One giant leap for Simon, one small step for libel reform

The first thing I saw once I had got into the office and fought the standard 20 minute battle to get the Internet working was a Top Tweet by Jack of Kent: the BCA have finally listened to a good lawyer and caved in.

After that I found it extremely hard to move on to real work and concentrate dutifully while one of my bosses went through the intricacies of my paperwork related errors - I was too busy grinning like a lunatic, my insides swooping! Which may seem rather over-the-top considering I've only ever spoken to Simon for about 5 minutes - but it's very important news.

We can now all shout from the rooftops: the BCA happily promotes bogus treatments, for which there is not a jot of evidence (sorry, I couldn't resist that).

Actually, that isn't all that much to say, especially in an opinion piece. How many doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, social workers etc get routinely accused of outright murder and so on? And yet it's taken nearly 2 years, and £200,000 on Simon's part alone, just for us to get this far.

"My victory does not mean that our libel laws are okay," Simon tells us, "because I won despite the libel laws - we still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world."

It's not over for him yet in any case, because he and the BCA still have to settle their costs. Even if the BCA pays him back every penny he's spent, he could have been doing far better things with the last 2 years of his life. It's been a sacrifice for the benefit of writers, science, and the general public who are so often misinformed because of vested interests abusing their power. But it won't do much good if other people have to go through the same thing.

Peter Wilmshurst, for instance, faces bankruptcy if he loses his case. Like Simon, he is a principled man, who will not bow to corporate pressure when he knows that what he is saying will for some patients be a matter of life and death. His case is also an example of the ridiculous libel tourism that results from our stupid and embarrassing laws. He's being sued by NMT Medical, an American company, who wouldn't get away with such a thing on home ground. And he's not backing down over what he says because it concerns medical research. He and some colleagues were investigating whether a new device could close a hole between the left and right atriums of the heart and thus reduce migraines. Initially, he was hopeful; but the clinical trials showed otherwise. Actually, it's murkier than that; the published research claims effectiveness, but then denied Wilmshurst access to the full dataset and he has concluded that what he has actually seen is mathematically impossible! I'm delighted to see that a charity has been set up to help him (oh, and you can visit the usual suspect for the best summary). And yet . . .

And yet what will suing Wilmshurst achieve? If they couldn't do it on home ground, why is it acceptable to do it here? Why not show him - and the rest of the world - the full dataset? What have they got to hide?

I know I'm annoyingly naive and idealistic. But it stuns me that any company considers its own reputation to be more important than what it actually produces, and the effects said produce will have. As Andy Lewis makes deliciously clear, there is no universal human rights declaration that all corporations have the inalienable right to a good reputation. Frankly, it's much better to just admit that you had a great idea, patented an amazing invention, or did an ambitious piece of research - and your hopes failed and the new treatment just isn't any better than the current favourite, but that's not for lack of effort or caring on your part. It's deflating, and in some market-driven societies could lose you funding - but that's still better than to put your patients (or customers, as they are so much more coldly and greedily regarded all too often) at risk. Otherwise, it isn't about treatment at all, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to claim it is.

All three major political parties have declared themselves in favour of libel reform. But we mustn't just sit back and assume everything will now be fine. We've won our first battle; let's not now lose the war. Please sign up to libel reform if you have not already done so, and tell your friends. As Dave Gorman said yesterday, if you've got a blog, if you ever take medicine, if you want to know more than you knew last year - this affects you. And it affects you if you don't live in the UK, because someone in Country A can sue someone else who lives in Country B, by coming to a third country - here. We need to end the libel tourism, and we need to end the ridiculously high costs which mean almost all writers will face bankruptcy if they don't fold immediately. And we need to make freedom of speech and openness in science the norm, not the exception as this has been.

Read more at Jack of Kent, Andy Lewis, the BBC, the Guardian, a Guardian blog post by Simon, umpteen quotes and links at Index on Censorship, and doubtless half a million more but that'll do fine for now!

Westminster Skeptics in the Pub: a libel law reform rally!

Having been to one terrific Skeptics in the Pub, I immediately decided I had to attend another - a celebration of Simon winning his appeal, and a rally for where the libel reform movement needs to go next.

I would have gone over the entire meeting as well as I could remember it, but that actually wasn't as well as last time - and in any case Noodlemaz has just done me out of a blog by an incredibly thorough and entertaining summary here! So you'll just have to have one of my rambling novels as a substitute!

This time, the train journey there went smoothly. I arrived at Westminster tube station shortly before five, and just for once had remembered a map, so decided to do a bit of touristy wandering. First I ambled up to Hungerford Bridge. I can never see or hear that name without getting a serious attack of the giggles. This is entirely Mark Thomas's fault: it is the site of two of his hilarious demonstrations in his wonderful investigation of the SOCPA Act. (I seriously, seriously recommend listening to that show.) "WHY DO YOU WANT TO DEMONSTRATE ON HUNGERFORD BRIDGE?!" "I want to abolish footbridges." "WHY?" "I want to encourage swimming." Not to mention, "I'm going to stand on the bridge at midnight and I'm going to hand out one leaflet. One leaflet counts as a demonstration." "Indeed it does. Indeed it does! But don't you see, I'm going to be generating more paperwork than you're going to be handing out! Were you aware of that?!" "Yeah, yeah, I was . . ." And later: "Ah, so you're back on Hungerford Bridge again!" So, yes, I hope I didn't giggle too conspicuously while wandering to the middle of Hungerford Bridge and back again.

