singh when your winning
April 15, 2010 4:17 AM Subscribe

Simon Singh wins BCA has dropped its libel case against Simon Singh. Hurrah!! "Ely Place Chambers, which acted for Dr Singh, said in a statement: “The BCA today served a Notice of Discontinuance bringing to an end its ill-fated libel claim against Dr Simon Singh arising out of criticisms he made of its promotion of treatments for childhood ailments. "
posted by marienbad (36 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: there's a thread on this case open from two weeks ago. -- jessamyn

Previously.
posted by three blind mice at 4:23 AM on April 15, 2010

The earlier story was the "real" victory, but this finalizes the case. Apparently the appeals court only ruled on some technical aspect that basically made it impossible for him to lose. Or something like that.

What I want to know is, doesn't the UK have a "loser pays" thing? Can't Singh recover all his legal expenses?
posted by delmoi at 4:27 AM on April 15, 2010

He said he would be pursuing the BCA for his legal costs. “The issue of costs is still outstanding. I suppose it will cost the BCA upward of £300,000, and I want to make sure they end up paying my legal costs, which will be over £100,000. It could be that I don’t get that money back: that explains why people don’t fight libel cases.”
posted by three blind mice at 4:35 AM on April 15, 2010

So, the BCA happily promotes bogus treatments. The British Chiropractic Association happily promotes bogus treatments. You know, the BCA not only promotes bogus treatments, it does it happily. As for bogus treatments, the BCA happily promotes them. You know those bogus treatments which the BCA happily promotes? They're bogus. Bogus. BOGUS.
posted by Phanx at 4:41 AM on April 15, 2010 [25 favorites]

BCA ADMITS: CLAIMS MADE BY DR SINGH ARE TRUE
posted by DU at 4:42 AM on April 15, 2010

Can't Singh recover all his legal expenses?

No order for costs was made, as the other side just served a notice of discontinuance; but the Civil Procedure Rules provide that a claimant who discontinues is liable for the defendant's costs incurred up to the date on which notice of discontinuance was served. Presumably Singh can get costs but one I assume these would be on a party-party basis, which means "not everything". England-qualified lawyer MeFites can maybe give more detail - ?
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:43 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I am distinctly comfortable with the editorializing in this post.

Also my favorite person in all of this is the guy who looked at the BCA's website to determine which services chiropractors could offer, then went through every British chiropractor's website documenting the violations. Hell of a hobby, man. Hell of a hobby.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:46 AM on April 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

Here's hoping this splits the uppity back-cracker population in two: The ones who just say they manipulate your spine to make you feel better, and the ones who promise it will cure autism.

(During physical therapy I was given several weird stretches to do. I dutifully followed the instructions and after 4 weeks my therapist unveiled his evil plan. He picked me up in a certain way, then pushed me down in another certain way. My spine went popopopopoPOP! and I felt almost euphoric. Ever since then my dislike of quack spine manipulators has grown - they shouldn't be able to dilute the wonderful work real physical therapists do)
posted by Danaid at 4:56 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have been following this case with interest for a while, and generally support the cause for libel reform, but every time I see a picture of Simon Singh I think about how he needs to do something about his hair. I mean, I know you're busy with your legal jiggity and new baby and all, but come on, just round it out a little.
posted by leibniz at 5:06 AM on April 15, 2010

delmoi - What I want to know is, doesn't the UK have a "loser pays" thing? Can't Singh recover all his legal expenses?

That's part of what the UK's Libel Reform Campaign is trying to achieve. At the moment, if someone sues you for libel and you win -- you prove that your comment was fair and/or that it did no damage -- you're still left out of pocket. When The Gaurdian was sued by Mathias Rath over one of Ben Goldacre's columns (full, sordid story here), Goldacre and The Guardian were completely exonerated but, even after recovering all the costs that the courts would allow, were left around £250,000 out of pocket.

This Monday I was at a meeting of the Westminster Skeptics, who have been heavily involved in the libel reform campaign. Among other speakers, Singh was there to celebrate and spoke briefly about the costs involved in his case (video here [disclosure: I know the blogger, but neither of us can get any profit from this link]) and said that, so far, he'd spent almost £200,000 and had quit his jobs to work full-time on the case for the last year or so. Luckily he's been able to afford that, as he's the author of several best-selling pop science books, but practically anyone else would undoubtedly been beaten into submission by the sheer stresses and costs involved.

Libel in the UK is a phenomenally expensive process, four times more expensive than Ireland, our nearest competitor, and one hundred and forty times more expensive than Italy, who are the cheapest but more in line with the rest of Europe than we are.

