British Chiropractors Drop Case Against Simon Singh 182
SJrX writes "Several sources are reporting that the British Chiropractic Association has dropped its lawsuit against famed writer Simon Singh. He had recently won a High Court ruling in his favour, but this had been open for appeal."
Also covered at The Independent
and at MacLeans. Singh had angered the chiropractors' trade group with his published claim that certain chiropractice treatments were "bogus."
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that got me was their claims that they could cure colic.
Back pain? Sure, no problem.
Neck pain? Sometimes; depends on why the pain is there.
Shoulder pain? I'll even buy that one.
Colic? Often caused by gas, treated by moving the baby around. (Driving works, for some reason.)
But [Eddie Izzard] cracking the bones [/Eddie Izzard]??? Not so much.
I'm wondering how many chiropractically treated colic cases are going to wind up phsycially screwed up because of this... We won't know for another dozen years, tho.
Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The BCA still ruined his life for a good year or two. That's a wonderful deterrant against people with smaller bankrolls.
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
> They can make back pain marginally better.
Massage can make back pain a bit better. Since some of what chiropractors do resembles massage, they can sometimes improve it. The theory under which they operate, however, is completely bogus. If you want a massage see a massage therapist, not a quack.
Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble (Score:5, Insightful)
> So yeah, I used to think they're bogus.
They are. A massage therapist could helped you more and with less hocus-pocus.
Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully this serves as a warning to other "slandered" groups that they had better have something more substantial than hurt feelings if they want to abridge someone's freedom of speech.
In what way did the BCA not get what they wanted? Singh's attitude went from 'you are ripoff artists' to 'please dont sue me'. The courts sided with the BCA. The eventual dropping of the case won't hurt them much, as far as I can tell. The chilling effect on critics, however, is more pronounced. Singh himself will likely not attempt this again without a legally obvious amount of evidence, which by the way, is impossible to ethically gather.
unwittingly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Several sources are reporting that the British Chiropractic Association has dropped its lawsuit against famed writer Simon Singh.
Now they've unwittingly made this the even more famed writer Simon Singh. Before this, I hadn't even heard of him. Sometimes it's smarter to let the writer write what he will then to have a high court make him look even better. Now their illusionary world looks even more like it is.
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have a baby with colic, you'll do just about whatever it takes to make that baby stop crying.
Chiropractors who say they can fix it are capitalizing on the desperation of parents.
Re:Glad to see the UK upholding freedom of speech (Score:2, Insightful)
There is something very wrong with a legal system where someone can sue you and then drop the case or lose, and you still have to pay and are not compensated for your time.
Re:Chiropractor fixed my long-standing back proble (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not. Massage therapists work on muscles; I've never heard of one doing a spine adjustment. I, too, firmly believe 99% of chiroprators are full of shit, but the one thing they seem to do well is straighten the back... mostly they treat the symptom of back pain. But if the adjustment permanently removes the pain, I call that a cure, regardless of the quackery behind their methods.
I'd never go to a chiropractor, ever. I'd go to an orthopedic specialist that's a doctor of osteopathic medicene, though... but of course, their science IS science. There are many D.O. chief of surgeons and D.O.'s that run hospitals. I'd even go so far to say the D.O. is better than the M.D., as far as the skill of the healer is concerned... just not as popular.
At last! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats put those stupid Quacks in their place. Glad it's over, it was distracting me from ridiculing homeopathy. http://www.1023.org.uk/
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:1, Insightful)
Spinal manipulation triggers release of endorphins which ease pain. But, probably the main reason the baby stops crying in some cases is that it is either scared or being turned on its stomach eases gas pains. I doubt it is completely bogus as a treatment for colic.
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
Colic? Often caused by gas, treated by moving the baby around.
Hehe... I've seen a few babies that wouldn't stop screaming get better after an adjustment.
Not Colic per se, but you can knock bones out of place at any age.
The chiropractors I know do a lot of muscle work too, so they're more like Chiropractor-Physio hybrids. My favourite Chiropractor also knows a lot of nutritional stuff. She just radiates knowledge compared to my MD.
But they are people. I'm sure there's quacks, or less educated members of the profession. That happens with every profession.
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:1, Insightful)
"Chiropractic does not resemble massage. It is not quackery.
I am fully convinced that Chiropractors prevent thousands of unnecessary surgeries every year. "
It's a shame then, that there's no actual evidence for either of these claims other than your personal word.
Re:Not completely bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it very telling that people will quickly call a chiropractor a "quack" but they will buy into just about anything an MD tells them. I myself have seen the benefits of going to a chiropractor, is it the placebo effect? Maybe, but even if it is why does that offend you so much?
It's like this: A chiropractor will earn your trust by treating something that arguably can be treated by physical therapy / massage, e.g. lower back pain. Having gained your trust, they will then claim to be able to help you with your irritable bowel syndrome, to which you think "well he helped with my back, must be worth a try". The placebo effect of having ongoing massage, the personal attention of having an apparently skilled professional spending time treating you, etc. etc., does seem to relieve the symptoms a bit, so you keep giving this guy money. In reality, he's abusing the trust you've placed in him, because there's not only lack of evidence that his treatment works for IBS, but actually there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work at all, not least the body of scientific knowledge about the nervous and alimentary systems gleaned over the last century or so. On the other hand, when you get a treatment from an MD it is (or should be) scientific and evidence-based. When he earns your trust, you then go to him with another problem, which he treats again with something scientific and evidence-based. There's a world of difference - one abuses your trust, the other continues to offer genuine treatment.
Maybe in the (current) US system it doesn't matter - you can choose to spend your money or insurance premium as you see fit. In the UK, I get very angry with public money being spent on treatments proven to be non-beneificial - or at least no better than placebo.
The other thing that makes me angry is that chiropractors (and osteopaths) wind the clock back two centuries. Two hundred years ago, medical "professionals" of all varieties spouted all sorts of gibberish, and although provided therapeutic benefit in some cases, mostly they provided a false sense of reassurance and did good more by luck than judgement. The genuine medical profession has moved on, learnt a great deal, thrown out treatments that don't work, and is based on solid science. People complain about cancer treatment, but it is only because of the modern medical profession that people live long enough to die of cancers. Chiropractic quacks try to promote an anachronistic, magical view of medicine which makes a mockery of genuine science and the hard work of the medical profession.