Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case

By Index on Censorship / 23 February 2010


The Lord Chief Justice expressed surprise today at the BCA’s libel suit against Simon Singh. Padraig Reidy reports

England’s most senior judge today said he was “baffled” by the British Chiropractic Association’s (BCA) defamation suit against science writer Simon Singh.

Presiding at the appeal court in London today in a pre-trial hearing on the meaning of words in a 2008 article by Singh criticising chiropractic treatments, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case.

“The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.

He continued: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money, whether it be from Dr Singh’s funds or the funds of BCA subscribers.”

He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.

“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?”

However, Lord Judge stressed that his comments would not affect the judgment of the case before the Court of Appeal.

The Lord Chief Justice was presiding at a pre-trial appeal on meaning in the case of BCA v Singh. Singh is being sued by the organisation for comments in a 2008 article for the Guardian newspaper in which he criticised chiropractic and claimed the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments, despite there not being “a jot” of evidence of their effectiveness.

Judge is part of a panel which also includes the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Justice Sedley — one of the most high-powered panels of judges ever to preside on a single case.

Adrienne Page QC, representing Simon Singh, said it was wrong of the BCA to claim that Singh implied it “knowingly” promoted treatments it knew to be ineffective.

“The least likely explanation [of the article] is that the BCA cynically and dishonestly engaged in peddling remedies it knew were of no value,” Page told the court.
Representing the BCA, Heather Rogers QC said the organisation is a respectable one that takes its reputation seriously.

Rogers argued that the use of the word “bogus” suggested that the BCA knew some of the claims made for chiropractic to be false.

Lord Neuberger asked if it was not the case that Singh had outlined his interpretation of the word “bogus” in the original article, where he described how Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst had been unable to find any evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic in over 70 trials.

Rogers conceded that had Singh written that there was “no reliable evidence”, the defamation suit might never have happened.

But Lord Justice Sedley suggested “isn’t the first question as to whether something is evidence that it is reliable?”

Earlier in the day, dozens of Singh’s supporters had gathered outside the court to back the popular author’s right to free expression.

A date has not been set for delivery of the judges’ ruling.

Tags: | |

37 Responses to Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case

  1. Pingback: Ginkgo biloba | Kritisch Denken

  2. Pingback: #SinghBCA update | welshandgrumpy

  3. Chiropractors Derby

    11 August at 17:42

    Great job Padraig,you really done a great work.Keep it up.

  4. Pingback: Chiropractors: How some are creating an unconscionable con « Losing In The Lucky Country

  5. Pingback: The British Chiropractic Association have perfected the art of putting heads in sand. | Chiropractic Live

  6. Pingback: Can the Simon Singh verdict be a catalyst for wholesale libel reform? | Philtheone.com

  7. Pingback: Singh When You’re Winning… (cont. 2) « Noodlemaz

  8. BogusBogusBogus

    13 March at 12:56

    Chiropractors are not the only ‘medical’ people using UK’s repressive libel laws to avoid legitimate critical scrutiny. Certain powerful members of the psychiatric establishment do the same, including successfully threatening non-UK based sites to remove material that is definitely non-libellous in the country where the site is hosted.

    Disgraceful law, made by the rich and powerful to protect their narrow vested interests above the much more important general public interest.

    No surprises there.

  9. Pingback: Chiropractors on the ropes « Daily News

  10. Pingback: Backlash! « Blue Lyon

  11. Pingback: Chiropractors on the ropes : Bloggii – The Global News Aggregator

  12. Pingback: The British Chiropractic Association have perfected the art of putting heads in sand. : Chiropracticlive.com

  13. Pingback: Backlash from Singh libel case puts chiropractors on ropes « Daily News

  14. Pingback: Backlash from Singh libel case puts chiropractors on ropes : Bloggii – The Global News Aggregator

  15. Pingback: Robert Sharp » Blog Archive » Simon Singh at the RCJ

  16. Pingback: Fighting Back Quacks…Simon Singh has his day in the Court of Appeal « Melon Farmers Blog

  17. Pingback: The Lay Scientist, is seeking chiropractic opinion on the Simon Singh case. : Chiropracticlive.com

  18. Pingback: Singh chiropractic case: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money” | HumanistLife

  19. Pingback: Index on Censorship » Blog Archive » Judge 'baffled' by Simon … | mychiropracticblog

  20. Pingback: Press Release: Leads National Education Reform Debate | Educational Colorado

  21. Dr. Brian Blood

    24 February at 16:46

    JS needs to get out more. It is time that the woo-merchants are shown up for what they are – anti-scientific, self-deluded denialists!

  22. JS

    24 February at 15:20

    Considering one of the top researchers for drug companies admitted to doctoring research and there is nothing but anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of surgery why is there such a need for “scientific evidence” of chiropractic. There is no real method to test with a randomized controlled blind study the effectiveness of chiropractic. The fact that millions of people who see chiropractors get relief sometimes immediately isn’t this enough evidence.
    As for Singh if someone criticized the British Medical Association for giving drugs whose side effects are worse than original ailments, people under anesthesia can have permanent brain damage, that many people in hospitals contract nosicomal infections or that there is no scientific proof of back surgery for disc problems is effective (60% have continued back problems) they would sue as fast as I can type.
    If we rely so much on just science there is no art to healing. And as a great teacher once said” Patients do not read the text book”
    To translate due to the fact no 2 people are really identical we cannot assume all disease processes behave the same!

  23. Rosbif

    24 February at 12:12

    Surely the point is not whether the BCA are knowingly provideing treatment that doesn’t work, but rather that they are claiming a treatment does work knowing that they don’t know if it works. That surely makes it bogus?

    Would you take pills from your doctor if he said he had no idea if they would work?

    Is it acceptable that BCA want to test their hypothosis on children and will sue anyone who critisises them?

    If their practices have no clinical test data to prove they work for the cases thay state, then they are not treatments. Therefore they are bogus.

  24. Pingback: Simon Singh update: senior judge baffled by ‘artificiality’ of case | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog

  25. James Jones

    24 February at 06:32


    Plethora – A complete absence.

  26. James Jones

    24 February at 06:30

    “Rogers conceded that had Singh written that there was “no reliable evidence”, the defamation suit might never have happened.”

    “Representing the BCA, Heather Rogers QC”

    Does this mean that the BCA now formally acknowledge that there is “no reliable evidence” that chiropractrickery works in the cases mentioned in Simon’s original article? These seem to be – “children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying”.

  27. Hugh

    24 February at 01:02

    Sounds promising so far.

  28. Pingback: A light in the tunnel for Simon Singh? » Lone Locust Productions

  29. Pingback: The further legal adventures of Simon and the spine wizards « Cubik’s Rube

  30. Pingback: davecole.org » blog » archive » Seconds out, round two

  31. Pingback: James Streetley's blog » Supporting Simon Singh

  32. bengoldacre

    23 February at 20:43

    good one dude.

    first of many.

  33. dan

    23 February at 19:56

    and “expressed surprised”

  34. Index on Censorship

    23 February at 18:44


  35. A. Pedant

    23 February at 18:39

    there’s a typo in your article.

    It should read: “…despite there not being “a jot” of evidence of their effectiveness.”

  36. skepticat

    23 February at 18:32

    Fast work. Yes, you got the best bit of today. Now just change ‘their’ to ‘there’ and it’ll be a perfect report. :-)

  37. Nick Cohen

    23 February at 17:41

    Well done Padraig. Have you ever considered taking up this journalism lark full time?

More in News and features, United Kingdom
Support Simon Singh