I don't have much time to write about this at the moment, but I've meant to put something up here about Simon Singh's libel case for a couple of weeks now.
Singh wrote a piece for the Guardian in 2008, in which he stated the following;
This is most worrying. Under British libel laws, Singh must now prove that what he said is correct. Even worse, in a preliminary hearing, Justice Eady determined that when Singh wrote that "[the BCA] happily promotes bogus treatments." he meant that the BCA knew that the treatments were bogus.
Singh disputes this interpretation. He is quite prepared to believe that the BCA honestly believes their treatments work. His point is very specifically that the treatments have not been shown to work. He should know. He's the co-author of Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial, a book that sceptically examines alternative medicine claims. Edzard Ernst, with whom he wrote the book, examined 70 trials that looks at the effects of chiropractic on non back-related conditions and found no evidence to suggest it worked. Despite not accepting Justice Eady's interpretation of his intent, Singh will be forced to defend that meaning in court, a ludicrous situation.
Fighting a libel claim in the UK is 140 times more expensive than the European average. It frequently has the effect of protecting those who deserve to be exposed, simply by dint of the fact that most people do not have the money to fight it.
The bottom line is this: it should be acceptable for legitimate concerns about issues affecting the health and welbeing of the public to be examined by informed writers. If they get it wrong, simply showing the evidence should be sufficient. Running to the libel courts suggests something else entirely.
Simon Singh, as a successful author, has decided to fight the BCA. His initial plan is to appeal Justice Eady's ruling on Singh's intentions when writing the piece. He says he's fortunate enough to be in a position where he can afford to fight, but he has asked people support the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.
Singh wrote a piece for the Guardian in 2008, in which he stated the following;
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 British Chiropractic Association objected to this passage (and this passage alone) .They were offered a right of reply in the Guardian and various other non-legal courses of action, but declined the opportunity to present evidence that would have shown their remedies to be efficacious . Rather than present the evidence to the contrary, the BCA sued Singh for libel.
This is most worrying. Under British libel laws, Singh must now prove that what he said is correct. Even worse, in a preliminary hearing, Justice Eady determined that when Singh wrote that "[the BCA] happily promotes bogus treatments." he meant that the BCA knew that the treatments were bogus.
Singh disputes this interpretation. He is quite prepared to believe that the BCA honestly believes their treatments work. His point is very specifically that the treatments have not been shown to work. He should know. He's the co-author of Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial, a book that sceptically examines alternative medicine claims. Edzard Ernst, with whom he wrote the book, examined 70 trials that looks at the effects of chiropractic on non back-related conditions and found no evidence to suggest it worked. Despite not accepting Justice Eady's interpretation of his intent, Singh will be forced to defend that meaning in court, a ludicrous situation.
Fighting a libel claim in the UK is 140 times more expensive than the European average. It frequently has the effect of protecting those who deserve to be exposed, simply by dint of the fact that most people do not have the money to fight it.
The bottom line is this: it should be acceptable for legitimate concerns about issues affecting the health and welbeing of the public to be examined by informed writers. If they get it wrong, simply showing the evidence should be sufficient. Running to the libel courts suggests something else entirely.
Simon Singh, as a successful author, has decided to fight the BCA. His initial plan is to appeal Justice Eady's ruling on Singh's intentions when writing the piece. He says he's fortunate enough to be in a position where he can afford to fight, but he has asked people support the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.
