Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus

Support grows for author facing crippling libel action for attack on spinal treatment

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Dr Simon Singh is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association

REX FEATURES

Dr Simon Singh is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]neospace wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 07:19 am (UTC)
Thank you Independent for raising awareness of Simon Singh's case, as well as enlightening the readers to the murky world of chiropractic 'care'.

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
Use your head
[info]gothic_quarter wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
Yes, of course, there are a myriad of bogus alternative health practicioners out there, but there are also many who provide an excellent service, chiropractors included. The trick is to use your powers of reasoning to decide which ones are helping you and which ones aren't. And if you decide none of it works, then fine, stick with your GP, no-one is forcing you. Even so, many people (myself included) end up trying 'alternative' therapies after their GP has told them that despite the symptoms they are experiencing, there is nothing wrong with them. So what do you do then? Accept the inference that you're a hypochondriac and just carry on suffering? Well, you can choose to do that (again, it's your choice), or you can try elsewhere. Fortunately, my symptoms made me so desperate that I was prepared to try anything. One of the things I tried was chiropractic, and the treatment was successful.
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?
Missing the point.
[info]tatcawh wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
No, the trick is not to use your powers of reasoning to decide what alternative therapies are helping you and which are not. Your powers of reasoning, properly used, will tell you that you can't know whether any improvement in your condition is genuinely attributable to the treatment.

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'.
Re: Missing the point. - [info]gothic_quarter - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Missing the point. - [info]dreadpiratemel - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 03:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Missing the point. - [info]swanandprasad - Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC) Expand
Bogus claim - that Bartlett was killed by his son!
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:32 am (UTC)
How fitting that an article about the use of the word 'bogus' concludes with the bizarre allegation that the founder of chiropractice was killed by his son. This is simply not true, and undermines the credibility of the entire article.

Can you please cite any valid source to support this statement?
Re: Bogus claim - that Bartlett was killed by his son!
[info]bogusboy wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
The article states:

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.

Re: Bogus claim - that Bartlett was killed by his son! - [info]mcdiss1 - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 01:15 pm (UTC) Expand
quackery exposed at last
[info]imperfidious wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
I salute you Dr Singh and wish you well with your fight against these quacks. I've had a 'bad back' for most of my life and required a fusion (L5-S1) a decade ago. Unending pain led me to the chiropractors and after years of throwing money after a lost cause I eventually came to my senses. My advice to everyone is to avoid these charlatans like the plague.
Re: quackery exposed at last
[info]tommytcg wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 02:40 pm (UTC)
Quacks? What about the fraudulent statins; the fraudulent and toxic chemo radiation and surgery; the useless and dangerous vaccines etc etc., all practiced by big pharma`s controlled doctors.
Re: quackery exposed at last - [info]imperfidious - Friday, 5 June 2009 at 07:20 am (UTC) Expand
Re: quackery exposed at last - [info]tommytcg - Friday, 5 June 2009 at 11:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: quackery exposed at last - [info]imperfidious - Friday, 5 June 2009 at 01:45 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]snowdonwatcher wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
Go for it Dr Singh; I do hope you can afford to stick to your guns, & stick up for free speech. Too many big organisations want to keep us quiet.

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!
[info]jollythecat wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
As someone who suffers muscle spasms that would have been treated with valium, but who was shown how to ease them myself by a chiropracter.
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.


Unhelpful
[info]martinofmoscow wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
Having suffered from a debilitating bad back for many years, I eventually got my life back through chiropractic adjustment. Prior to this I had undergone physiotherapy to little effect.
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.
Re: Unhelpful
[info]charlietantra wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
Dear MartinofMoscow, Singh's comments did not relate to back pain (for which there is some slight evidence of effectiveness for chiropractic, in line with other therapies) but to claims for effectiveness in treating non-back pain conditions. There is no good evidence for these claims. He is now being sued for pointing out that there is no good evidence for these claims. This is what the article is about - the stifling of comment and discussion of claims of medical efficacy by legal means, rather than by evidence based discussion. Do you agree this is wrong?
Re: Unhelpful - [info]sushiguru - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:53 am (UTC) Expand
chiropractice is bogus
[info]mtvmalta wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC)
I always take it as proof that a statement is true when the only recourse is a libel suite instead of valid arguments. Perhaps that is because I need my cranial bones manipulated, ha ha
Don't knock it till you try it?
[info]neospace wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC)
This is a common response to these types of treatments.

