Gagging Science

[Ray Moscow]

I saw this in Sunday's Observer:

Why are they trying to gag a top British science writer? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/simon-singh-science)

[Chiropractic founder] Palmer died of his injuries a few weeks later, but his ideas lived on. In 2008, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) announced that its members could help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. Writing in the Guardian, Singh said the claim was "bogus". Chiropractic treatments may help relieve back pain, but Professor Ernst had examined 70 trials and found no evidence that they could relieve other conditions.

Singh is hardly a lone sceptic. A few weeks ago, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a chiropractor who claimed he could treat children with colic and learning difficulties. Nevertheless, the BCA took Singh on and told me it had "numerous documents which demonstrate the efficacy of chiropractic" treatments.

So, apparently we can't even call unsubstantiated bullshit "bullshit" anymore?

[Danhalen]

That's some crazy shit. I think I'll start suing people for libel when they call me out on my miracle medicine--receiving blowjobs.

[David B]

Jeez!

the judge, it would seem, has a lot to answer for.

On Thursday 7 May 2009, the preliminary hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Justice David Eady. The judge held that merely using the phrase "happily promotes bogus treatments" meant that he was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children's ailments in question. This, according to Singh [10], means that he stands very little hope of a successful defence at trial.

David

[Ray Moscow]

As Nick Cohen said in the first article I linked, the saddest thing about deluded people is that they sincerely believe all the crap that they say (er, sell).

[David B]

I've just posted a link to the thread at FR, and hope to start up discussion of it there.

It's an outrage!

Anyone know PZ well enough to try to get him to take it up?

David

[Matty]

That cunt liberace has a lot to answer for.

One Daniel David Palmer invented the therapy in Davenport, Iowa, in 1895, when he convinced himself that he had cured a janitor's deafness by "racking" his back.

Inspired by this miracle, Palmer developed the theory that "95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae", rather than, say, the germs that so bothered conventional doctors of the time. Chiropractic therapy was a new religion, Palmer declared, and he was a successor to Christ, Muhammad and Martin Luther. At home, he practised vigorous racking on his children.

this shit makes my blood boil.

His son, Bartlett, described how he beat them with "straps until we carried welts, for which Father was often arrested and spent nights in jail". Bartlett bought the first car Davenport had seen and paid his father back by running him down on the day of the Palmer School of Chiropractic Homecoming Parade.Lol. i bet he needed an adjustment after that. heheh.

[Ray Moscow]

I've just posted a link to the thread at FR, and hope to start up discussion of it there.

It's an outrage!

Anyone know PZ well enough to try to get him to take it up?

David

DMB & husband might. DMB?

[Ray Moscow]

Well, PZ doesn't know me, but I sent him an email anyway about this.

[DMB]

Sorry, I don't know him.

[Matty]

Per maybe?

[Ray Moscow]

I've asked RBH if he can post something on the subject on Panda's Thumb.

[Ray Moscow]

PZ blogs the same topic here. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/simon_singh_principled_and_bra.php)

[Ray Moscow]

BadAstronomy (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/03/singh-the-blues/) has taken it up, too.

Also, last night we had dinner with a writing friend who said that some UK science writers (including some from New Scientist) had a meeting in London recently to support Singh in this.

ETA: Here's a blog entry about that support meeting. (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/simon-singh-support-meeting.html)

[DMB]

He's getting some high-powered support now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5442522/Stephen-Fry-and-Ricky-Gervais-defend-science-writer-sued-for-libel.html

Dr Singh has announced that he intends to appeal against the ruling and has won the backing of more than 100 prominent figures.

These include Fry, Gervais, Richard Dawkins, the scientist, Lord Rees of Ludlow, president of the Royal Society, Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, Martin Amis, the novelist and Harry Hill, the comedian and doctor.

[David B]

Singh's take from the horses mouth

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340

David

[Ray Moscow]

RBH takes up the cause on Panda's Thumb:

Bogus is as bogus does (http://pandasthumb.org/)

[David B]

A note for Brits - the comments on RBH's piece give an on line petition to sign asking for changes to the libel laws.

I've signed.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reformlibellaws

David B

[DMB]

I was reading an article somewhere recently that seemed to imply that all the most dodgy recent libel decisions had all been made by this one judge. I wonder what's got under his wig?

[David B]

This is cool. Maybe good stuff will come out of Singh's legal problems

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/06/before-every-action-ask-yourself-will.html

In some astonishing developments brought to light by The Quackometer, Gimpyblog and The Lay Scientist via chiropracticlive.com, McTimoney Chiropractic Association (a chiro representation body) has issued an email telling all McTimoney Chiropractors to remove their websites, remove any claims of cure/help for which there is not evidence (i.e. practically of it), along with the following chiller:

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE, YOU MAY BE AT RISK FROM PROSECUTION. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE, THE MCA MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU WITH ANY PROCEEDINGS.

David

[Matty]

yeah saw that. Top notch., "

Run, you fucking tools, run, we'll even count to ten to give you a head start before letting the dogs of common sense and factuality off the leash

[Febble]

Crosslinking with TR discussion:

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=518144#post518144

[David B]

Good stuff from the Times today:D

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/06/the-simon-singh-libel-case-an-own-goal-for-chiropractic.html

The Simon Singh libel case: an own goal for chiropractic?

The British Chiropractic Association opened a can of worms by suing Simon Singh for libel over his claim that its members promote "bogus treatments" -- and not only because of the implications of for free speech and unfettered scientific debate.

