As for the campaign in general, I think it would have been prudent to note the google cache/wayback machine addresses of these websites before they were taken down, or at least to take screenshots to present as evidence.

Singh wrote a series of great bestselling popular science books ("Fermat's Last Theorem", "The Code Book" and "Big Bang") and, as he freely admits, made a fair bit of money. And why would Ernst want to co-author with Singh? because, I suspect, he could provide the reputation to get the book sold (Kerching” for Singh). This is done with the ill-considered article in the Guardian, which you will notice has as its last line:

”• Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial “

(more Kerching for Singh)

Now, he’s a journalist and should know that if in the article he libels a profession then he’s in the clear (i.e.: all doctors are in the thrall of the drug companies) but if he libels an individual or an organization he is not (i.e.: Dr Smith is in the thrall of the drug companies). So now he’s scared as all the financial gain from the previous three books (triple Kerching for Singh) look like being sucked up by the law case.

But why the suit? As a summary in the Guardian article Singh says:

“ – if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.” (unlike paracetamol, celebrex and any one of the COX-2 inhibitors then)

which is based on the piss-poor ‘evidence’ delivered up by Ernst rather than the solid evidence produced such as the BEAM report which said:
“Conclusions: Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to "best care" for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise. “
UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) Trial
A randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care.

As well as the MEADE report and the all evidence that convinced NICE to issue its pro-manipulation clinical guidelines only in May this year.

So with this ill-informed, unscientific, drubbing ringing in the profession’s ears the BCA notice that not only have they been kicked in the book and kicked in the article they have been libelled in the article, and all for Singh’s financial gain based on discredited science. What would you do?

So, where does Singh go before he goes bankrupt? He creates a media storm, because that’s what he can do, and he spins it to look like this (taken from the online petition):

“The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.
Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.”

So Singh has managed to move the issue away from the utter damnation of all chiropractic set out in his article to a freedom of speech issue based about chiropractic care claimed by some chiropractors to treat colic and other fringe activity. Neatly done.

And then he got his media friends and science colleagues and you and me to see this side of the story and I think we may have been misled.

If Singh had spent a bit of time reading round the subject and using his judgement rather than just seeing the £ and listening to the loon Ernst than none of this would be happening.

This would leave us different from physios in that we have a 4 or 5 year training specialising in the diagnosis and treatment of spinal problems, as well as associated advanced skeletal radiology skills.

There is no identity problem in Denmark or Norway where chiropractors practice this way, within their national health systems, and is the model this country's chiropractic leadership should aspire too.

I know that some of my colleagues were taking money for moat-clearance and duck-houses. Those that were need to be deselected!

In answer to an earlier query, I have expressed my dismay to the BCA regarding their action against Singh. I know many others who have too.

"The time has come for the chiros to decide what they want to be. Chiropractic is a brand with a lie at its heart. Honest chiropractors need a new brand or they need to admit that lie and redefine the brand as something more akin to physiotherapy. How they would then be regulated and who would do it are then questions that need to be answered. First, they have to show the courage and integrity necessary to make that change."

You may be the honest MP. Your colleagues were taking money for moat-clearance and duck-houses.

is what I meant to type.

I had an interesting conversation with a staff member of the AECC. He said they don't mention the "s-word".

Without the s-word, what are you? If you are acting as a physiotherapist you should be trained and regulated as one.

If you are a chiropractor then you are laden with a burden that includes denial of the germ theory of infectious disease, anti-vaccination campaigning and claims that chiro can treat every disease not just back back.

The fact that he/she is a chiropractor and not a physio could be for any number of reasons and while I agree that chiropractic has a lot of rubbish in it, it's also clear that it has practitioners who have much experience performing the same role as physio's and getting good results.

I don't think it does any good to simply label all chiropractors as 'the enemy' because then you risk dismissing chiropractors who are genuinely attempting to promote reform in their profession.

Just my thoughts…

Chris

Have you, at any time, expressed your dismay to the BCA over the Singh libel action?

There are a large group of chiropractors, myself included who have been trying to move the profession in this country from the inside to evidence based practice.
Before coming to the UK I was in Denmark. Government registration there in 1994 meant inclusion into the their national health service. In Denmark the chiropractor's status is between a physio and GP. They can traige patients and refer on for further investigation or treat spinal problems using manipulation, exercises and massage. They do not treat anything else.

I had hoped that in 1999 when the GCC came into being Chiropractors in the UK that still profess "subluxations" to help organic problems would be disallowed from doing so and the profession would move to a position similar to the Danish one.

The original chiropractic premise is no longer taught at the chiropractic colleges in Bournemouth or the University of Glamorgan, apart from as a history lesson. The biomedical model is taught, and most graduates come out much like an extended scope physio (ie one who has done a post grad in spinal complaints and manipulation).
It certainly does not form our core belief as suggested in a blog. You will find no mention of it on the GCC website, where you would surely find it if it did?

More it's a minority who persist on believing it, despite the best efforts of people like myself.

Unfortunately the GCC was unable to show it's teeth, as it seems a complaint is required before it can investigate a claim and not many are made. Until now of course!

The hope I have is that there may be a silver lining as result of this storm stupidly cooked up by the BCA's action. I hope claims to treat, or treating, anything else than musculoskeletal problems in an evidence based manner, or chiropractors treating these conditions will be disallowed.

That would leave me and the many chiropractors who don't and never have used the term subluxation, nor made any claims to treat anything other than musculoskeletal problems very happy.

I hope this then will mean closer integration into mainstream medicine so that the treatments that are proven to help are made available to the wider community, rather than to those that can afford it.