So then I drifted back Big Benwards and ended up in Parliament Square. I was in the no-demonstrations-without-police-permission zone. I wondered if I could be arrested for wearing a Keep Libel Laws Out of Science T-shirt and was rather disappointed I'd decided not to (as I wore it for Jourdemayne's talk). Brian Haw was there, in the middle, with several tents and placards. The man himself was standing at a sort of table reading the paper. I had to walk most of the way round before I could actually get to the middle bit where he was. I felt a bit of an idiot, but I went up and said to him, "Thank you for doing this." He nodded and smiled but said nothing, and I could think of nothing further, so I stood around moronically looking at his placards and news columns. I do thank him for doing this. Right in the heart of our country's capital, he is a pin poised over our government's balloon, a breath of fresh air reaching the open wound of our country's conscience. I wouldn't argue with anyone who said you have to be a bit of a nutcase to go and live there for so many years as a protest, but I'm glad someone did. Not to mention glad that that ridiculous SOCPA law failed in its primary purpose, namely to get rid of him. Sorry, but hushing up protests won't make us forget we entered an illegal war.

I wished there was something I could contribute to his efforts somehow, but didn't see anything obvious. Later I saw the flag over Buckingham Palace appeared to be flying at half mast. What was the matter? asked a snarky little voice in my brain. Was homeopathy being given a hard time?

Fast forward the next hour or so while I said around in the pub waiting for someone I would recognise to arrive! In fact someone did look familiar and it later turned out he was James who runs the Pod Delusion. As people arrived there was suddenly a feel of a Galaxy Zoo get-together: the surreal feeling of meeting people you've already known and formed definite impressions of over the Internet - and, as both parties relax and clamber over the surprises, a wonderful sense of being amongst one's own species. I wasn't among aggressive fanatics, desperate to narrow the world down to a cold set of proven/disproven data. I was among cheerful, passionate, amiable people, full of smiles and laughter (not least when the rumour began to trickle round that Dr Evan Harris's parents "had come to hear him speak"), who bought drinks on a very random basis (I got one from someone I barely exchanged a word with and bought one for another similar). We want the truth and to search for it. We're on a mission. So, M J Robbins, Carmenego, Zeno, Maria, Jon Treadway, Richard Wilson, Dave Gorman, and many more - it was lovely to meet you. (I'm still waiting to meet Simon Perry, also known as Sir Simon, and perhaps Dr Ben Goldacre!) Crispian and Jourdemayne, it was great to catch up. And a special lovely-to-meet-you must go to David Allen Green, better known as Jack of Kent. Besides writing a wonderful blog that has taught me a great deal, David organises Westminster Skeptics in the Pub, was working ridiculously hard to make every tiny thing a success . . . but still found time, among so many other things, to introduce me to Simon!

Who I hadn't had a clue had actually read any of this blog, but shook my hand and thanked me for spreading the word. I'm sure some people would like to think of him as twisted, stubborn and evil, but he was the most gentle and charming of people, and an excellent listener. I thanked him for what he's doing for science, writers, and the general population, and he smiled vaguely and said, "I didn't have much choice." He was very keen on updating us on the baby's progress! I asked him where I should buy his books in order to give him the maximum profit, as I had got the impression that it varies, but Simon just shrugged and said wherever. Jack/David told me later that my face when Simon came up to me was worth the entire evening, so I hope nobody had a camera handy just then!

And the bit we were all waiting for: speeches! speeches!

There were so many people I could barely see the panel. Jourdemayne chaired. It was one of those large pubs with a lower area with a lot of round tables, and a few steps up to a restaurant area. The speeches were made at the border between the two, and most of the speakers were up in the restaurant area waiting their turn. The bar staff, meanwhile, were quietly and really rather heroically managing to squeeze between us to tidy up.

Dave Gorman began, with a hilarity a sentence. He explained how the BCA have pretty much done the worst thing possible for the chiropractors they purport to be helping. They've tried to have their cake and eat it. They could have taken the scientific route: to argue that actually Simon is wrong, and there is distinctly more than a jot of scientific evidence. Or they could have taken the woo route: they don't care about the science, this is something beyond that. Instead, they tried to take the middle route. But their own plethora of evidence did demonstrate that whatever the evidence was, it was distinctly less than a jot (howls of laughter). What did they want Simon to say? "All right, I'm really sorry I called you liars - actually, you're just stupid"?

In any case, they operated a bully's policy: they chose to sue Simon rather than the Guardian, because Simon would have fewer resources to fight with and therefore be likelier to back down. That he did not makes him a hero. And meanwhile, suddenly their chiropractors have been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny, and are no longer getting away with happily promoting bogus treatments, because the bogusness is being pointed out far and wide. Even if the BCA win the case, the very people they're supposed to be helping are now at a huge disadvantage.

Meanwhile, David was silently heading from one speaker to another - it turned out that the prospective Labour speaker, Bridget Prentice, hadn't been able to make it and Lord Bach, who had to leave in 10 minutes, had taken her place. So it was necessary to swap round all the talks right on the spot. The political speeches were heartening, but later left a vague sense of flatness (apart from Dr Evan Harris, of course). Lord Bach made promises. Joanne Cash pointed out that Labour hadn't done much over the last 12 years. Evan Harris pointed out that neither Labour nor Conservative actually made any specific promises, and urged us to all ask our local candidates for specifics. (Which reminds me, have a look at http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/, which shows you what's said but not by who. Your vote based on that might surprise you. I picked the ones that not only sounded fairest, but which actually gave specifics. That turned out to be 60% Green and 40% LibDem, if you're interested.)

Actually, I'm being a little unfair. All the speeches were very good. Joanne Cash described David as "a force for good - even though he's not going to be voting Conservative", to which he replied, "A force for good, that's so going on my blog tomorrow!" She is actually a libel lawyer and has the experience to see what needs changing - and has come to the conclusion: a lot. Evan Harris asked why the Labour manifesto talks about "defendants". To say the least this says nothing of the self-censorship that so many writers have to undergo to stay on the safe side.

