Media Release:  British Chiropractics Back Away from Simon Singh

April 28, 2010

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BRITISH CHIROPRACTORS BACK AWAY FROM SIMON SINGH

Toronto, Ont. (April 28, 2010) — Scientists, skeptics, and free speech
activists around the world are breathing a sigh of relief now that the
British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has dropped its libel suit
against renowned science journalist Simon Singh, who had criticised
the Association for promoting “bogus” remedies. The BCA’s decision
last week followed a scathing appeals court ruling two weeks earlier,
which would have made it much easier for Singh to defeat the BCA’s
suit. Although this case is now over, the two-year, £200,000 battle
Singh had to fight has galvanised efforts to reform archaic English
libel laws. Meanwhile, the message that got Singh into such trouble in
the first place remains an important one: that many of the claims made
by chiropractors have been thoroughly debunked by modern science and
have no place in contemporary medicine.

At issue in the case is a 2008 opinion article in The Guardian, in
which Singh criticised the BCA for claims that its members could cure
children suffering from a variety of illnesses, from colic to asthma,
solely through manipulation of the spine. Arguing that there was “not
a jot of evidence” for them, Singh criticised the BCA for “happily
promoting these bogus claims. The BCA sued Singh, arguing that his
words amounted to a factual claim that the BCA was promoting
treatments it knew to be fraudulent. In an early ruling in the case, a
high court judge agreed that this was the meaning of Singh’s words,
leaving him with an uphill battle to win his case. The appeal court
ruling, which led the BCA to drop its case, reversed this, correctly
treating all of Singh’s comments as statements of opinion, not fact;
thus allowing a defence of “fair comment”.

The wider significance of Singh’s victory may perhaps be found in a
passage in the appeals court ruling, endorsing a key principle first
adopted in an American libel case by a Judge Easterbrook. Easterbrook
wrote that “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of
science, rather than by the methods of litigation.” If this principle
is applied in other cases, it will do much to remove the chilling
effect English libel law is currently having on scientific research in
the United Kingdom, where scientists are often afraid to publish the
results of their research for fear of being sued. More generally, the
appeals court recognised that there is a serious problem when a law
intended to protect honest reputations has come to be used as a stifle
on public debate.

Despite the discontinuation of the case by the BCA, and the positive
effect the appeals court ruling may have, the case for a fundamental
reform of English libel law remains very strong. Unlike in almost any
aspect of law, English libel law (as in Canada) places much of the
burden of proof on the accused. If a defamatory statement is deemed
“fact” and not “opinion”, the defendant has to prove that it was true;
in most of the rest of the world, it is the claimant who must prove
the statement false. In addition, English law often allows authors
anywhere in the world to be sued, even if a publication has little
connection to Britain. For this reason, London has become known as the
capital of “libel tourism.” It is good news, then, that all three
major political parties have committed to libel reform in their
manifestos for the upcoming general election.

A review of libel law in England would likely bring it in line with
the greater protection of public discourse created when the Canadian
Supreme Court, at the end of last year, recognised a new defence
against libel suits of “responsible communication.” While libel laws
were originally created to protect the reputations of individuals from
the malicious smears of others, they have increasingly come to be used
as a tool, by corporations as by individuals, for suppressing any kind
of critical scrutiny. What the Canadian Supreme Court recognised, and
what the British Parliament is slowly learning, is that a free society
requires that open debates on matters of public interest must not be
impeded by fears that an unwelcome criticism, however honestly made,
will be met by a crushing lawsuit.

The British Chiropractic Association must surely be regretting that it
ever took on this case. Not only is it probably on the hook for most
of the costs of the case. Its reputation has also been thoroughly
wrecked, not by Singh’s article, but by the mass of attention this
ill-advised case has brought on the chiropractic profession. As a
direct result of its lawsuit, over a quarter of all chiropractors in
Britain are under investigation for making misleading claims in
advertising – that is, for making the very claims that Singh described
as bogus.

So what of these “bogus” claims? Setting aside the scientific
absurdity of the core chiropractic “subluxation theory” that most
illnesses are the result of spinal misalignments – a theory that many
chiropractors still believe – is there any evidence that their
treatments work? For ailments unrelated to the back, such as asthma,
colic, ear infections, and many others, there is, not surprisingly, no
plausible evidence that chiropractic treatments do any good. A
thorough review of this (lack of) evidence is provided in Singh’s own
book with co-author Edzard Ernst, Trick or Treatment. The British
chiropractic regulator, the General Chiropractic Council, agrees and
instructs chiropractors to make no claims regarding such ailments.
And, to its credit, the BCA’s Canadian equivalent, the Canadian
Chiropractic Association, is careful to restrict its claims to
“neuro-musculoskeletal” ailments. Even here, however, the evidence is
mixed. Only treatment for acute lower back pain has been shown with
any reliability to be effective, and yet even in this best case
scenario, chiropractic treatment has not been shown to be any better
than cheaper and safer conventional alternatives, like physiotherapy.
(Some will recall the case of Saskatoon woman Laurie Mathiason, who
died as a direct result of chiropractic manipulations.)

In sum, chiropractic treatment is based on an implausible 19th century
theory, it has repeatedly failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny,
and it raises serious safety concerns.  Let us applaud Simon Singh,
then, for his courageous fight, both to raise awareness of the bogus
claims of chiropractors, and to change the libel laws that challenged
his right to do so.

The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism critically
engages with scientific, technological and medical claims made in
public discourse, addressing factual inaccuracies and misinformation
by promoting evidence-based science. The Centre for Inquiry - which
runs CASS - is a registered educational charity promoting reason,
science, secularism and free inquiry.

Contact:

Iain Martel, Spokesperson
Centre for Inquiry's Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism
iain@martelweb.org

###