Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've just returned from a packed meeting in Holborn to hear about how the British Chiropractors Association are suing Simon Singh for claiming that they, to quote the original Guardian article, "happily promote bogus treatments". The judge in charge of the case has made an extraordinary and outrageous pre-trial ruling which effectively makes it impossible for Dr Singh to defend himself. You may not have heard about this story because none of the newspapers are covering it (for fear, it is said, that they too will be sued). It's a frightening case, because it is effectively denying free speech.


Read about it on Jack of Kent's blog, and google elsewhere for more information. Anybody who believes in the freedom to put alternative medicine under the scientific spotlight should be worried. Britain's libel laws stink.


http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/


The only mainstream, large circulation publication to have covered the story is the good old Economist:


http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973

Hmmm... treating colic or ear infections with spinal manipulation sounds pretty woo to me.


But as the economist article suggests, even Dr Singh merely thinks chiropractors are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest.


What say the EDF's resident medical team?

From a legal perspective it's quite a surprising ruling, effectively ruling out a "recklessness" based interpretation of the words i.e. "the BCA happily promote treatments that are in fact bogus, without caring or taking any proper steps to check whether they are or aren't". I would have thought that this is an equally natural meaning of the phrase. Bad news for Singh though - he'll have to appeal.

McTimoney Chiropractic works for me!

I knew about this because the British Humanist Association had links to it.

I couldn't go last night, and thank you for alerting people to it here.

It really is ridiculous.

D Carnell - no real proper chiropractic would seriously claim to cure an ear infection with bone manipulation, but if there is a blockage, the manipulation may unlock/prevent the pushed-together bones from causing that blockage again. Then tell the person to get treatment for the remaining gooey infection.

Well, quite, PeckhamRose. No proper chiropractor should claim to be able to do those things since, and I'm happy to be corrected by any qualified Doctor, an ear infection has nothing to do with bones of any sort, let alone the spine. But clearly some are trying to claim this feat of miracle and have been protected by the BCA - and Singh called them on it.
What say the EDF's resident medical team?


Do you really think I'm going to get draw into another medical debate?


My default response to subjects like this is to see what Dr Goldacre has to say, but I can't tell you what that is, because his site is blocked at work.


But I can tell you that ear infections are nothing to do with bones pressing together and often don't need antibioitcs either.


Edited to say that work have miraculously unblocked bad science - hurrah - and there's an article all about it there, just put Dr Singh into the search box. Oh and also well done Reg for raising the subject.

Thanks annaj - I made the connection through having chiropractic treatment to free a nerve and that worked perfectly. The ear infection idea was thus wrong and thanks for putting me right!

And thanks Reg for starting this post too. Enlightening!

Brendan - I think the public image of chiropractic is that it is pretty mainstream (like a version of physiotherapy). That was certainly my impression until this case came up. The reality appears to be rather different. Do they conduct open, scientific research to support their claims? Do they allow the public to scrutinise their training programmes? No - instead their reputation is to respond to criticism by calling in the lawyers. If you do a google, you'll find the word 'cult' used to describe them (but not by me, oh no-sirree, just in case those lovely BCA people of impeccable standing are reading this, which they and their lawyers probably are). I'd say that makes chiropractic at least as 'alternative' as homeopathy.


Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chiropractic may piss of some off the established

> medical fraternity because it steps on what they

> see as their turf but it is hardly ?alternative?

> in the same sense as say, homeopathy.

  • 3 weeks later...
An update on this case, Simon Singh has decided to appeal, which will raise the profile of the story considerably. The chiropractics are going to get lots of bad publicity out of this and might deeply regret resorting to litigation. I hope so. (Their alternative course of action was to publish some scientific evidence to back themselves up. If they have any of course).

Let?s blue sky this one out of the box, past the elephant and around the ball park.


If the medical fraternity had historically accepted chiropractic, a science with more than a 100 years history, would it now be properly regulated along with other medical techniques and would dangerous nonsense ever have found a way into its practice?

To quote Wikipedia: "Early chiropractors believed that all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man; chiropractic leaders often invoked religious imagery and moral traditions." Doesn't sound like science to me. Quack Quack.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...