- Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!



BCA Drops Its Defamation Lawsuit Against Science Writer Simon Singh

By |April 15, 2010|News|

Chiro org has been following this story since it’s inception.

Source Mail Online

The British Chiropractic Association has dropped its defamation case against science writer Simon Singh, days after he won a legal battle for the right to criticise what he regarded as ‘bogus’ science.

The BCA today served notice of discontinuance of its action against Dr Singh, after its successful claim suing him for libel was overturned by the Court of Appeal on April 1.

Dr Singh had said claims by some chiropracters that they could help treat conditions such as colic, ear infections and feeding problems in babies and toddlers were ‘bogus’ and without a ‘jot of evidence’ to support them. (more…)

British Chiropractors Under Fire from Singh Supporters

By |March 1, 2010|Ethics|

Chiro org has been following this story since it’s inception.

Today The Guardian reports that one in four chiropractors in Britain are under investigation as a result of a campaign by Singh supporters.

As the British Chiropractic Association’s battle with Simon Singh continues to work its way through the legal system, chiropractors are counting the financial costs of a major backlash resulting from a libel action that has left the Lord Chief Justice “baffled”. What was originally a dispute between the BCA and one science writer over free speech has become a campaign to reform an entire industry.

The article claims that one in four chiropractors in Britain are now under investigation for allegedly making misleading claims in advertisements, according to figures from the General Chiropractic Council.

Read more.

BCA v. Singh: Making Legal History

By |December 16, 2009|News|

Source The Jack of Kent

Previous articles relating to this case can be found here, here and here.

The case of British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh is now likely to make legal history.

The news broke today that the Court of Appeal panel hearing the appeal of the preliminary hearing on meaning will be joined by the Lord Chief Justice.

The panel will now consist of England’s two most senior appeal judges – the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls – as well as the formidable Lord Justice Sedley.

This is exceptional and, as far as I am aware, unprecedented for an appeal on just a preliminary point, rather than on a full substantive appeal of a decided case.

This is the heavy artillery of the judiciary.

This panel means that any judgment of the Court of Appeal could have immense effect on the future approach of the High Court to the question of what constitutes fair comment or a factual statement, and it may give firm guidance the extent to which the High Court can again impose a meaning of dishonesty either generally or against corporations in particular.

The Court of Appeal may not take this opportunity to adopt a robust approach, but having the two very most senior appeal judges on one panel rather tells against this. The composition of the panel does not by itself tell us how the appeal will be decided, just the potential significance of the judgment on future cases.

It is thereby probable that this Court of Appeal hearing on BCA v Singh will become a landmark case.

Moreover, should such a panel choose to criticise either party, or indeed the High Court itself, the effect could be damning.

It is becoming very interesting.

British Chiropractic Association sues science writer for libel

By |June 17, 2009|News|

In a Guardian article in April 2008, Simon Singh, who has penned the popular science books “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, “The Code Book” and “Big Bang”, wrote about the likely risks of chiropractic treatment and whether or not there was any evidence that it was effective for various childhood conditions, including asthma and colic. The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) took offense to this, claimed that Singh had defamed their reputation and has sued him for libel.

Notwithstanding that in libel cases in Britain, it is the defendant who carries the burden of proof, and that this would be very expensive, Singh decided last year to fight on as experts said “we had a valid defence and stood a good chance of winning the case.”

However, this from the Index on Censorship website – On May 7th, 2009 the English High Court ruled that Singh must show that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was deliberately dishonest in promoting chiropractic as a treatment for various children’s ailments.

Mr Justice Eady ruled, with notes apparently written prior to today’s preliminary hearing, that an article by Singh, published in the Guardian should be classified as a ’statement’ and added that by use of the word ‘bogus’ Singh had inferred he believed the BCA had intent to convey dishonest claims to the British public.

In light of this ruling the matter may not go to trial. From Singh’s standing he does not believe the BCA had intent to deceive and therefore cannot prove this.

Costs of £23,000, relating to the preliminary hearing, have been awarded to the BCA.

Here is some discussion including an intelligent posting by the vice president of the BCA.