Science and Libel Laws

[stuart]

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Link on the site to the petition to sign.

 

[Aught3]

This is absurd. Chiropractic is not scientific, it is alternative medicine which means it doesn't work. All they have is spinal manipulation which can help to ease back ache. If you want this service you're better off going to a physical therapist. Claims that chiropractic can cure asthma and ear infections are bogus.

Oh just in case - bogus (adj) not genuine, fake.

 

[stuart]

Yep.

The Chiropracters are having to resort to legal action to try and silence critique of their work, probably because they know full well that under scrutiny their silly little pseudo-science falls over.


I hope you signed.

 

[CupOfWater]

Chiropractic works...

My mother have problems with her back and neck, and she goes to a chiropractor. It works.

 

[Josan]

Chiropractic works...

My mother have problems with her back and neck, and she goes to a chiropractor. It works.

Indeed it works, it works as good as homeopathy works if your de-hydrated.

The fact is, chiropracty involves a lot of physical therapy when it comes to stuff like athletic injury or back pain, but many chiropractors claim that they can heal just about anything with advanced massage. Got cancer? Let me rub it out.

I strongly recomend a podcast on chiropracty from Brian Dunning

http://www.podiobooks.com/title/skeptoid

If you follow this link and scroll down you can download the podcasts. Number #41 "Whacking, Cracking and Chiropracting".



But! Even if chiropractics work, they are trying to sue Simon Singh for libel when it clearly is uncalled for, they are trying to silence him. The petition is to keep scientific debate and law seperate. All Simon Singh is asking for is evidence on par with the rest of medicine and treatment - which the BCA refuses to give.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Chiropractic works...

My mother have problems with her back and neck, and she goes to a chiropractor. It works.

It only works in cases where physical therapy, massage, and sports medicine would ALSO work, without the woo and potentially dangerous nonsense.

 

[Aught3]

My mother have problems with her back and neck, and she goes to a chiropractor. It works.

That's what I said, but she would be much better off going to a physical therapist who is actually qualified with a meaningful degree to perform massage/manipulations.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's what I said, but she would be much better off going to a physical therapist who is actually qualified with a meaningful degree to perform massage/manipulations.

... and who won't break her neck or cause paralysis. Both have been shown to occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Safety

 

[Aught3]

I've also heard that chiropractic can cause strokes if not done right - I certainly won't be going.

 

[Einstein's_Advocate]

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Link on the site to the petition to sign.[/quote]


Sorry, just an American taking a moment to, finally, laugh at the Europeans who're doing shit totally wrong.




Anyways, I signed the list. Don't know if anyone gives a damn about a physics undergrad's opinion, but it is what it is.

 

[Dumbfounded]

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate

Truth is an adequate defence in libel cases, so any criticism - if justified - is protected. And questions are not accusations, and so are not libel.

Libel exists as a recourse to false and damaging claims being made about you. When such a claim is made, it should not be up to you to prove it is false, but up to the other person to show it is true.

Whatever Simon Singh's intentions when he wrote that article, the BCA chose to read it as an accusation that they knowingly peddled false cures. As Aught3's definition above says, bogus can mean not genuine or fake, so to say the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments" is ambiguous at best, and can easily be taken to mean more than that they are pushing something that simply does not work. I recently heard a warning about "bogus charity collections" on my area radio station; would you take this to mean charities that are well-meaning but ineffectual, or self-interested frauds?

The BCA was able to convince a court that Singh's statement was actually damaging, now it's up to him to defend it by showing it is true. I don't believe not being able to make unproven and harmful statements about someone has a "chilling effect." In fact, I'm rather glad that people can't just say what they like about somone then crawl away and leave them the effort of undoing the damage.

 

[Dumbfounded]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8103430.stm

Police probe bogus online doctor
Online patients are being warned to steer clear of a bogus doctor in Edinburgh who has been offering medical advice over the internet. Lothian and Borders Police has launched an investigation into the "doctor", who goes by the name, "Dr Glyn".

"Bogus doctor?" Surely, they don't mean chiropractor?