Our beloved Simon was obviously very happy at the result of his appeal, but he and David reiterated that this is far from the end. The appeal does nothing about the state of the law as it is. Libel costs in the UK are still 140 times higher than the European average. Libel tourism is still rife. Reputable publications (such as Cambridge University Press, as we later heard) will promptly stifle anything that could cause them trouble. And as it stands at the moment, it's a field in which only the wealthy can play. (Another huge joke of Dave Gorman's was about two magicians having an argument over the right way to do a magic trick, and one of them claimed victory and walked away on the grounds that he drove a posher car. By that argument the fanciest car in the world - a James Bond model perhaps - gives its owner the right to rule the world.)

There was a poignant little memory, I think told by David, about the original preliminary hearing in which Judge Eady described Simon's article as "the plainest allegation of dishonesty". The skeptics were stunned. "Simon made his excuses and went home," said David (or whoever it was), a chapter in a few words. And meanwhile the rest of them sat down in the pub for a long time and discussed what to do about it. Out of this came many tweets, blogposts, articles, Internet groups . . . and out of that came a grassroots campaign which is now supported by all three main parties. Now that is real progress! Margaret Mead might have been famously wrong about sex and South Sea Islanders, but I am nearly sure she was right when she wrote: "Never doubt that a small, thoughtful group of people can change the world - it's the only thing that ever does."

Anyway, for more details, check out Noodlemaz and also James Streetley.

There were a few more amusing moments. A questioner was telling a very long story until he had to finally be asked: "Do you have a question?" Another question was about Judge Eady, and David stood up and said loudly: "I have never criticised Judge Eady!" As he has said before, it is useless to scapegoat: it is the law that needs changing. Oh, and we mustn't forget that just when the cost of Simon's trial so far was mentioned to a relatively quiet room, one of the bar staff broke several glasses with a resounding crash - followed by whoops and cheers! Now, we mustn't confuse correlation with causation, but that was still pretty fantastic.

It was a fascinating and joyful evening - I noticed that Simon was surrounded by well-wishers a very long time after he'd announced he was off - and one result of going was that I have been sent a 1023 T-shirt by the terrific Carmenego (thank you very much!). I've been widely urged to start a Wales Skeptics in the Pub, and will write about that another time. Guess what, again special thanks go to Crispian for making it possible for me to come along. I wouldn't have been able to go to either of these great events had it not been for him. The only downside was that my purse was stolen at Cardiff Central on the way home. It contained all my cards, my tickets, driving license, National Insurance, clubcards, silly little things like get-so-many-coffees-stamped-get-another-free, a cheque, car keys, house keys and about £60 in cash that I'd withdrawn just in case. I don't know how anyone got hold of it. All I know is, I sat on a bench with it, my bag and a cup of tea, and I put it into my bag. But then, when I got onto the train, it was gone. The guard at Bridgend (the next station) rang the folks on Cardiff Central but they hadn't seen it. He then directed me to the local police station, who sent me straight back to Bridgend saying they couldn't take the report and this was a matter for the British Transport Police. I might add that it was boiling hot and I was still carrying my bag and coat and had a blister larger than a fifty pence piece. So after a lot of depressing phone calls, I had to wait another hour for the next train, and didn't get home until seven though I'd left before ten o'clock. Still, the guard on Bridgend was very generous, letting me use the station telephone, bits of paper and so on - and writing me a special note to show the train guards all the way home.

Perhaps a randomised blind trial with a control group could be set up to see if my attendance at Skeptics in the Pub really does have the effect of attracting disaster. Based on a sample of two, the answer is a definite yes. But then I am known for clumsiness and losing things. Anyway, let's put it this way. Bit by bit I can replace the contents of my purse. But if I hadn't gone to those two events, no amount of phoning police stations and banks and working for a salary could get me all those friends, knowledge, and enjoyment - or address any of society's problems. So it's still got to be worth doing!

Nine Days' Woo Report, brought to you by the Blogosphere

As I expect you know by now, Simon Singh won his appeal. This is terrific news for the scientific, journalistic, medical and any communicating bodies, who have not only given Simon their staunch support for nearly two years, but have been awaiting the outcome on tenterhooks about what it means for their professions.

It sounds like the judges made it clear that they are in favour of libel reform. Perhaps, in future, it will be less dangerous to reveal that a new drug may have some side effects your colleagues don't want the world to know about; that some bigshot actually did put millions into funding some dodgy enterprise; or that there is actually no real evidence to support the miraculous claims being made by self-styled health practictioners . . . because, as Richard Dawkins expressed so beautifully months ago, Simon's case has been a landmark.

It can't have been easy for Simon. He's lost out 2 years of his life. He hasn't been able to do any more writing for the Guardian or even start any more great science books - so, in effect, he has been silenced even while he fights. I've only ever had the faintest taste of a legalese attack and it is just as stressful as he says. But he's not giving up, because he is - and this is rare - in a position not to do so. At the moment, most writers do simply because defending yourself is more than they can afford. What is even sillier is that, on the grounds that a website or a few books might be read in Britain, people in totally different countries can pop along here to sue each other. And for that reason, there are laws being passed in America to protect their own citizens from us, and the National Enquirer have blocked us. Try and go there from anywhere in Britain! Not that it sounds like earth-shattering news that everyone needs to know, like science is; but how embarrassing can you get?

You can read a lot more at a court analysis, a guest post and an open letter at Jack of Kent; a wonderful article at Thinking is Real . . . and so many more, but my personal favourite is this succinct tweet from VizTopTips: "QUACKS: If you are happily promoting bogus treatments, keep the whole thing quiet by suing people. No-one will notice."

