Since TAM it’s been a bit crazy, I was out of work for a while and my house was turned upside-down while we had some nice new double-glazing fitted and switched out internet providings.

All this means I have fallen behind somewhat with this blog and other writing commitments. I’m dissapointed because I wrote pages of notes at TAM and haven’t had the chance to write them up. I will return to those notes soon.

In the meantime I would like to show my support for the campaign for libel reform. If you haven’t already please go sign the petition and if you need further encouragement then please read this lovely message below;

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale*, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

   *not even for shit loads of  money.

This is a ridiculous turn of events. How an earth can they claim Singh was acting in malice? There is nothing in the original article to support this. He quite rightly attacks Chiropractic medicine on the efficacy of it methods, questions the mechanism at the root of chiropractic medicine and makes his judgments based on the evidence uncovered in his book ‘Trick or Treatment’, co-authored with Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst. The article is considered and does not make an ad hominem attack of the type you would usually associate with malice.

It seems to me that the BCA are doing everything they can to attack the source of the criticism rather than the criticism itself. Then they have the audacity of accusing Simon Singh of malice. This is a joke.

UPDATE

The BCA have now changed their statement to remove the previous comment; “However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.”

It now reads; “However, this action is a simple claim based on the fact that the BCA was libelled by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.

Too late. Their actions speak for themselves. I had asked in the comments over at Jack of Kent’s blog if this ‘malice’ allegation constituted libel, although he didn’t respond to me directly he has now tweeted; @jackofkent This was the day the BCA case came to an end. @SLSinghonly now needs to threaten to counter-sue. The BCA cannot justify that clear meaning.

Thanks to Jack of Kent for keeping everyone updated on this throughout the day.

Previously I posted about the British Chiropractic Association who are suing Simon Singh for libel following his comments in a guardian article.

As an update to that original post the BCA did eventually produced a list of studies purported to support the questionable treatments, however these did nothing more than to support Simon Singh’s criticism. For a decent review of these studies check out Science-Based Medicine.

To help support his case and in order to make sure this criticism does not go unheard, various blogs are being invited to reproduce a version of his article. I haven’t been invited but here it is anyway!

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that ’99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae’. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: ‘Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.’

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singhis a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardianfor which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.