Win or lose, the cost of fighting a libel suit chills science and journalism

Good Luck

Simon Singh, David Colqhoun, Ben Goldacre and Edzard Ernst have all been relentlessly attacking various branches of complementary medicine through the media for a long time, chiropractic in particular. They have used their powerful and privileged positions in the media to do so with virtual impunity - the only possible response from those they attack is a delayed letter to the editor of whichever publication they write in which may or not be published. Why are they so surprised now that one of the dogs they have been whipping suddenly turns round and bites back? As a scientist, had Singh stuck to scientific terminology he would not be £100, 000 out of pocket - instead he used the word 'bogus' - a step too far. The inconsistency in Singh's position and of the others named above is that there are actually dozens of practices and products used daily in the NHS which have no better a research evidence base for their use than the CAM therapies they demand such rigorous evidence criteria for. Yet, for some reason they do not criticise them or call them 'bogus' in the same way. Continuing the metaphor used above - dogs not biting the hands that feed them perhaps?

bogus: 2. adj. Counterfeit, spurious, fictitious, sham: ‘originally applied to counterfeit coin’ (Webster). [oed] With no evidence of the efficacy of chiropractic in the treatment of infant colic et al, Simon's article was quite right to use the word 'bogus'. When a practitioner preys on the insecurity of a patient and sells them a treatment that has no proven effect, I believe it's fair to use the word bogus. There are many who seem to be happy to take that comment out of context when attacking Simon. If the BCA sincerely believe that they have sufficient scientific evidence to back-up their essertions, why not publish this evidence in rebuttal to Simon's remarks instead of turning to libel law, where the accused is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence? The answer: it's a very easy way out. Unfortunately there seems to have been a massive backlash on the BCA and chiropracters in general. Simon's article fairly pointed out that chirporactic is as effective as, though no more so, and slightly more dangerous than, 'traditional' physiotherapy for spinal problems. The fact is that many chiropracters have overstepped their remit by promising that which cannot be delivered. I wish Simon every success in his action in court and trust that, eventually, reason will out and writers can go back to questioning questionable science for all of our benefit without fear of petty legal reprisal.

The problem here seems to lie in the court’s interpretation of the word “bogus” and, sadly for Simon Singh, the judge seems, wrongly to my mind, to have related it to intention. If I said someone’s assertion was “bogus”, that would relate only to the assertion, unless I also had solid evidence that the person making it knew it was false. It is not reasonable to expect Simon Singh to produce solid evidence (tape-recordings?) of a great number of chiropracters admitting that their claims were false. If Singh’s winning the case had to depend on that, the legal process would be ridiculous. Unfortunately, the 2008 Guardian article referred to does not seem to be available on the Guardian website (there is just a long podcast). I can’t be sure, therefore of exactly what Singh wrote, but, unless he really did write pretty much “These people are liars” (not something that “They have made a bogus claim” need be equivalent to), I’d say it was reasonable to interpret him as saying that, whatever may be the intentions or beliefs of the chiropracters about their treatments, their claims were false (bogus) and should, in his opinion, be said to so, as they might, at worst, be dangerous.

One bunch of chiropractors in the UK has advised members to withdraw some of the more bogus claims for their skills. http://tinyurl.com/lu7bk9 Strangely, the link that should be at the end of this chain is dead. There seems to be a growing belief, except places like on planet Joe Jordan, that the BCA has scored a spectacular own goal by suing Simon Singh. All of a sudden there is huge media interest, little of it positive, in chiropractors and their spine tingling "cures".

Simon, I wish you the best in your defense. However, you are mistaken that the only key issue is cost. Also at issue is the character of the libel laws themselves. The libel laws here are so bad that the US Congress is intending to pass more laws protecting US citizens from UK libel laws. They would not be considering this did they not think that the situation is unreasonable. They view such laws as inconsistent with freedom of speech, guaranteed by the Constiution. Brown should have put forward a written constitution by now. Justice Eady has form. In November of last year, Eady was attacked for trying to bring in a privacy law “by the back door”. “QCs defend Mr Justice Eady as newspapers accuse him of privacy law rulings” (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5126916.ece) – Francis Gibb, legal editor, Times Online. The libel laws here are dangerous and need to be substantially revised.

Some think that McTimoney taking down information on their web site is "proof" that they know that what they are providing is bogus. This is logically incorrect. All it shows is that they feel threatened or are paranoid. It is not an indication of guilt. This kind of inference is not justified. A claim that their treatments are bogus must be justified on other grounds. Having said this, I agree that secrecy is not the best policy and that it would be better for them and their associates to reconsider this action at the earliest opportunity.

