health and children’s ailments, even if he or she is wrong. However, freedom of expression is also alien to the world of some CAM practitioners.
A court victory is always wonderful. The defeat of Irving was heartening. Nonetheless, the court remains the inappropriate forum for testing claims about science, religion and scholarship. The BCA v Singh case will probably go to full trial this year. We all should admire Singh’s resolve, whilst deploring the need for him to show it. And even should Singh not win, and no litigation is certain, the facts and evidence will remain.
The court may order Singh to recant, but the world will still be as it is.
Jack of Kent is a lawyer who blogs at www.jackofkent.blogspot.com and Legal Correspondent for Counterknowedge.com.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
16 responses
I don’t know much about the nature of chiropractic medicine in the UK, but here in North America there seems to be a split between chiropractors who see themselves basically as joint, spine and muscle specialists, using techniques that are increasingly prevalent in the area of sports medicine, and those who believe chiropractic has application for practically every disease or condition you can think of.
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask the question, and apologies if this is so, but does anyone know what has happened to Simon’s websites, as neither seem to have been available for several days now.
Many thanks.
The UK spends tax money on homeopathy and other kinds of quackery, don’t they? Sounds like Mr. Singh is screwed. I recommend emigration.
Paranoia over, Simon’s site is back up and running.
@ Mike from Ashton
Glad to hear that!
I read the article by Singh and he doesn’t seem to be addressing a BCA article, rather he is criticizing chiropractic used for spinal pain also, not only those chiropractors who make exaggerated claims of efficacy. Singh makes a number of false criticisms of chiropractic, worst of all greatly exaggerating the risks of chiropractic treatment.
Ironically, in the 1980’s a small group of chiroprators in the USA sued the American Medical Association (the reverse of this situation) for restraint of trade, won the suit partly by presenting the scientific evidence for spinal manipulation, and rather than asking for money, forced the AMA to apoligize and discontinue the restraint of trade. The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and upheld. This has been a great boon to America ever since because those who really need chiropractic spinal manipulation are no longer prevented from getting it.
Singh’s false claims about chiropractic dissuade people from what is sometimes the very treatment that will relieve their debilitating pain. He should pay for this careless libel, shouldn’t he?
@Stephen, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Singh’s piece address assertions in the BCA article.
What false criticisms of chiropractic does Singh make? As to whether Singh exaggerated the risks of chiropractic, his assertions seem quite measured to me. He acknowledges that some adverse effects (such as headaches) are temporary and quite minor, while making clear that more serious effects (such as fractures) are rarer. Well sourced fair comment, I think.
The above article implies that Mr Singh is being sued for attacking the BCA’s promotion of chiropractic for six children’s ailments, but he is being sued for the grossly exaggerated claims he made elsewhere in the article of the risks of spinal manipulation. Minor adverse effects are not really common and severe adverse effects are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Yet here is his conclusion:
“…if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.”
There is much good research refuting that conclusion and so Mr Singh will be hard pressed to avoid a judgement against him.
My understanding is that the BCA can sue for libel only for statements made directly about them, not about chiropracty in general. I guess we’ll find out when the case comes to court, if it gets that far.
Do chiropractors have a system for recording and monitoring adverse effects?
The methods chiropractors use for monitoring adverse effects of treatment are the same used by the medical profession, namely, epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials.
Stephen, here is a link to a summary of the BCA’s claim against Singh:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-bcas-case-against-simon-singh.html
Most notable there is that the claim is ONLY involving the issue of the six childhood ailments:
_____________________________________
The Alleged “Libel”
The BCA’s complaint is about the content of a single passage in Simon Singh’s original piece:
“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.”
(Emphasis added, see below.)
The BCA’s focus on this passage means that none of the rest of Simon Singh’s article is defamatory and so there seems no reason that the rest of it cannot now be reproduced (subject to copyright).
____________________________
You also mad the statement that chiropractors use “epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials”. Can you please show links to studies that show chiropractic treatmemt is safe and effective for these six ailments?
If the link is accurate as to the nature of the BCA suit then I take back everything I said about the suit (but I stand by what I said about chiropractic). I know of no studies showing chiropractic effective for those particular ailments. Now I’m curious if the BCA is smarter than they look.
Thanks for your honest reply Stephen. Do you happen to have links to studies showing chiropractic treatment effective for anything above and beyond regular physiotherapy?
I grant that the English libel law is vile and shamefully used to crush freedom of the press. On the other hand, it is wrong to present Mr. Singh as an innocent victim. He used his podium at the Guardian to instill fear of the only branch of medicine which has offered a renewal of life to millions of patients suffering from back ailments.
Thirty years ago I lifted my bike up some steps the wrong way and felt a slight twitch in my back. The next day I was unable to work. For weeks I was unable to sleep in my bed, because of the pain. Over the next few months I went to seven doctors and chiropractors, who told me that I had a long-term injury, or that I might be in need of an operation, and that my life had changed. Then I went to Dr. Savas, who died years ago. He treated me quite violently, and told me to get back on my bike. I was fixed, just like that.
Once every few years I still make a wrong move, I go to a good chiropractor, and walk out straight. Some greedy arrogant doctors would like to prevent me from walking straight. Mr. Singh represents them.
Matteo B - Mr Singh (and Mr Ben Goldacre of The Guardian) represent those who believe in science - who don’t wish to throw good money after bad trying “therapy” after “treatment” which is unproven. I am glad your back problems are resolved. But if your child were suffering feeding problems would you look to a chiropractor?
Incoming links from other sites