Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus
Support grows for author facing crippling libel action for attack on spinal treatment
A galaxy of luminaries from the disparate worlds of science, comedy, the arts and humanities – from Ricky Gervais to the president of the Royal Society – have come out in support of a science writer who is being sued by chiropractors for saying they practise "bogus treatments".
Dr Simon Singh allegedly libelled the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) in an article claiming the association is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes "bogus" therapies. The BCA demanded an apology and a retraction, and in its libel action won a preliminary court ruling against Dr Singh last month. In it, Mr Justice Eady ruled that Dr Singh's use of the word "bogus" meant he was accusing the BCA of being dishonest and backing treatments it knew did not work. He refutes this, saying that "alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest".
Dr Singh announced yesterday that he intends to appeal against the ruling, which has already cost him about £100,000 in legal fees but won him the backing of more than 100 prominent figures – including a Nobel laureate.
The signatories to the statement in support of Dr Singh include Gervais, the actor Stephen Fry, the scientist Richard Dawkins, Lord Rees of Ludlow, president of the Royal Society, former government chief scientist Sir David King, the novelist Martin Amis and the comedian and doctor Harry Hill. "We, the undersigned, believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence," the statement reads.
"The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence. The BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom."
Yesterday, Dr Singh's supporters spoke out against the BCA's decision to launch legal action against an individual with no financial support. "When a powerful organisation tries to silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation [he was made an MBE in 2003 for services to science] then anyone who believes in science, fairness and truth should rise in indignation," Mr Fry said.
Professor Dawkins added: "The English libel laws are an international laughing stock, and the effects are especially pernicious where science is concerned." While Sir David said: "It is ridiculous that a legal and outmoded definition of a word has been used to hinder and discourage scientific debate. We must be able to fairly and reasonably challenge ideas without fear of legal intimidation. This sort of thing only brings the law into disrepute."
Chiropractice is the quasi-scientific treatment of medical problems by manipulating the spine, although many disorders treated by chiropractors are not normally associated with a bad back. One of its information leaflets, entitled Happy Families, says: "There is evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped children with asthma, prolonged crying, breathing difficulties, bed-wetting, colic, sleep and feeding problems, hyperactivity [and] frequent infections, especially in the ears."
Dr Singh's article questioned the scientific evidence to support such a statement, saying that he can confidently label the treatments as "bogus" because he has researched them while working on a book on alternative medicine with Professor Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, the world's first professor of complementary medicine.
The BCA said that it intends to pursue its claim against Dr Singh, who replied by saying that if his attempt to appeal against the preliminary ruling fails, he will take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Strange world of the father of chiropractice
* Chiropractice is the manipulation of the spine to treat a range of problems not associated with a bad back. It was invented by Daniel David Palmer of Davenport, Iowa, at the turn of the 20th century after he claimed to have cured an office janitor, Harvey Lillard, of deafness by "racking" his back. Palmer, known as "DD", said that Lillard had been deaf for 17 years after he had strained his back. "I reasoned that if that vertebra was replaced, the man's hearing should be restored," he said. "I racked it into position by using the spinous process as a lever and soon the man could hear as before."
* After an unsuccessful earlier career in "magnetic healing", Palmer switched to spine manipulation, which his close friend the Rev Samuel H Weed called chiropractice after the Greek words for "hand" and "practice", meaning "done by hand".
* Palmer wanted to turn chiropractice into a new religion, with himself at the helm, and openly likened himself to Martin Luther, Mohamed and Christ: "I am the fountainhead. I am the founder of chiropractice in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase."
* He practised racking the spines on his many children – he was married six times – and his over-enthusiasm with physical punishment sometimes landed him in trouble with the police.
* Palmer died in 1913 after being run over by a car allegedly driven by one of his sons, Bartlett.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
The 'system' developed by Daniel David Palmer was a business and you are right to point him out as a quack. What many people do not realise is that Chiropractic care is not scientific and was developed before health and medicine were understood. In a similar vein the homeopathy, advocates of these quasi-scientific groups are quick to push poorly researched articles when it promotes what they are selling but even quicker to hide actual double blinded clinical trials which show no effect.
I am sure that chiropractors believe they are doing good and true believers are almost a lost cause. The only way to protect from them is to educate and provide the public with the ability to think clearly.
How many users of alternative based medicine actually ever get better? Chiropractors would not have the lucrative business they do if this were the case. Users of chiropractors typically say they have a chronic problem which only the chiropractor can cure, not fully appreciating that it was the chriopractor that 'diagnosed' them in the first place with a chronic problem. My partner spent 4 years visiting one with a back complaint ('Chronic') at 35-40 pounds a visit twice a month. Many thousands of pounds... She visited a proper doctor (one that has been to medical school, rather than a 'special' school for chriopractors) who passed her to an nhs physio. 3 months later and her back shows no sign of problem with the exception of the odd twinge.
For those of you out there who use or are thinking of using chiropractic care please Google it, avoid the sites selling it and find the sites which scientifically test it in the same way that real medicine is tested. Do your own research. When put side by side with proven treatments there is no competition.
Justin
When people slag off such treatments, I always ask 'Have you tried them, then?' and the answer is invariably 'No', or they tried them for a couple of weeks and then gave up (though you wouldn't stop taking antibiotics after two days, would you?). But many people have got horror stories that begin with 'But I know a bloke who tried this therapy, and...' Well so what? My mother and father were both misdiagnosed by their GPs (with the result that my father died and my mother became a pill junky), but that didn't stop me going to my GP when I needed. But if my GP had shown himself to be incompetent I would have asked to change doctor. It's all about using your head, and finding out for yourself, and if at the end of that you decide against the therapy, fine. As for Dr Singh, he's entitled to his opinion, but I wonder if he has ever tried the therapy that he is criticising?