I used to think Australia's defamation laws were harsh until I followed this story. Ouch! Good luck to Singh. Scientific debates, whether medical or mystical, should be fought with evidence, not lawyers.

Simon Singh’s situation is a cause for serious concern in relation to scientific enquiry and fair debate. His case also highlights the increasing restrictions which have been applied to the press and publishers in recent years - as Singh himself notes. Dynasty Press is a recently formed publishing company, and we have already seen the effect the application of the UK libel laws can have on the rights and freedom of publishers. We are also well aware of Sir David Eady who ruled against Singh and is England's chief libel/privacy/freedom of speech judge. In the last four years he has made a series of legal rulings which have upheld those seeking damages for reputations apparently harmed by comments and opinions in the press or through publications. The result has been that press and publishers have been seriously curtailed. And not just in the UK. For those doing the suing have not always been British. But what they have discovered is that they can use the UK libel laws to their advantage. Rachel Ehrenfeld was well aware that the Saudi billionaire and former royal banker Khlaid bin Mahfouz was eager to sue her in England in relation to her book ‘Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It’. Justice Eady presided over that case too and ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. Rachel Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay $225,000 costs and the book was banned in the UK, though it was published in the US. International celebrities, such as Jennifer Lopez, have discovered that you can muzzle the American press through the English courts. They or their advisors know that Mr Justice Eady is using the internet to claim English jurisdiction for anything published anywhere else in the world. In effect, British libel law is being used to restrict the press and publishers all over the world. As Rachel herself says, ‘Libel Tourism is forum shopping. It is common for lawyers to choose favorable legal venues for their clients. The "libel tourism" phenomenon is associated mostly with the frequent use of British courts by foreigners to silence criticism. British libel laws favour plaintiffs and permit foreigners to sue other foreigners if they claim they were somehow defamed in England.’ The debut novel Empress Bianca, written by the well known biographer Lady Colin Campbell, and one of our main authors, was subjected to these same UK libel laws. When the original publisher of the book, Arcadia, was sued for defamation by Lily Safra, the knowledge of UK libel law favouring the plaintiff and the sheer financial muscle of Lily Safra, resulted in Arcadia backing down and pulping the novel. They also agreed to have no involvement in its future publication. Eventually the case was resolved, after Lady Campbell intervened and threatened to sue Lily Safra. Minor changes were made to the MS and we are now re-publishing the novel in September. Our point is that the UK libel laws are being used inappropriately by the courts. David Eady is claiming international jurisdiction for his rulings so that British libel laws are being used to muzzle the press in Iran and Iraq and worldwide. In addition, as Singh makes clear, the cost of legally responding to a plaintiff’s case is extortionate and so hinders the exercise of rigorous and fair legal debate. We strongly believe that there needs to be a cap on legal fees in all cases dealing with libel law, and the national and legal boundary lines of the resulting jurisdiction also need to be clearly defined. Lady Colin Campbell is a staunch advocate for civil liberties despite the fact that her own reputation has been in the past severely damaged by the press. We are pleased that she is willing to speak out publicly on this central issue. Forced to use the law herself to protect her reputation and refute inaccurate reports about her life, she has become knowledgeable about the legal complexities involved in most libel cases. Ironically David Eady was one of the barristers she once consulted for advice and legal information. Yet, as she says, ‘It is far better for a few celebrities like me to suffer at a potent press, than for the press to be muzzled. Because one of the most important guarantees of civil liberties is a vigorous press with teeth. It is far better for the political health of a democracy to have a privileged few suffer so that the majority’s democratic rights are preserved and protected. All dictatorships start out by silencing segments of the population they regard as inconvenient. One day everyone wakes up to realize that they, the majority, have been silenced and with that comes further losses of freedom. A free press needs free speech.’ These are important times for the principle of free speech. Global travel and the internet have broken down former barriers to communication and the exchange of ideas. We now live in an exciting world where we can connect, discover new voices and ideas and a wealth of information. But just as there need to be restrictions in relation to the internet, so the legal judgements of one country should not be allowed to silence legitimate voices in another. The United Nation committee on human rights, English PEN and the Index on Censorship are all concerned about how British libel laws are limiting critical media reporting and stifling debate. Dynasty Press was concerned about these issues even before the legal debacle over the publication of a novel by a small company hit the headlines. We are still concerned and argue that it is essential there be a serious review of the British courts’ use of the UK libel laws. To that end, we will continue to contribute to this vital debate and support the campaign for an immediate review of the UK libel laws. The freedom of the press and of publishers is essential for any democracy. If we have learnt nothing else from history, we have learnt that. Dynasty Press. June 2009