The BCA's press release gave me and several others quite some amusement. If I remember rightly, they complained about the "happily promotes bogus treatments" but Judge Eady didn't "agree" with them, he actually took it a lot further than they'd ever even thought of, didn't he? "The Guardian subsequently offered a right of reply but this fell short of our expectations, not least of which because the original libel would have remained uncorrected." In other words, this was because they couldn't reply convincingly - as their "plethora of evidence" demonstrated. "The BCA has followed its legal advice throughout this case." Oh, are they libelling their poor hardworking lawyers now? Or perhaps their lawyers gave them advice which would earn themselves the most money, rather than the most sensible route . . . ? "The motivation for this action was always to clear our good name, particularly in respect of the implication that we acted dishonestly." Simon himself has said he doesn't consider the BCA to be dishonest - and yet their refusal to produce anything that convincingly says the opposite must have given an awful lot of people that idea, far more than would have thought it simply by reading the article. (Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" is very careful to distinguish between nuttiness and actual lying, for example in the case of nutritionists who claim on telly that each glass of fruit juice adds 6 months to one's life.) "It never was, and it is still not our intention, to curb freedom of speech, whether in the field of scientific research or elsewhere, although sadly we recognise that this is how it has been portrayed by Dr. Singh and his supporters”. Well, since intentions don't seem to come into it, how about the entire world of scientific research and elsewhere sue you folks for doing it in practice then? "Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged." I wonder who is the most responsible for that.

A commenter on Jack's open letter proposed that the BCA are less bothered about the consequences of their silly action than the importance of seeing Simon punished. That reminded me of a remark by one of Bismarck's contemporaries, which I read about in Hannah Pakula's "An Uncommon Woman": "He would always repay a pinprick with a knife thrust." Bismarck was a master of reinterpretation and of grand scale punishment for the least little annoyances. If the BCA really want to look like proper doctors, perhaps they should behave like real ones who put up with daily nutty accusations of forced vaccination, misdiagnosis, failure to be on call 24/7, failure to save 94-year-old cancer victims so complete incompetence, etc. etc. etc.

Now, before I get sued (so could someone please save a copy of this page in order for it to multiply across the blogosphere later), on to more amusing woonecdotes.

Check out this petition to save the London Homeopathic Hospital. I am Tara Rara Boomteay. To this day I am not sure if it is real or not, or if they are going to count the spoof votes.

Have you been watching Wonders of the Solar System? There is still a day or two left on iplayer to catch up if not - I certainly need to, my family not being into TV and us therefore not having switched over to digital yet. (Our local butcher doesn't understand how we survive. He obviously hasn't met the delights of the Internet.) Anyway, Brian Cox seems to have enchanted millions and annoyed a few with what I doubt very much was "an unfortunate chance remark" about astrology, so the poor little astrologers have got mighty upset. I'm astonished they didn't manage to predict it.

Actually before Jourdemayne's talk began last Thursday, Edd and I had a great conversation in the pub about astrology. I told him I was thinking of winding up the astrologers with a few facts against which to pit their beliefs. For example, let's imagine a future colony based on Mars. It now takes double the time for you to go round the Sun. Does your horoscope still work at different seasons? It can't tally with someone who was born at the same moment as you but is now on Earth.

Or, what about if you go to another galaxy, or even just to a different place in this one? You won't be seeing the same constellations and the stars won't be doing the same things. Which gets the upper hand? What they're doing from the point of view of Earth? Or does a new load of tosh, I mean what astrologers think is serious scientific study dreamed up, and by who?

Or what if you don't know your birth date?

Or what if you're not a human? Why does some supposed influence only apply to humans? Animals and humans are very much alike, DNA-wise. Perhaps the stars should predict when an ant gets stepped on. What about a foetus - why doesn't your "chart" start when you're conceived? Or what if you break it down into when the egg and the sperm that made you were created? That's when you'll get a serious headache, since those wouldn't have been at the same time.

I'd hoped to make Edd laugh; but, unlike me, he is a real scientist and reminded me that the ultimate test isn't how stupid something sounds, even when you break it down logically, but whether or not it works. Of course astrologers will promptly claim it does - but have a look at The 21st Floor to see how easy it is to make it look like that. Oh, and by the way, astrologers, I'd still be interested to hear your comments on my scenarios above. "You are only showing your ignorance" is the answer I can confidently expect (and will certainly laugh at), seeing as they do seem to think that Brian Cox needs to be an avid supporter of astrology and to have spoken at astrology conferences before he can be qualified to have an opinion. (However do they deal with defectors?) For anyone reading this who doesn't feel very competent to address such subjects: fear not, the scientific method is remarkably simple, and accessible to all. If you understand the scientific method, you are qualified to say whether or not something is good science.

The Bad Astronomer jumped on this with a hilarious headline, and invited alternatives over Twitter. "'Astrology sucks' - Cox"; "Astrologers not prepared to take Cox lying down", and so on were promptly suggested - you can think up the rest for yourself!

To end on a happy note, check out this wonderful song about Tony the Fish by Tim Minchin, on the subject of the scientific method. That has to be the funniest thing I have seen in a long time, although I am not sure I could prove that under reasonable experimental conditions!

Crisptrals

This all just came to me whilst making myself a ham and cheese omelette . . .

VOICEOVER: Following defeat at the Castle of Common Sense, each of the chiropractors rode their separate ways. Sir Chiro rode north, through the dark forest of Suing, accompanied by his favourite Crisptrals.

CRISPTRALS: Bravely bold Sir Chiro rode forth from BCA
He is not afraid to lose, oh, brave Sir Chiro!
He is not at all afraid to be mocked in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Chiro.

He was not in the least bit scared to be argued to a pulp
Nor to lose the public's trust, and his accounts broken
To have McTimoney split and his e-mails all on show
And his lawyer's subluxations, brave Sir Chiro!

The skeptics laugh and the public look
At the evidence, trials and our Singh's great book
And the spotlight on all the stupid claims
They make -

SIR CHIRO: That's, errrrr, that's enough music for now, lads, it looks like dirty skeptics at work.