Also present were representatives from Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems, who spoke about their parties' manifesto commitments to free speech protections and libel reform in particular, as a result of the campaign's efforts over the last year. The Lib Dem candidate (Evan Harris) sounded the most promising, as he announced that their policy was to "enact the proposals of the libel reform campaign", which seems pretty clear-cut. The other two parties were much more equivocal -- Tories promised "to examine" and "to review" -- but, in fairness, their official manifestos had not yet been published.

So this is great for Singh and for the campaign but, as the Guardian points out: Judges are sensing the public mood and moving with it. Yet it could all unravel quite quickly with an incoming government asking for yet another review, giving time for the law firms' lobbyists to cash in and wreck reform. The litigant companies will move back on to the offensive, sniffing their chance to regain lost ground, and lost profits. The battle for libel reform has barely begun.
posted by metaBugs at 5:09 AM on April 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

A great victory for truth. Singh is a brave dude.

Chiroquackery, as I always call it, is rooted in a theory of pathogenesis that is every bit as absurd on its face as homeopathy or magic crystals.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:19 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm very happy with the outcome of this case and I hope that he is able to claim his costs for defence from the BCA. I think that this final result was inevitable following his win in the court of appeal battle for the right to rely on the defence of fair comment.
posted by electricinca at 5:22 AM on April 15, 2010

Chiroquackery, as I always call it, is rooted in a theory of pathogenesis that is every bit as absurd on its face as homeopathy or magic crystals.

Hey I put some magic crystals on my potatoes and they tasted better!
posted by MrLint at 5:36 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Chiro is weird to me as it's the one form of absolute idiocy that otherwise intelligent people will evangelize to me on a regular basis.
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:38 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I am distinctly comfortable with the editorializing in this post.

I'm not. I don't think editorializing in this fashion ("Hurrah!!" and the Snakeoil and magic tags) is appropriate for a Metafilter post, period, no matter the topic. What you're explicitly saying is that editorializing in FPPs is fine as long as you agree with the editorializing. And those Mefiers who've favorited your comment, I suppose, feel the same way. They also, it would appear, are fine with editorializing on the blue, indeed want everyone to know they're fine with it, as long as they share the editorializer's opinion. It's an aspect of Metafilter that is rather distasteful and somewhat disappointing, particularly considering that some of those supporting said editorializing are very thoughtful and intelligent Mefi users, in most other occasions.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:42 AM on April 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

Hey I put some magic crystals on my potatoes and they tasted better!

Behold! The power of salt!
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:43 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I would probably celebrate by buying an awesome rainbow towel, too.
posted by koeselitz at 5:44 AM on April 15, 2010

flapjax, chiropractic is not evidence-based; it is a snake oil discipline, sold for much of the 20th century to the unsuspecting. If the BCA had won a libel case against someone who pointed out that their claims are bogus, it would have been a disaster, opening the door for even more idiocy than we already suffer with homeopathy, acupuncture, and so forth being given serious consideration in our media (and serious money in our stores).

I think a little jubilation is in order.
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:48 AM on April 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

one form of absolute idiocy

I dunno, touch can do some amazing things. I mean, so can placebos, yeah, but I sort of understand why "otherwise intelligent" people who've had experiences they found pleasant - or even helpful - might swear by chiropractors. You and I might think the faith is misplaced, but it's at least understandable.

the guy who looked at the BCA's website to determine which services chiropractors could offer, then went through every British chiropractor's website documenting the violations.

That's awesome. Is there a link to more info about that guy?
posted by mediareport at 5:48 AM on April 15, 2010

The guy's name is Simon Perry, how he did it is here.
Summary: through the magic of COMPUTER SCIENCE!
posted by SyntacticSugar at 5:55 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

mediareport, I can understand touch. That's why massage is pleasurable. Touch is one thing. Actually allowing someone with no evidence-based medical training to pop and rearrange your spine? That's something else. My sister has been going to the chiropractor for twenty years... without ever seeing an improvement. Yet she still goes.
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:55 AM on April 15, 2010

The way costs work in Australia is supposed to be similar to the UK. Since I know nothing about the UK system, here's a bit about the way it works here.

You don't get your actual costs. That is, you don't get the amount you spent or even a figure that corresponds to what you spent. What happens is, your legal team prepares a list of things that they did. An expert who works for the court (a "Taxing Master") allows a standard rate for each one, but unreasonable costs will be disallowed and the successful party may be penalised for the use of legal tactics that, in the master's view, unreasonably increased the cost or duration of the case. The other party may - probably will - appeal this taxation of costs. And then, of course, you depend on the other party actually paying the taxation promptly. I've been told that a successful party is lucky to get back 75% of the actual amount spent.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:09 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Actually allowing someone with no evidence-based medical training to pop and rearrange your spine? That's something else.

DING! That's the core of it.

