Simon Singh Wins Appeal

[TheRationalist]

Onwards and upwards!

details here

Singh press conference live

What was the original case about?

Singh said that there is a lack of evidence for any claims about Chiropracty have an effect on certain conditions.

Which is true, there's not, it's nonsense.

However the British Chiropractic Association then sued him for libel saying that he was accusing them of offering bogus treatment.

The original court case said that Singh's words were fact and not opinion and so found him liable.

That has now been rightly overturned and we can freely point out how many alternative medicines actually have no scientific foundation what so ever.

Singh didn't say there was a lack of evidence in reasonable words. He used extreme language to make wild allegations against the British Chiropractic Association. A rookie reporter who had had one session on libel would have spotted that. When I read the original, I couldn't understand why it got past the subs - except that maybe they reckoned the BCA wouldn't sue.

It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't think there is any evidence for chiropractic' perfectly safely. That's not what Singh did. He accused the BCA and chiropractors of being liars who make money out of deliberately deceiving their clients.

I'm all in support of reform of the libel laws but very disappointed that everyone is choosing this case to make the point. His remarks were clearly actionable.

And Singh's not a medic, btw, he's a science writer whose degree is in something unrelated to medicine IIRC.

He's a physicist IIRC. So a scientist, if not a medic. But is that relevant?

In the story I read, he referred to chropractic as "bogus". Did he actually say, in so many words, that the BCA were liars? To be fair, every story I have read is sympathetic to Singh, so may not have reported the whole deal...

Edam - It clearly is actionable - there is an ongoing action after all. The interest in the case is because people think it should NOT have been actionable. He alleged that their claims were bogus. They sued him for saying mean things about them. What I would have liked instead is for them to present their case.

Edam - One of the issues is that if I say "Edam is performing bogus cures for money", my expectation is that if you want to sue me the issue at hand should be if the cures are effective or not, rather than your beliefs about them.

What Singh appears to have said is "even though there is not a jot of evidence" the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments".

So yes he did use the word bogus, however it was in a blog which was quite clearly an opinion. The original court ruling somehow held that he was stating facts and could therefore be held accountable under the liable laws.

As to him not being a doctor of medicine, well that's true. He is however a scientist who understands scientific method. And that's more than any member of the BCA can claim as they quite happily skip off over the horizon singing "la-la-la-la" when it comes to the complete lack of any scientific basis for what they claim (and non without coincidence profit from).

If the original ruling had of held then any scientist pointing out the complete lack of any scientific basis for the BCAs (or just about any other "alternative" treatment such as homeopathy) could have found themselves in court.

I'd be surprised if anyone could find the original article online, as any publisher who repeats it is also at risk of a libel action. I saw it, and it was clearly, obviously actionable. If Singh didn't know that, he's not really very competent as a 'writer' and the subs at the Guardian took a mad risk.

Singh is entitled to disapprove of chiropractic - I'm not too keen on it myself. He's entitled to discuss research into chiropractic. But he's not entitled to make accusations that are clearly actionable, no more than anyone else is. Or, at least, if he chooses to, he shouldn't be surprised if he's sued.

ooj, that's not the way libel works, as any journalist or writer who is published in the papers knows or should know full well. Apart from Singh, apparently. In libel law, the burden of proof is reversed - the person complained of has to prove their claims were true, or honestly held, or reasonable.

So Singh is a. not a doctor and b. acted in this case as if he doesn't know the very basic rules of journalism.

Why is his non-medic status a factor, edam?

It's an excellent decision, and makes the very sensible point that where matters of scientific controversy are concerned matters should be settled by the "methods of science rather than the methods of litigation". The Guardian may not have been wise in letting Singh's piece go through with quite such strong wording (bogus probably should have been replaced by something less inflammatory), but it was an opinion piece and his opinion is ) a widely held and b) backed by evidence, so not exactly extreme. I also think the appeal judge is quite right to say that the public interest is not served by using the libel laws in such a way. The BAC should have used it's money to sponsor some proper clinical trials instead.