That's why it's perfectly irrelevant whether Dr Singh has ever tried the therapy he is criticising - he has a vastly more reliable method than personal experience: the double-blind randomised controlled trial. We have a name for alternative medicine that passes this most stringent of tests. We call it 'medicine'.
Can you please cite any valid source to support this statement?
Palmer died in 1913 after being run over by a car allegedly driven by one of his sons, Bartlett.
That's not an allegation. Note the use of the word 'allegedly'. But I guess mannygoldstein, incapable of defending the bogus claims of chiropractice, is getting a little touchy.
I went to a chiropracter, paid for treatment, & was told it would be some time before I saw an improvement, so to come back next week.
The next week, & each week following that, he would always say that I would see an improvement before too long.
I pretty quickly cottoned on to the scam. Pay each week and one day (in the future) you will improve!
I think people say "tomorrow never comes!"
Well it doesn't come with these people, but they will still take your money!
I say 'don't knock it until you have tried it'.
There are bogus people all over the place.
Everyone however, has an opinion and just because someone has the weight of the medical profession behind them, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct.
Just opinionated.
I find this article quite offensive, mainly because I found GPs to have little knowledge or interest in treating back problems. Dr. Simon Singh is thus writing off the only treatment I have found to be effective and offering nothing in return - I can only believe for idealistic or career-oriented goals. Perhaps the support of the infamous Richard Dawkins gives us some idea of the idealistic nature of this project.
If it worked, it would show up on clinical trials (just like other medical treatments).
Can you imagine a cancer treatment that in trials had no result different from chance? You would not use it.
Gothic_Quarter, if this has helped you then that is fine. What I (and a lot of people) object to is a treatment which has conclusively been shown not to work being peddled by non medical people.
There is no plausable reason that chiropracty would cure hearing problems or asthma, but BCA has said this is in fact so. This quack treatment was created before we knew anything about medicine or what caused asthma for example.
Its just something that has 'believers' in it who defend it because saying that your wrong it is a hard thing to do.
Instead of saying 'don't knock it till you try it' how about 'Dont use it until you have done your research'. Which sounds more sensible?
Justin
(ps. apologies for any spelling errors, in a rush.. :)
Meanwhile, once again the detractors of holistic medicine continue to hold up clinical trials as inviolable objective truths, I thought I'd throw this into the debate:
"It inevitably disturbs pharmaceutical manufacturers that in most of their clinical trials the placebos, the "fake" drugs, prove to be as effective as their engineered chemical cocktails. ...it is clear that the effectiveness of placebo pills is a threat to the pharmaceutical industry" (taken from The Biology of Belief, by cell biologist Bruce H Lipton, Ph.D).
You may well be entitled to your opinion, but it isn't worth jack, I'm afraid.
I started having back problems in my mid 20s and in my mid 30s I had a spasm that laid me out for 5 days. Luckily it was in the middle of Euro 96 so at least I got to watch the football. By this time I had pretty much given up sport and my GP had basically said I would have to live with it and take pain killers. In desparation I looked around for something else and the village where I live had a Natural Health Clinic that normally I would have crossed the road to avoid.
I saw the chirpractor there and still see him now. I was 50 in March, still play 5 a side once a week and squash twice a week. I suffer no pain in my back and now see my chiro once very 3 months at a cost of 30 a 30 minute session, as far as I am concerned it is money well spent.
I look at some of the other treatments they offer in the health clinic and I think they must be for lunatics (healing stones etc) but hey Dr Singh thinks I am wasting my money. I recommended chiropractic to my Brother in Law but it didn't improve him at all. Different strokes. All I know is it worked for me I reckon I would have been in a wheelchair by now.
I'm glad you could find help with the use of chiropractic therapy, but Dr. Singh's statement (if I'm not in mistake) doesn't have anything to do with back-pain.
He made a quite reasonable statement about the lack of evidence in crediting chiropractic for healing, or reliving, other non-back-pain health problems. Check out the article.
Cheers!
Pedro
equally there is a lot of alternative/complimentary treatments that just do not work AND have only a mumbo jumbo explanation behind them.
The importance of a verifiable model/explanation is in then being able to predict and understand further applications of the treatments.
I think if they said "We'll give your spine a deep tissue massage which might help your back pain" then I would be ok. Its the fact that they call themselves doctors, base the mechanics of chiropractic care on the quackery of a 'natural healer' and inate intelligence and finally refuse to respond to proper challenges of their profession.
Like I said earlier, if they did not make claims that can't be upheld scientifically then they should not make them. For the BCA to start a libel action against a qualified person for questioning their claims displays a lack of faith in their own treatment.
In my mind a libel is brought about when someone makes comments that are not true. The appearance of the libel action suggests that they are protecting their finances rather than their science. Because if their intention was the latter then we would be seeing some evidence to back it up.
Justin
However, Dr Singh is fully entitled to have his view, and air it, even if I disagree with it. That's why I think the BCA is making a mistake in taking him to court, and why I think the libel laws need to be changed.
Therefore in my opinion, Simon Singh has libelled the British Chiropractors.
Try signing the petition of support:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ind
Also chiropracter are con artists pedling a treatment that has never been proven to help back pain ,let alone deafness or bedwetting.
It goes without saying that it is a disgrace to take Dr Singh to court.