@Joe: of course scientists have attacked complimentary "medicine". It is, by definition, a practise which hasn't had substantial backing by well performed studies, and passed perr-review. Some of the things being done are very dangerous indeed, including some people recommending homeopathic treatments in lieu of anti-Malaria tablets. That could kill somebody, and should be attacked: rightly so. <p>If the BCA really wanted to shut up Dr Singh - and all other scientists - they need only publish evidence which shows that the treatments which they claim to be effective *are* effective. At that point they would stop being complimentary "medicine", and simply become medicine. <p>A libel suit is as uneccessary as it is antagonistic. We have been on the edge of our seats, waiting for the BCA's "evidence" which they claim to have submitted to the court (but to nobody else). I am sure they will publish it in time, but until they do, their claims to be able to treat cholic remain unsubstantiated. <p>The ensuing "Quacklash" from bloggers and scientists will perhaps do them irrepairable damage, and deservedly so in my opinion. The word "Quacklash" was coined by "Jack of Kent", by the way, and it pleases me a great deal.

The bizarrely personal attack mode of redress chosen by the BCA shows clearly (to me) that they are aware that Chiro-quacktic is TOTALLY BOGUS (at least medically. Financially it is not bogus!). If they had publicly presented their "PLETHORA" of so-called evidence**, the bogus libel action would be totally unnecessary. ______________ ** I don't for a minute trust that have their self-claimed "plethora". In fact, I am confident that the BCA are lying about possessing a 'plethora' of evidence that is not anecdote nor vanity publishing. The BCA have been astonishingly, nay: gob-smackingly factually incorrect on almost every response, that I treat evey utterance of theirs as factually suspect.

The bizarrely personal attack mode of redress chosen by the BCA shows clearly (to me) that they are aware that Chiro-quacktic is TOTALLY BOGUS (at least medically. Financially it is not bogus!). If they had publicly presented their "PLETHORA" of so-called evidence**, the bogus libel action would be totally unnecessary. ______________ ** I don't for a minute trust that have their self-claimed "plethora". In fact, I am confident that the BCA are lying about possessing a 'plethora' of evidence that is not anecdote nor vanity publishing. The BCA have been astonishingly, nay: gob-smackingly factually incorrect on almost every response, that I treat evey utterance of theirs as factually suspect.

Joe Jordan I do wish people would do their homework properly. If you were to read http://www.dcscience.net/ more regularly you would find that I have often been critical of claims made for orthodox drugs, and conventional treatments that don't work. At least some of it does work though. The big difference with alt med is that hardly any of it works (ref Singh & Ernst, Trick or Treatment). I wouldn't use the word 'bogus' in a scientific article, but in the context of journalism it seems to me to sum up the situation fairly and succinctly.

The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be written and not what has been written. The writer is defending this action in person as the costs are astronomical and I am supporting this writer and his cause. All writers and journalists should also support him as he is in the forefront of the battle for free speech. What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet? This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site

"Could spinal manipulation really help children with asthma, colic and ear infections?" Works or not a few practioners are making money.

A while ago a reviewer of a grant proposal that I submitted made an ad hominem remark about me and my research, not disimilar to that made by Singh about the chiropractors although in my case it was untrue. It occurs to me that on this basis, while I cannot sue the funding agency, I can launch an action for libel against the reviewer. What do you think chaps?

The expense of these libel trials is excessive, and the result of them is what?-- the opinion of a judge in a matter of science. How is this good for society? This same result could be more cheaply, and no less reasonably, achieved under the ancient statutes for trial by combat. The error of the British courts is in affording a legal defense for something that no human being or assembly of human beings can have-- a protected reputation based on science, which is the art of advancing knowledge, not by confirming established practices, but by freely exposing and eliminating error. What is truly science needs no protection; what is protected by men in black gowns is not science. Insofar as organizations run to the courts to hide from the natural and healthy processes of a free society, they run from science itself. The merit of the British system is that it does afford a way for the insecure to unwittingly reveal their lack of confidence that the ultimate verdict of the scientific community will be helpful to them. But it is unfair to buy this social benefit at the great expense of publishers and authors. If trial by combat cannot be revived, then it would be best to abandon the whole thing.