Eady rules against Singh in chiropractic defamation case
07 May 2009

The English High Court has ruled that science writer Simon Singh, must show that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was deliberately dishonest in promoting chiropractic as a treatment for various children’s ailments.

Mr Justice Eady ruled, with notes apparently written prior to today’s preliminary hearing, that an article by Singh, published in the Guardian should be classified as a ‘statement’ and added that by use of the word ‘bogus’ Singh had inferred he believed the BCA had intent to convey dishonest claims to the British public.

In light of this ruling the matter may not go to trial. From Singh’s standing he does not believe the BCA had intent to deceive and therefore cannot prove this.

Mr Justice Eady refused an appeal on the judgement but Index on Censorship has been told that Singh still will not stand down, and intends to pursue his defence by going to the court of appeals. If this is rejected he may then go to Strasbourg and appeal to the European Human Rights Commission.

Costs of £23,000, relating to the preliminary hearing, have been awarded to the BCA.

11 responses to “Eady rules against Singh in chiropractic defamation case”

  1. […] chiropractic therapy, which was published in the Guardian, should be classified as a “statement” of fact, not an expression of […]

  2. Both parties are wrong and if anybody thinks that the medical model is with out fault you are mistaken. Take time to compare the malpractic cost between the two and see which is safer.

  3. How bad was Simon Singh do? Why is the BCA doing everything just to send Simon to imprisonment? Why they want Simon to be punished? According to this article, the BCA also did something wrong.

  4. wendell says:

    Personal Injury attorneys in the Quad Cities, throughout Illinois, and probably most of the nation struggle with this conundrum quite often: Client gets into an accident. Client goes to the chiropractor. Insurance companies/juries don’t pay for the chiropractic bills.

  5. prbass says:

    Yet another terrible example of the UK’s broken libel laws.

    “You are guilty of libel until you can prove otherwise, and you have to pay the legal costs of your accuser”

    This is truly depressing.

  6. Translate the case in the Netherlands of the infant that was killed after neck manipulation.

    Deceased infant after ‘craniosacral’ manipulation of neck and spine

    Micha Holla, Marloes M. Micha Holla, Marloes M. IJland, AM (Ton) van der Vliet, Michael Edwards en Carin WM Verlaat IJland, AM (Ton) van der Vliet, Michael Edwards and Carin WM Leave

    Een voorheen gezond, 3 maanden oud meisje kwam te overlijden na manipulaties van de hals en wervelkolom door een zogeheten ‘craniosacraal therapeut’. A previously healthy 3-month old girl came to death after manipulation of the neck and spine by a so-called ‘craniosacral therapist. Tijdens aanhoudende diepe buiging van de hals en rug, kreeg patiënte incontinentie voor ontlasting, atonie en een ademstilstand gevolgd door asystolie. During sustained deep flexion of the neck and back, was patient for bowel incontinence, atony and a respiratory arrest followed by asystolie. Op basis van de bevindingen bij lichamelijk onderzoek, aanvullend MRI-onderzoek en obductie was het overlijden waarschijnlijk het gevolg van een lokaal neurovasculair of een mechanisch respiratoir geïnduceerd probleem. Based on the findings of physical examination, additional imaging studies and autopsy death was probably due to a local neuro-vascular or mechanically induced respiratory problem. Dit is de tweede melding van het overlijden van een zuigeling na geforceerde manipulaties van de hals. This is the second report of the death of an infant after forced manipulation of the neck. Zolang wetenschappelijk bewijs voor de effectiviteit en veiligheid van geforceerde manipulaties van de wervelkolom ontbreekt, raden wij deze behandeling bij pasgeborenen en zuigelingen af. Until scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of forced manipulation of the spine is missing, we recommend this treatment in newborns and infants off.

  7. daedalus2u says:

    Tell the parents of this poor child that chiropractic isn’t bogus.

  8. […] Atheists are agnostics, with no certain knowledge of the existence of the spiritual realm. But we see through the intellectual sleights of hand, and we are loudly and publicly calling out the tricksters who claim ethical and moral superiority because of their beliefs. Yes, we know that people of faith are largely honest in their belief (like the chiropractors in England so offended by Simon Singh’s characterization of them.) […]

  9. The BCA will lose on appeal. There is ample evidence around the world that pediatric chiropractic is riddled with quackery, including a large amount of anti-vax practitioners. Part of the outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and other serious childhood diseases can by blamed squarely on the shoulders of chiropractors around the world. Why would UK chiropractors, protected by the BCA, be any different. Stop the quackery in chiropractic and you will go far in eliminating these types of tragedies.

  10. […] This post was Twitted by crc2008 – […]

  11. Warhelmet says:

    Is there a difference between deliberately dishonest and wilfully ignorant?