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.. :)
More power to Singh's elbow
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
I wish it was possible to donate to the defence fund.
Furthermore
[info]gothic_quarter wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
I should have mentioned in my previous post that although I do not agree with Singh's assertion, I am also against the BCA's libel action - the doc's opinion is not going to do any lasting harm to the discipline of chiropractic, and the libel suit is a mistake, in my opinion.
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).
Re: Furthermore
[info]reverendmilo wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
'the detractors of holistic medicine continue to hold up clinical trials as inviolable objective truths' - what, as opposed to your educated, considered opinion based on your 'reasoning'?

You may well be entitled to your opinion, but it isn't worth jack, I'm afraid.
Scams
[info]falanf wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:27 am (UTC)
More power to Mr Singh. I don't know whether chiropractors ever do any good (they didn't in my case) but resorting to law over something like this suggests a lack of confidence on the part of the BCA. Perhaps when Mr Singh continues his useful research he might like to investigate the ridiculous price of eye-glasses!
My Experience
[info]paul999 wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
I can't see the point in suing this guy but I am a convert.

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.
Re: My Experience
[info]pedroabreu77 wrote:
Monday, 8 June 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC)
paul999,
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
Re: My Experience - [info]jhnf - Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 07:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Genuine Results but Bogus Models
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:41 am (UTC)
There are many alternative/complimentary treatments that produce measurable benefit over a placebo but they often lack a coherent explanation as to how they work that is testable and verifiable. Often it is 2 mambo jumbo of the explanation that is bogus rather than the treatment itself. I am happy with alternative explanations provided they can tested and verified in some way.

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.
Libel <> Truth
[info]neospace wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
GQ, I agree that the pharmaceutical manufacturers have a lot to answer for but we're not talking about drugs in this instance, we're talking about a physical manipulation treatment which claims to do more than it can.

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
Is chiropractic not widely accepted in the UK?
[info]ocexile wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
In the US that's far from the case. Chiropractic is considered to be mainstream in the States. Western allopathic medicine is great with surgery and with drugs, but for soft tissue and chronic conditions many Americans seek - rightfully - alternative treatments from accupuncture to herbal to chiropractic. As an American I do believe in free speech, and that Britain's libel laws are an atavism - but whether Dr. Singh has a right to speak should not detract from the very real merits of alternative medicine.
Re: Is chiropractic not widely accepted in the UK?
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC)
Chiropractic is not considered to be mainstream in the US, it's considered to be alternative medicine. I note with interest the AP's use of the word 'allopathic' to describe evidence-based medicine - a word only used by pro-chiropractic commentators.
Chiropractic doubts.
[info]superkeith wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)
Is it now the case that if we think something is Bogus we are not allowed to say so? The dictionary defines Bogus as 'not genuine' and if that was his opinion I think he was right to say so. Great care has to be taken when giving your opinion to use the caveats and express it as 'in my opinion' or 'it appears to me' or 'in my view' or 'from my daily observation.' The problem that involved Campbell and the BBC and then Dr Kelly only arose because the reporter, in my opinion, made a mistake which as a professional he should not have made. He could have said 'I am convinced that evidence will be found to show' but I am sure you get the point. Whatever, I am convinced that we need to be very careful to preserve our right to free speech because, it is my personal view, that without that we have no other freedoms.
Freedom of speech
[info]keithlegg wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
I've had one period of chiropractic treatment over six months - it was about 17 years ago in the USA - and it basically sorted my back for a lengthy period. I've not been back since, but that's purely because of cost rather than reluctance to have the treatment, as it worked for me.