They pick their way uncomfortably through a forest of bogus evidence. At one point they see DENNIS and the laboratory woman cleaning up the mess.

DENNIS: But anarchy in science is a way of preserving freedom!

WOMAN: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. This paper 'ere is rubbish.

SIR CHIRO is so busy looking left to right and back to left again, he fails to see the THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC in front of him!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: HALT!!!!!!!!!!

SIR CHIRO staggers to a stop, his eyes bulging.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHO GOES THERE?

CRISPTRALS: He is brave Sir Chiro, brave Sir Chiro -

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Errrrrr, errrrr, nobody really, just a salesman!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

CRISPTRALS: To claim, claim . . .

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up!! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Oh, er, nothing really, just - just trying to get into the medical business, good sir skeptic!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: I'M AFRAID NOT!

SIR CHIRO: Ah - er. W-well, actually, I am a knight of the Spinal Patients.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC:: YOU'RE A KNIGHT OF THE SPINAL PATIENTS?

SIR CHIRO: I am!

HEAD 1 (who turns out to be Simon Perry): In that case I shall have to report you.

HEAD 2 (who turns out to be Zeno): Shall I?

HEAD 3 (who turns out to be Jack of Kent): Oh I don't think so.

ZENO: Well, what do I think?

SIMON: I think report him.

JACK: Oh, let's see if he can use any science.

ZENO: Oh shut up.

SIMON: Perhaps -

ZENO: And you.

SIMON: Oh, quick, get the Advertising Standards out, I want to take his website down.

JACK: Oh, take your own website down!

ZENO: Yes, do us all a favour.

SIMON: What?

JACK: Typing on all the time.

ZENO: You're lucky, you're not next to him.

SIMON: (outraged) What do you mean?!

ZENO: You write billions of tedious letters.

SIMON: Oooooh, I don't - and anyway, you write bad tweets.

ZENO: Well, it's only because you don't join Think Humanism.

JACK: Oh, stop bipping and let's go and have tea!

SIMON: All right, all right, all right. We'll report him first and then have tea and biscuits.

ZENO: Yes.

JACK: Oh not biscuits.

SIMON: All right, all right, none of the biscuits, but let's report him anyway!

JACK AND ZENO (to each other): Right.

They look around.

SIMON: He buggered off.

JACK: So he doesn't have any evidence.

CRISPTRALS: Brave Sir Chiro ran away.

SIR CHIRO: No!

CRISPTRALS: Cherry-picked away, away!

SIR CHIRO: I didn't!

CRISPTRALS: When science reared its curious head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Chiro turned about
And gallantly went to the court
To use the libel laws instead -

SIR CHIRO: I never did!

CRISPTRALS: He beat a very brave retreat -

SIR CHIRO: All lies!

CRISPTRALS: - from sci--ence!

SIR CHIRO: I never!

(Related posts: The Back Knight; The Back Knight's Mentor; The Back Knight's First Practical)

Simon's Appeal in 3 hours

Today, 23rd February at 9:45 a.m., Simon Singh's supporters are gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Anyone can go along; and anyone can hear the appeal, which takes place at 10:30 - just under 3 hours from now.

Simon is in remarkably good spirits, tweeting about the London Word Festival (which looks fun!), and thanking people for their support. (I love Twitter.) I admire his bravery. The boss I was describing yesterday also attempted to take me to court for "theft", i.e. sending one or two e-mails to my friends during the 7 months I was lucky enough to work in his office with permission he subsequently denied giving me. Even that piece of petty idiocy was terrifying. But then I was only 18. It's wonderful the strength people can develop. The British Chiropractic Association say that Simon has rounded up a bunch of malicious supporters to get revenge. I, and I'm hardly alone, say that Simon has turned their mean-spirited and illiberal repressiveness into a wonderfully positive campaign, a campaign that seriously needs to happen in view of the English Libel Laws. It is mortifying that the wealthy can pop along to our country to sue people halfway across the world, and that the burden of proof is on the defendant. This had to change - and it is now changing!

For the latest news, Jack of Kent and Crispian Jago have, as ever, written great posts with, as ever, varying degrees of seriousness. And (update) here's a wonderful article in the Times: "Test medicine in the lab, not in the court" by Raymond Tallis. This wonderful sentence jumped out at me: '“Tested in court by the most powerful lawyers” is not an exactly reassuring statement on the patient information leaflet.' Whoopee!

Sense About Science, among so many others, have done a wonderful job in raising awareness. And Simon has had an idea to send more ripples of awareness through the population. I understand we're well over 30,000 signatures now . . .

Please sign the petition to reform libel laws. Doesn't matter if you're English, or live in England, or not - they are currently available to be hijacked by anyone of any nation, regardless of whether or not this is suitable or just. And good luck Simon today!

Write to your MP about the libel laws!

What with Trafigura and Simon, last week was a great one for free speech, but we still have a long way to go. Good old Simon (the other one) just reminded us to write to our MPs. He has written a form letter and directs us to http://www.writetothem.com/. You can copy and paste his, though be careful as it says it will block copy and pasted letters - better change one or two words!

I would not recommend copying and pasting mine: I wrote my own, and some of the information is very specific to Pembrokeshire, as Stephen Crabb and I have exchanged e-mails about ID cards and Withybush Hospital before. It's very much a "me" letter. But it's good to send unique messages if you have time.

This is what I wrote:


Dear Mr Crabb,

I gather that tomorrow there is a debate in Parliament regarding the English Libel Laws and I am writing to you to ask you to support their reform.