You want to call yourself a doctor of chiropractic medicine? That's cool. Just be sure to ACTUALLY LEARN MEDICINE and then specialize in chiropractic medicine. Of course, that requires MEDICINE to be a part of chiropractic training.

And if that were the case, and then the state were to license and regulate such a thing, then, hey, I'll call you doctor. As it is, chiropractors have less medical training than physical therapists. Or weebles.
posted by grubi at 6:27 AM on April 15, 2010

Chiropractic is fine....just think of it as funky massage. It's only when you start trying to cure cancer that you've set sail in the crazy boat.
Also don't let them do that cracky thing to your neck - that can't be good for you.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:31 AM on April 15, 2010

! (opposite of . ?)
posted by Legomancer at 6:31 AM on April 15, 2010

Seriously good news.
posted by DanCall at 6:32 AM on April 15, 2010

I just hope Singh doesn't come down with back pain, joint pain, hypertension, acne, restless leg syndrome, depression, alcoholism, video game addiction or another one of the hundreds of things you can treat with chiropractic care. I think he's going to have a hard time finding a chiropractor who will see him.

I guess you're saying chiropractors are not only quacks who claim to treat things like "video game addiction" by torquing your spine, but also unethical, unprofessional assholes who would refuse to treat someone because of his ideology?

I don't think I'd want medical treatment from someone so ethically compromised by their ego as to do something like that.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:34 AM on April 15, 2010

I just hope Singh doesn't come down with back pain, joint pain, hypertension, acne, restless leg syndrome...

And I thought my teenage acne was bad. I never thought you could "come down" with it.
posted by Skeptic at 6:51 AM on April 15, 2010

sexymofo: “I just hope Singh doesn't come down with back pain, joint pain, hypertension, acne, restless leg syndrome, depression, alcoholism, video game addiction or another one of the hundreds of things you can treat with chiropractic care. I think he's going to have a hard time finding a chiropractor who will see him.”

Actually, that may or may not be true. This may seem on the face of it (particularly to us Americans) to be a CHIROPRACTIC VS SKEPTICS case, but in fact it's really not. Chiropractors within the UK have been expressing a good deal of unhappiness with the BCA lately, especially since the BCA's stolid refusal to drop its ridiculous libel lawsuit has caused such an insane amount of backlash against chiropractors themselves. Plenty of other chiropractic organizations have expressed dismay at the BCA's pursuit of this litigation.

Frankly, I have a feeling it's not Simon Singh that'll be facing the ire of chiropractors for generations to come. He's just a skeptic - there have been skeptics that spoke against chiropractic since its early days in the 1800s. That's nothing new, and as long as people have the freedom to have their own opinions, there will be people who claim that chiropractic is 'bogus.'

The people that chiropractors should really be wary of, I think - the people responsible for sullying their good name, and making them seem like bitter, litigious cranks - are the BCA. There are several other, alternative professional organizations for chiropractors in the UK today. We've already seen a lot of chiropractors leave the BCA for greener pastures, and I have a feeling they'll have a hard time retaining their membership in the next few years.
posted by koeselitz at 7:04 AM on April 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

If you promote bogus treatments, avoid excellent dudes.
posted by The Mouthchew at 7:05 AM on April 15, 2010

My spine went popopopopoPOP! and I felt almost euphoric. Ever since then my dislike of quack spine manipulators has grown - they shouldn't be able to dilute the wonderful work real physical therapists do

Crack your back, and your mind will follow.
posted by grobstein at 7:21 AM on April 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Aside from the cure-all quacks, the more common problem with chiro is that too many of them leave out the crucial aspect of actually getting people healthy:

It's not enough to just put the spine back into place- you have to give the person exercises to strengthen the muscles that keep it functional- otherwise you'll see the same problems, over and over.

...which is where they happily get people set up for adjustments once a week for the rest of their lives.

I tell all my friends to combine any chiro with solid yoga, pilates, or physical therapy - otherwise, they're just pouring their money down a hole.
posted by yeloson at 7:36 AM on April 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

!

(both as an expression of joy and as tribute to Mr Singh's hair)
posted by bright cold day at 8:01 AM on April 15, 2010

yeloson: “I tell all my friends to combine any chiro with solid yoga, pilates, or physical therapy - otherwise, they're just pouring their money down a hole.”

Doesn't Yoga seem like the last thing you should be doing with chiropractic? I mean, the aims of Yoga and chiropractic are pretty much opposite, considering that the point of Yoga is to destroy the body rather than make it healthier.

But I admit that many people use Yoga for something other than what it was intended for.
posted by koeselitz at 8:02 AM on April 15, 2010

« Older Air traffic in much of northern Europe halted – du... | You're breakfast.... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

singh when your winning April 15, 2010 4:17 AM Subscribe

singh when your winning
April 15, 2010 4:17 AM Subscribe