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.
Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus
[info]louise131 wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
The whole case seems to hang upon the definition of the word BOGUS. According to my Oxford dictionary it means: Spurious, sham. The definition of the word Spurious is: Not genuine, not what it purports to be.

Therefore in my opinion, Simon Singh has libelled the British Chiropractors.
Re: Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus
[info]mcdiss1 wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC)
why, though? They purport to be providers of medicine while actually providing placebo effects at best and pure snake-oil at worst. That's a pretty good definition of "not genuine", isn't it?
Let's stand together
[info]ij_home wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
Is there any way that we, the great mass of Singh supporters, can get together to voice our disgust at this miss-use of the law?
Re: Let's stand together
[info]clickety6 wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 03:43 pm (UTC)
spelling
[info]paul_alive wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
perhaps you could have had a proof reader point out chiropractic is not chiropractice...
Bogus or not?
[info]jamesmlondon wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC)
Thank you for this article. The final section on the history of the founder is helpful. It is difficult to find any word more appropriate than 'bogus' for this stuff.
Deluded dishonest
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 01:45 pm (UTC)
So according to the judges Dr Singh comiited libel because he called deluded chiropracters bogus, which according to the judge meant dishonest. Unless the judge awarded the chiropracters contemptous damages and demanded they paid Dr Singh's legal fees he should be struck off.

Also chiropracter are con artists pedling a treatment that has never been proven to help back pain ,let alone deafness or bedwetting.
Stretching, the truth
[info]clothcap wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 01:52 pm (UTC)
I'm currently wearing a neck brace because of a cervical disc hernia and osteoarthritis. It's helping some. The doc wants to operate and put an artificial disc in, says chiro may cause complications. I'm intending to try chiro beforehand anyhow. A question forms in my mind from this article, is there a minimum education necessary and do people practice the back art in the UK without being registered?
outrageous mis-useof freedom of sppech
[info]mind_ful wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
Come off it independent. I shall have to stop reading you as well as the obsrver at this rate. This man gave vent to a scientifically and morally unsound, personally motivated and vindictive diatribe against a perfectly legitimate chiropractic profession becasue he knows he can get away with it on the current tide of establishment back-lash agaisnt CAM. He is himself determined to rid the world of what he doesnt undestand or like on the sole basis that he doesnt like it. He doesnt beleive in democracy or freedom of chocie in medicne. He is a 'medical fa;scist' of the worst type. He accused choropractors of deliberatley defrauding people. He was then found - absolutely rightly- guilty of libel. Now the media have decided this is somehow an afront to his freedom of speech. Rather, it is a complete abuse of freedom of speech. Whatever you lot think of chiropractic, it exists and is entitled to exist for those people who use it. It is regulated far more tightly than the medical profession which acts frequently above the law, and no evidence of any sort exists to suggest peole are harmed or defrauded by chiropractice. When are you going to stop demonising practitioners of anything but drug-based systems of medicne? What sort of country are you creating in supportin such abuse by those with a narrow, bigoted and anti-choice agenda?
Re: outrageous mis-useof freedom of sppech
[info]iangarton wrote:
Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 03:36 pm (UTC)
"Legitimate"? Well, yes, chiropractice is not particularly harmful and may have a placebo effect, like homeopathy, acupuncture, praying at shrines or any number of delusional activities To call it a "profession" is another stretch. People should have the freedom to offer these therapies and others to use them and those of us with a science-based sense of the world should be kindly and restrain their derision. Placebos are marginally useful and there can be any number of routes to affect placebos. Let them be. But imputed mechanisms are tosh. We all know that really.

It goes without saying that it is a disgrace to take Dr Singh to court.
Re: outrageous mis-useof freedom of sppech - [info]tommytcg - Sunday, 7 June 2009 at 05:20 am (UTC) Expand
Re: outrageous mis-useof freedom of sppech - [info]neospace - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 04:20 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: outrageous mis-useof freedom of sppech - [info]neospace - Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular