Synogenes.com

The ruling has just come in that Simon Singh, accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association, has won the right to appeal. The case depends on the claim that the BCA was supporting the treatment of various childhood ailments including colic by chiropractic techniques.

There is a dearth of evidence supporting these claims and Dr Singh, along with Professor Edzard Ernst wrote a book called Trick or Treatment, in which they explained this at great length. As the claimed evidence provided by the chiropractors was criticised for not having controls, for having small sample size, for depending on anecdotal accounts, and so on, it was clear to every reasonable person that the BCA did not have a case.

This ruling now means that Simon Singh can actually fight the libel case using the fact that his article in the Guardian was "comment". This subtle point is crucial for anyone writing about science in which the assessment of evidence is critical. It means for example that someone can claim of another scientist that there is no evidence to support their claims - without the accuser being dragged into the courts.

Most rational people would wonder why, faced with the challenge from Simon Singh, the BCA didn't simply offer to present the evidence to an independent panel and get it assessed. Or at least sue the Guardian newspaper instead of Simon Singh personally. If the intention was to suppress criticism, as was implied in the ruling issued today, then that constitutes a libel warming against those who criticise unevidenced alternative therapies.

The ruling today is very welcome because it means that those of use who are critical of Woo therapies which lack supporting evidence, can offer opinion which challenges the claims, without the threat of libel action.

Of course, Simon Singh is only half way through this ordeal which has already cost him £200,000. He still has to win the libel case, but now he has a very strong and credible defence. When he gets his day in court, he can easily justify his opinion by reference to the evidence and that's what it should have been about all along.

There must be many BCA members wondering why their collective reputations have been dragged down by the involvement in such a ludicrous libel case in the first place.

The news of Simon Singh's win in the appeals court over his right to publish criticism of chiropractors is very encouraging but there is still an important battle to get the libel laws reformed in the UK. Until the law is changed, scientists and journalists arguing for evidence in the face of irrational health claims can be accused in the libel courts.

You can do something really practical to help, simply by signing a petition. Simon Singh is asking for as many people as possible to support the campaign by signing the petition.

It will take you a minute and cost you nothing. If you can persuade someone else to do the same that will help even more. The more people supporting the campaign, the more likely it is that the major parties will put something in their election manifesto. That's no guarantee that they'll implement it of course - political parties are notoriously dismissive of the electorate at all times except during elections - but at least they will be pushed to consider it.

Please publicise this and try to get others to sign too. Every little will help.

It is excellent news that after the hammering the BCA received in the courts on 1st April, they have now decided to drop the libel case against Simon Singh. Although he remains out of pocket by around £100k+ he has won the case convincingly. Not only did the chiropractors have no evidence to back their claims, but the courts have also heavily criticised them for bringing the libel charge in the first place.

It is absurd that when chiropractors claim to be able to treat childhood colic, that they should be able to use libel laws to suppress the challenge that they have no evidence. Any reasonable person would expect them instead to offer their evidence and debate the case, not try to gag critics.

Chiropractors make a lot of money from treating people and many of them have made claims which they cannot justify. The BCA itself had to warn its members not to do so. Patients who are handing over money for treatment which does not have evidence of efficacy have a reasonable claim that they are being deceived and they may now be encouraged to challenge the chiropractors.

Despite a mealy-mouthed press release pretending that their case was justified, the BCA has been publicly humiliated and exposed as an organisation trying to use libel law to suppress very reasonable criticism of its unjustified claims.

Hopefully there will now be a backlash from the very many chiropractors who treat back pain and don't make outlandish claims. They are justified in demanding to know why their representatives chose to waste their subscription money defending people who shouldn't have been making those absurd claims in the first place. They have seen their trade association bringing them all into disrepute.

It may also have the perhaps unintended consequence of getting chiropractors themselves to start to appreciate the need to back up their claims with high quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence, the sort provided by controlled, randomised, double-blind trials, not the sort published in tame journals owned by chiropractic and alternative medicine companies.

Onwards with the quacklash!

Whilst of course it is very welcome that the official catholic establishment expresses its own horror and dismay at the extent of child abuse within its institition, the concentration on feelings, with phrases like "deep sorrow" and "heartfelt sorrow", and their sense of "deep shame" serves as a smoke screen in front of the legal reality.

The Pope was, and is, the CEO of a major international corporation in whose midst child abuse was carried out systematically and the institution itself participated both actively and passively to avoid it coming to light. And now we are asked to accept an apology and heartfelt sorrow in lieu of legal culpability. The idea that he is to do "penance" is simply insulting. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that he is legally obliged to conform to secular law.

The truth of the matter is that in any corporation, the CEO is where the buck stops. Since the Pope's administration of the corporation played a significant role in preventing these crimes from coming to light sooner, there is no legal difference between that and any other conspiracy to protect the criminally guilty.

As an accessory, the Pope should face charges along with all the Bishops who knowingly failed to act, who left child-abusers in post, or transferred them to fresh new pastures. And the hand-wringing apologies are simply not a way of addressing legal culpability.

There is a popular myth inside the Christian churches that representatives follow a "higher law", that of God's law. They popularise the notion that judgement before this mythical superbeing is somehow more fundamental and significant than being answerable to secular law, the law governing our societies.

And in the pretence of being deistically accountable, they seek to avoid being judged by a rather more mundane secular process. But that absolutely should not happen. The church is not above the law. Just because their representatives claim allegiance to a superbeing, that does not mean they have a "get out of jail card".

Once convicted and sentenced, they may well take solace from the fact that they have at least paid an earthly price for their crimes but any claims they might have to be dealing with the superbeing, far less actually following his will, must remain outside the scope of law.

Let them face charges in court and let them answer to our justice system. If they want to do religious penance as well then so be it but it absolutely is not a substitute for the legal process. The sooner prosecutors stiffen their backbone and address the legal issues, the better.