Simon Singh and the Bogus Chiropractic Association

We’ve been neglecting this case for too long, not least because it has been covered so well and so thoroughly elsewhere.

But it needs to be said that this is the most important free-speech campaigning case to come up since the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill back in 2006, carrying with it serious implications for British journalism and the possibility of prompting a much needed reform of English libel law.

Support Simon Singh. Buy his book:

(Click the pic to be taken to Amazon)

(Click the pic to be taken to Amazon)

The contentious passage from that Guardian article:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

3 Responses to “Simon Singh and the Bogus Chiropractic Association”

  1. Nick says:

    I’d just like to note that the contentious passage was immediately followed by a paragraph in which Singh elaborates on the meaning of the contentious word “bogus”:

    I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

  2. barriejohn says:

    There is an entry about this subject, and a link to a petition seeking changes to British libel law, at today. I have commented myself at length there, so I won`t repeat it all here, suffice to say that Judge Eady is an “old friend” to readers of !!

  3. barriejohn says:

    That should have been “readers of `Private Eye`”, but I have no idea where it went!