At present, England's libel laws are infamous for being by far the most costly in the world, and for the burden of proof being shifted to the defendant. This gives particularly wealthy individuals and corporations a hugely unfair advantage, and means that individuals fear to speak openly about large-scale problems to avoid bankruptcy. This is the kind of mentality which was last week taken advantage of by Trafigura and their law firm Carter-Ruck in their attempt to prevent the media from reporting a question by N Paul Farrelly of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

In the case of science and health science especially, silence is extremely dangerous. Science can only progress through open criticism. The efficacy of a medicine, for instance, cannot be determined by court action, but only through fair trials and also fair presentation to the public. Using libel laws to repress such individuals as Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre creates an environment in which evidence matters less than money and fear.

If scientists had not spoken out, for instance, the drug Thalidomide would not have been removed from the market. It was also, I believe, the ability of individuals to speak out which has so far saved Withybush Hospital from being closed via the back door.

The campaign Sense About Science has raised interest in individuals from all three major political parties. Please support a change in the libel laws of this country.

Many thanks for your time in reading this.

Yours sincerely,

Alice Sheppard


Thanks for that about the Thalidomide, Simon, I'd forgotten! About the scientists speaking out, that is. Come to think of it there was a recent article about how difficult it is for Thalidomide people to live today: one lady has a yearly grant which about 90% of went towards a specialist wheelchair.

Prevention of ghastly situations like that is better than having to manage them - since cure is not an option. Whether it's a question of drugs on the market, or whether it's some other industry keener on making money than on evaluating their own treatment's effectiveness and safety, scientists need to speak out. Go on, write to them now.

The Back Knight's First Practical

Continuing the very bogus story co-authored by Crispian Jago . . .

Scene 3

The Back Knight has finished his apprenticeship and is now setting out to seek patients for his clinic, which Sir Simon (as I am told is now his nickname!) is destined to mess up a little later. He enters a hospital laboratory . . .

BACK KNIGHT: Old woman!

DENNIS: Man.

BACK KNIGHT: Old man, sorry. What doctor works in that office over there?

DENNIS: I'm 37.

BACK KNIGHT: What?

DENNIS: I'm 37, that's not old.

BACK KNIGHT: Well, I can't just call you "Man" -

DENNIS: You could say "Dennis".

BACK KNIGHT: I didn't know you were called Dennis!

DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?

BACK KNIGHT: I did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind, you looked -

DENNIS (pushing aside his trolley of petri dishes): What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.

BACK KNIGHT: Well I am Supreme Healer . . .

DENNIS: Oh, Supreme Healer, eh, very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the patients! By 'anging onto unproven unscientific dogma which perpetuates the health-related and educational differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress -

WOMAN: Oooh, at any rate there's some lovely samples 'ere. (Sees BACK KNIGHT.) Oooh. 'Ow d'you do?

BACK KNIGHT: How do you do, good lady. I am Palmer, Knight of the Spinal Patients. Whose office is that?

WOMAN: Knight of the 'oos?

BACK KNIGHT: The Spinal Patients.

WOMAN: 'Oo 're the Spinal Patients?

BACK KNIGHT: Well - we all are. We're all Spinal Patients. And I am your Supreme Healer.

WOMAN: Didn't know we 'ad a Supreme Healer. I thought we were a medicine-based hospital.

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a chill of libel-fear. A suing-happy market force in which the uneducated patients -

WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing education into it again.

DENNIS: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would listen -

BACK KNIGHT: Please! Please, good people, I am in haste. Who works in that office?

WOMAN: No one works there.

BACK KNIGHT: Then who is your chiropractor?

WOMAN: We don't have a chiropractor.

BACK KNIGHT: What?

DENNIS: I told you. We're a scientific teaching hospital. We take it in turns to act as a sort of lecturing professor for the week.

BACK KNIGHT: Yes.

DENNIS: But all assignments by that professor have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

BACK KNIGHT: Yes I see.

DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely routine medical practices -

BACK KNIGHT: Be quiet!

DENNIS: But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more complex -

BACK KNIGHT: Be quiet. I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN (laughing): Order, eh, 'oo's 'e think 'e is?

BACK KNIGHT: I am your Supreme Healer!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't accredit you.

BACK KNIGHT: You don't accredit Supreme Healers!

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become Supreme Healer then?

BACK KNIGHT: The Magic of the Spine. (Singing voices) The nerves clad in the purest shimmering Innate Intelligence, held aloft the revelation from the bosom of the body signifying by Divine Providence that I, Palmer, was to realign your vertebrae. (Singing stops.) That is why I am your Supreme Healer!

DENNIS: Listen. Strange vertebrae lying in spines distributing innate intelligence has no scientific basis in medicine. Supreme bodily health derives from a killing of the invasive microorganisms, not from some farcical subluxatic ceremony.

BACK KNIGHT: BE QUIET!!!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme medical reputation just because some wonky spine blew a pop at you!

BACK KNIGHT: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went round saying I was a magician, just because some vaccine-denying twit had lobbed a farce at me, they'd put me away!

BACK KNIGHT: Shut up, will you? SHUT UP!

DENNIS: Oooh, now we see the suing inherent in the system.

BACK KNIGHT: SHUT UP!

DENNIS: Come and see the suing inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being supressed!

BACK KNIGHT: Bloody skeptic!

DENNIS: Oooh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that, did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about - you saw him supressing me! You saw it, didn't you?


For Crispian's Monty BCA works, see here and here. These were my inspiration . . .

The Back Knight's Mentor

A completely bogus tale. My representations of historical characters are also entirely bogus and used only for convenience ( for instance, Hahnemann sounds like he had a point that medicine of the time was pretty gruesome and unhelpful).

We apologise for the fault in the history. Those responsible have been sacked.



Mind you, acupuncture bites Can be pretti nasti . . .

Scene 1.

The Back Knight to Be, a young servant of alternative medicine practitioners, rides along behind King Hahnemann through a great deal of fog, until they come upon a large hospital. Hahnemann reins up.