It has also invited unprecedented scrutiny of the claims made for chiropractic -- and a small army of alternative medicine critics are now complaining about every unsubstantiated one they can find to the Advertising Standards Authority, the General Chiropractic Council and Trading Standards.

As the Quackometer blog reports today, this has had quite an impact: one chiropractic association has advised its members to take down their websites, and to withdraw any leaflets that suggest they can treat whiplash, colic or any childhood ailments.

Not quite the result that the chiropractors were hoping for, I'll wager.


Good stuff!

David

[Ray Moscow]

It is kind of sweet how this has backfired on the BCA.

[Lugubert]

And LanguageLog supports Singh from linguistic angles.

[David B]

Conference of science journalists backs Singh

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/368


‘The World Federation of Science Journalists supports the freedom of science journalists to report social, medical and scientific issues in an evidence based manner. The WFSJ deplores the targeting of individual science journalists by such means as libel or any means other than full and frank discussion in a public forum.’

Simon Singh told the 800 assembled journalists and science writers that being sued has put his career on hold for a year and has so far run up costs of 100,000 pounds. He said that, following international publicity about his case, he has been contacted by people around the world who have been threatened with libel action in London, where the libel laws offer fewer defences.

David

[Dendrast]

It's an old trick called 'libel chill'. It costs so much to defend yourself in civil court against a libel suit that people avoid making or repudiate statements that some organisation with bucks might take to court. They can afford it, you can't, and even a successful defence doesn't repay the cost of defending yourself, unless the judge orders the plaintiff to do so. Media tycoons, politicians, pressure groups, all sorts use it to shut people up.

[DMB]

It's time the law got changed. People do need to be able to protect themselves against defamation, but the scales of justice should not be so heavily weighted against free speech.

[Free in Freeport]

Sorry, that was supposed to be a new thread. I should know better than to internet pre-coffee. Will see about getting it moved.

The post FB is referring to was moved here. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=2462)- Jobar.

[DMB]

Just out today: Simon Singh refused leave to appeal.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html

[David B]

Jeez:mad:

I've copy pasted the link to the FR thread.

David

[David B]

Singh fights on.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=950

Legal Update BCA v Singh

Simon Singh announced today that he will continue the fight in his libel case with the British Chiropractic Association after his application to appeal the preliminary ruling was rejected last week. He has now has the option to try and overturn that decision at an oral appeal. If this fails his case will be tried on a meaning of a phrase he did not intend and is indefensible. This highlights the problem of narrow defences that, along with high costs and wide jurisdiction, make the English libel laws so restrictive to free speech.

Simon said today: “I can confirm today that I have applied for a hearing to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider its recent denial of permission. A great deal has happened since my original article was published back in April 2008 and I suspect that the libel case will continue for many more months (or maybe years). While my case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.”


David

[DMB]

Simon Singh has now been granted leave to appeal. The hearing was on 14th October before Lord Justice Laws of the Court of Appeal.

This means that the case will now go to appeal, probably in about six months' time. So he hasn't won yet, but it is a step in the right direction.

Then on 15th October, the British Chiropractic Association (the people who sued Singh for libel in the first place) alleged that Singh was motivated by malice in the original article. They later withdrew this allegation, but it is nevertheless out there in cyberspace. See this blog:

http://www.jackofkent.blogspot.com/

[Ray Moscow]

Can he countersue them for libel over the "malice" remark? That would be cool.

I hope I can't be sued for calling the BCA "a bunch of assholes", not that I ever would do so.

[Jet Black]

I saw this in Sunday's Observer:

Why are they trying to gag a top British science writer? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/simon-singh-science)

[Chiropractic founder] Palmer died of his injuries a few weeks later, but his ideas lived on. In 2008, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) announced that its members could help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. Writing in the Guardian, Singh said the claim was "bogus". Chiropractic treatments may help relieve back pain, but Professor Ernst had examined 70 trials and found no evidence that they could relieve other conditions.

Singh is hardly a lone sceptic. A few weeks ago, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a chiropractor who claimed he could treat children with colic and learning difficulties. Nevertheless, the BCA took Singh on and told me it had "numerous documents which demonstrate the efficacy of chiropractic" treatments.

So, apparently we can't even call unsubstantiated bullshit "bullshit" anymore?

the big problem here is the bullshit UK libel laws. Even if you are right, someone brings a libel case and it costs you a shit lot of money. That's just wrong.

[Jet Black]

Can he countersue them for libel over the "malice" remark? That would be cool.


the bleak house of libel laws.

[wordy]

This suing each other has to stop. :D

I sue you for suing me. Now sue me!

I guess in a very near future we could be accused of doing a hate crime if we dare to say that BS is BS.

[David B]

Simon Singh has now been granted leave to appeal. The hearing was on 14th October before Lord Justice Laws of the Court of Appeal.

This means that the case will now go to appeal, probably in about six months' time. So he hasn't won yet, but it is a step in the right direction.

Then on 15th October, the British Chiropractic Association (the people who sued Singh for libel in the first place) alleged that Singh was motivated by malice in the original article. They later withdrew this allegation, but it is nevertheless out there in cyberspace. See this blog:

http://www.jackofkent.blogspot.com/

It's actually a bigger step in the right direction than your post suggests, as the preliminary judgement was overturned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/simon-singh-chiropractors-appeal

Singh was initially refused leave to appeal, but Eady's interpretation was rejected by Lord Justice Laws, who said Eady had risked swinging the balance of rights too far in favour of the right to reputation and against the right to free expression. Laws described Eady's judgment as "legally erroneous".

This is very good news.

David