UK chiropractors sue themselves in the foot

The British Chiropractic Association sued scientist and author Simon Singh for libel because of the following statement he made:

"You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. 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."

The full article by Singh is available on Svetlana Pertsovich's website, where she placed a copy after the original in The Guardian was removed.

In a recent preliminary hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Judge Eady found that in using the words "happily promotes bogus treatments", Singh was implying that the British Chiropractic Association was knowingly dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the relevant children's illnesses. This finding exposed Singh to further expensive litigation. This issue brought into focus British libel laws and the danger of those laws for science not only in Britain, but worldwide.

The proper way to silence critics about doubts about the scientific value of something, is to produce the scientific evidence to prove the critic wrong. The abuse of the courts by the UK chiropractic association to settle a scientific dispute and to silence free speech, led to widespread anger. The Sense About Science organisation launched an online petition which soon had more than 10 000 signatories, many from prominent scientists and other public figures. The button to support their campaign appears below.



The affair had an interesting aftermath and it soon became clear that the British Chiropractic Association had sued itself in the foot and disadvantaged even those chiropractors who did not engage in the practices in question. Zeno from Zeno's Blog laid a large number of complaints against individual chiropractors at the British Chiropractic Council for performing actions they had no evidence for. This resulted in another chiropractic association advising its members in a confidential letter to lie low. The existence and text of the letter was disclosed by a disgruntled chiropractor. Here are selected excerpts, hat tip to Josh Witten from The Rugbyologist in his post Chiropractors Scared Siteless?:

"Dear Member

If you are reading this, we assume you have also read the urgent email we sent you last Friday. If you did not read it, READ IT VERY CAREFULLY NOW and - this is most important – ACT ON IT. This is not scaremongering. We judge this to be a real threat to you and your practice.

Because of what we consider to be a witch hunt against chiropractors, we are now issuing the following advice:

The target of the campaigners is now any claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research. The safest thing for everyone to do is as follows.

If you have a website, take it down NOW."

"REMOVE all the blue MCA patient information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice."

"If you have not done so already, enter your name followed by the word ‘chiropractor’ into a search engine such as Google (e.g. Joe Bloggs chiropractor) and you will be able to ascertain what information about you is in the public domain e.g. where you might be listed using the Doctor title or where you might be linked with a website which might implicate you."

Cartoon, slightly changed, from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

On a quick search I could find nothing about the controversy on the British Chiropratic Association website. In taking this issue to court, I believe they've damaged their members much more than any critical article or comment could have. Well done.

Late breaking news: Dr. Ben Goldacre from BadScience has an excellent account of the saga, with a lot of information I did not cover here. He has a specific slant on the issue that I did not cover, but which is critically important. I quote:

"..., while you may view this as a free speech issue, there are also some specific worries raised when people sue in medicine and science.

It is possible in healthcare to do great harm, while intending to do good, and so medicine thrives on criticism: this is how ideas improve, and therefore how lives are saved. The three most highly rated articles in the latest chart from the British Medical Journal are all highly critical of medical practice. Academic conferences are often bloodbaths. To stand in the way of ideas and practices being improved through critical appraisal is not just dangerous, it is disrespectful to patients, ...

Neither the General Medical Council nor the British Medical Association have ever sued anyone for saying that their members are up to no good. I asked them. The idea is laughable."

In one of the comments to Goldacre's blog, Methuselah (?) pointed out that this was an example of the Streisand Effect. This was new to me, but is described by Wikipedia as:

"The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized."

More on the legal issues can be found on the excellent Jack of Kent blog. Some choice quotes from Jack of Kent:

On the quality of evidence a skeptical critic has to provide:

"The BCA are stating that Simon Singh has to meet a far higher standard of knowledge of chiropractic research in criticising the BCA than the BCA itself has to meet in promoting chiropractic in the first place."

Hat tip to Jack of Kent for a quote from Adventures in Nonsense. This quote goes to the heart of how UK chiropractors sued themselves in the foot:

"For some time, chiropractic has managed to get away with being the acceptable face of alternative medicine. With some evidence to show that it helps with lower back pain, and many chiropractors only using the therapy for this purpose, it was seen by many as a legitimate therapy and largely escaped criticism from sceptics.

"That all changed when the BCA decided to sue Simon Singh for libel. In a fine example of the Streisand effect, all the energy usually reserved for criticising homeopaths and reiki healers was redirected straight at those chiropractors making wild and outlandish claims to treat colic, asthma and a host of other problems unrelated to the spine."