HAHNEMANN: Whoa there!

RECEPTIONIST 1: Halt! Who goes there?

HAHNEMANN: It is I, Hahnemann, healer of ills, from the temples of water. King of the Treatment, defeator of the poisons, sovereign of all healing!

RECEPTIONIST 1: Pull the other one!

HAHNEMANN: I am! And this is my trusty servant Palmer. We have ridden the length and breadth of this land in search of doctors who will join me in my practice at Leipzig. I must speak with your Chief Executive and doctors.

RECEPTIONIST 1: What, treatment with dilutions?

HAHNEMANN: Yes.

RECEPTIONIST 1: You're using water!

HAHNEMANN: What?

RECEPTIONIST 1: You've got vials of plain water and you're shaking 'em together!

HAHNEMANN: So? We have shaken till the snows of winter are not this pure. Through the principle of like with like, through -

RECEPTIONIST 1: Where'd you get the medicines?

HAHNEMANN: We found them.

RECEPTIONIST 1: Found them? In water? The medicines are insubstantial.

HAHNEMANN: What do you mean?

RECEPTIONIST 1: Well, water's a non-medical drink!

HAHNEMANN: A molecule may move south with the sun, or the hellebore or the cinchona may seek wetter climes in vials. Yet these are not required to be present!

RECEPTIONIST 1: Are you suggesting that molecules migrate?

HAHNEMANN: Not at all. They could be carried.

RECEPTIONIST 1: What! A water vial carrying one molecule?

HAHNEMANN: It could replicate it by the shape.

RECEPTIONIST 1: It's not a question of replication. It's a simple question of dilution ratios. Five hundred vials of water cannot carry one molecule of cinchona.

HAHNEMANN: Well it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your bosses that Hahnemann from the Practice of Leipzig is here.

RECEPTIONIST 1: Listen, in order to maintain an effective trace of hellebore, a vial needs to contain 43 parts per million. Right?

HAHNEMANN: PLEASE!!!

RECEPTIONIST 1: Am I right?

HAHNEMANN: I'm not interested!

RECEPTIONIST 2: It could be carried by a contaminated vial.

RECEPTIONIST 1: Oh yeah, a contaminated vial maybe, but not a diluted one, that's my point.

RECEPTIONIST 2: Oh yeah, I agree with that . . .

HAHNEMANN: Will you go and ask your bosses if they want to join me in my practice at Leipzig!?

RECEPTIONIST 1: But then of course contaminated vials could contain anything.

RECEPTIONIST 2: Oh, yeah . . .

Hahnemann and Palmer give up and turn to leave.

RECEPTIONIST 2: Wait a minute! Supposing two substances replicated it together?

RECEPTIONIST 1: Naaaah, they'd have to be RNA.

RECEPTIONIST 2: Well, simple! Just use a bit of engineering!

RECEPTIONIST 1: What, held under the leaf of hellebore?

RECEPTIONIST 2: Well, why not?


Scene 2.

Hahnemann and Palmer ride away from the hospital, rather disgruntled. As they do so, they go past the mortuary.

MORTICIAN: Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead! (etc)

. . .

As Hahnemann and Palmer go past.

GUY WITH DEAD RELATIVE: Who's that then?

MORTICIAN: I dunno. Must be in alternative medicine.

GUY WITH DEAD RELATIVE: Why?

MORTICIAN: Hasn't got patient notes all over 'im.

Related posts: The Back Knight.
P.S. Yes, I am perfectly well aware that molecules do move around, or perhaps "migrate" - I challenge you to think up a better line!

Bloggers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your ignorance.

Well, Simon Singh won!

That is, he has been granted leave to appeal against Judge Eady's ruling on the meaning of his article. The actual appeal, let alone the libel case itself, have not yet gone through. Nevertheless, Mr Justice Laws couldn't have improved things any more than he already has. For example, he rules that the narrow, twisted interpretation of "bogus" ascribed by Eady - an interpretation Simon would have had to defend, which he did not mean and even the BCA did not hear as such - was a) giving too much weight to reputation and not enough to freedom of speech, and b) as the supercool Edd points out, contravenes Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If you haven't already caught up with Simon, you can read Jack and Crispian's reports (sensible and silly respectively, both wonderful in totally different ways!), and Simon's statement.

What with this today, and the success of the Twitterverse yesterday in toppling Carter-Ruck's outrageous injunction, it's been an astonishing week for free speech. A cliche I hope not to get dragged into using too often, but I'd say it's also a historic week for the online community. Many commentators and articles are saying of Twitter and blogs: we did it, we did it! Richard Wilson's banana cake is probably the most famous banana cake ever to have burnt on the surface of the Earth; and the Guardian certainly fulfilled Cantankerous's hilarious predictions of a front page article! (Their total list of relevent articles is rather huge - nevertheless the editorial, and a report on Peter Bottomley reporting Carter-Ruck to the Law Society and asking Gordon Brown to investigate the situation, are probably my favourites.)

Richard Wiseman's Banana Cake, uploaded with kind permission! Good luck with your protest tomorrow, by the way - I wish I could be there, and I wonder if banana cake (hopefully not burnt) will become a national symbol and end up being eaten traditionally on protest days? I hope the bananas are Fairtrade!

As I remarked yesterday, I believe that in both cases the online community was a major catalyst in the sudden clearing of the silence-or-punishment clouds this week. Sure, bloggers can't influence the judges. But we can make others aware of issues which the powerful attempt to hide; we can give heart to the punished and the silenced; we can raise large campaigns, indignation, and petitions such as the Sense About Science one which led to interest from all three main parties. In both cases, laws themselves are being challenged. Laws which are heavier in this country than many: Carter-Ruck and their client Trafigura have attempted to silence Dutch and Norwegian media over Trafigura's activities, and the Norwegian press have simply gone ahead and published anyway!

