‘British Chiropractic Association V Simon Singh’ (part ii)
As promised/threatened – part deux…
First I should set out my stool (!) – those that have read my blog before will be aware of my position so you can skip this Q & A bit.
i) Do I think that the BCA should have sued Singh?
Not on your nellie! There are a great number of ‘commentators’ in the media that dis (yo!) what CAMs do – and I fully support these people. There is nothing wrong with it (unless they use the term ‘bogus’ evidently) – a bit of banter helps professions progress and understand one another. It’s how science develops. I think that time and effort should have been put in to a proper response from the BCA and the publication of some research in these areas – there IS evidence available.
ii) Am I surprised by the verdict?
You bet! However, on the night of the result I glibly explained the case to my wife after a few glasses of wine and, without a second thought, she jumped on the term ‘bogus’ immediately.
iii) Was it necessary for the BCA to take action against Simon Singh?
Now that’s a question! Post verdict, I reckon the BCA would shout a resounding, ‘yes’ but there must have been some high pulses for the few weeks prior to the case. For the last few months I have suggested to others that the BCA were making a big mistake but not all commentators agreed. According to Ben Goldacre, ‘what he [Singh] wrote was technically a bit wrong, in my view. he said that there was “not a jot of evidence” for chiropractic, when there’s some weak evidence for some things.’ And that’s that – the captain of Bad Science suggesting that Singh might be a ‘bit wrong’. (Further evidence that Goldacre et al are objective to the core – not that many CAM practitioners agree!)
iv) ‘Bogus’?
bo.gus – adjective, meaning – not genuine or true; fake
(I read somewhere that cost were over £20k – a costly misuse of the english language, I’d say)
v) …and finally?
I’m gutted, really. Gutted the BCA acted, gutted that Singh wrote his piece in the first place without thinking (he’s better than that). Furthermore, I’m gutted that it went to court at all.
I like the internet and particularly blogging, I’m fond of the fact that you can read what people really want to say – I support ‘grey’ (t) literature 100%. CAM forums (? fora?) are great too – not as plentiful as the sceptic ones though and they are a great source of ‘true’ information – word on da street, (like!). I don’t do Facebook or Twitter as I don’t understand them but I have corresponded with the main protagonists of ‘anti-quack’ since I started my blog and they have always been honest and good to talk to – I respect them for their opinions and they are entitled to them. I don’t class them as friends, even ‘internet-friends’ but I do enjoy reading what they ‘publish’, and for the most part – they present a good argument.
I am currently reading Sing and Ernst’s book – it’s a good read. I don’t agree with all that they say but I certainly wouldn’t take legal action against them. I have given it an alternative title – ‘What CAM practitioners need to do to be accepted!’ – it won’t stick but I like it nonetheless.
Anyway, the BCA are happy, Singh has been hushed (rightly or wrongly) but I really hope that debate doesn’t suffer. I still think that CAM would do well to explain to the anti-CAM lobby how there is truth in what they do. Surely we are all big boys and girls and can agree to disagree on some things?
I’m off to look up some words – Sham, Snake-oil and Pharma spring to mind!!!
JH
3 comments
I have been wondering about the osteopaths take on events ,so thanks for writing.
I can only speak for myself – not the profession.
Hi, gr8 post. Information is useful!