But here in the murky, law-yoked UK, BBC Newsnight is still being sued, with astonishing claims of "irresponsibility". I was open-mouthed when I read that. If it is irresponsible of BBC Newsnight to announce to the world the harm the dumping of the sludge, then how responsible is it to do this dumping in the first place? Take your pick which is more responsible - look at the first link in this paragraph, and then at this document, which might be the Minton Report and sets out very, very clearly and simply the chemistry, laws, and health effects of these substances. The possible-Minton-report certainly downplays the health effects in comparison to the BBC, who report three deaths, and many miscarriages among women. How can £1,000 each, allegedly for hmmm-might-have-been-linked-thought-we-don't-think-so-diahrroea, etc., possibly compensate for deaths and miscarriages?

So, as you see, this is not just about freedom of speech, but its uses. Once or twice, disgruntled forum users have accused me of having no respect for freedom of speech when I have removed their obscene posts from the Galaxy Zoo Forum. I see a certain similarity with those who pry into the private lives (such as the breakdown of marriages) among the famous - which is what the laws protecting privacy were originally intended to address: a self-interested lack of distinction between what one feels like saying, and what desperately needs saying. Abuse of the former can end up backfiring and harming the latter.

It is a curious irony that huge corporations, which affect so many people's lives, but don't have feelings of their own, are often awarded so much more legal protection than individual people. Personally I would say there is seldom a case for writing reams about somebody's divorce. But when is there ever a case for a huge, powerful corporation being able to do harm in secret?

One good thing about Twitter is that it acts as a filter as well as a catalyst. Dross is ignored while good posts and articles are tweeted and retweeted: so much of what I read is what I would never have discovered without Twitter. The public's abilities are proven by citizen science and their contribution to the online world. In my opinion, we have proved that we can not only take a stand, but take a good quality stand too.

Therefore it is our responsibility to keep taking more stands. Carefully, choosily. Not in such a way that would get us all shut down too soon: that could all too easily happen. Not in a way that reduces free speech to "something we should have because we feel like it", though in many cases that is also true. Above all: something people have fought for, died for, endured prison and torture to get: because without talking openly about important things, no problems can be solved and no society can function. Historically it was students who led campaigns. Now us bloggers too are a force to be reckoned with. Let's connect, unite, and use our strength well.

But we mustn't forget that tomorrow . . .

. . . it is Simon Singh's oral appeal against Eady's ruling.

The courts will, from the sounds of things, be packed. Jack has asked people not to blog or tweet live in court, as it will be seen as discourteous and won't help Simon. I wish I could be there. Or at least that my penguin galaxy could go along for me instead . . .

I wonder if the last two days' furore over Trafigura will affect the mood of the proceedings? (Three more interesting Guardian articles: "Twitter can't be gagged"; "Trafigura gag unites house in protest", and "A few tweets and freedom of speech is restored".) Carter-Ruck hasn't done a great job of proving the benefits of enforced legal silence. We've just emerged from a battle in which the whistleblowers were the heroes - and I see Simon as a whistleblower, too.

On this neat round-up of the story, one blogger leaves the worrying question in the comments: will this blasting of privacy for the privileged simply mean it'll be even easier for the government to make individual members of the public targets to this sort of thing too? Hmmm, it's a possibility, I suppose. But on the other hand, perhaps privacy versus publicity isn't the only deciding factor, but powerful versus not. Judge Eady invariably seems to rule on the side of the rich or powerful: the Guardian won over Nightjack; the BCA were favoured over Simon Singh. So Nightjack's privacy which was so essential to keeping the public informed about the police was not respected (shame on the Guardian! That spoils my enjoyment of their victory now); while the BCA was ruled to be perfectly at liberty to prevent a journalist from accusing them of not offering their patients the best treatment.

The privacy of an individual person is quite a different thing from the accountability of a large corporation whose activities affect the lives of thousands. A corporation is, I would say, capable of doing vast amounts more damage than an individual human, yet it, itself, has no personal feelings to be wounded as individual humans do. It's ironic how much more gently the corporation is treated.

But I hope it's now clear that corporations and large associations simply have to be written about. That Simon is given credit as one of those who upheld such a principle. And that it's remembered that without people like the twitterers, and like Simon, how much further and how deeply the balance of power would be shifted towards the corporations who may simply make well-meaning mistakes, or may damage, exploit, and even murder, at will.

So I picture it as being into an unexpectedly charged atmosphere that Simon goes into court tomorrow. Maybe I'm wrong and it won't make a blind bit of difference. I expect we'll find out soon. Whatever happens, though, it's only going to be another beginning. He has a long way to go.

So it's not too late to sign this.

Catching up on back issues

I'm afraid my brain has gone to porridge since coming back from holiday and I missed a chance to write up the latest on Simon Singh and the fight with unjust libel laws. So I'll just post the recent highlights - I've been goaded into it today by reading several tweets (have found nothing official yet, so I am merely presuming and hoping it's true) that he's a) won the James Randi award and b) going to be a dad! Many congratulations Simon and family - have a galactic rose from your supporters at Galaxy Zoo.


(Credit: SDSS telescope, reference number 587728676861051075.)

Recently, Richard Dawkins was a guest speaker at the Liberal Democrat conference, and the result was that the LibDems have made reforming libel laws one of their policies! This was very encouraging, and you can find more here. The Guardian did a great job writing it up, emphasising the inappropriateness of trying to stifle criticism - the health of good science - by law, money, and fear. The Liberal Democrats evidently "proposed reforming the libel laws by shifting the burden of proof towards the plaintiff". Whoopee! (Cynically, I am more encouraged by the symbolism than the hope that they'll get elected and put it into action themselves. The sad thing about that party, in my personal view, is that for every election they lose, they drop the very policy that made me vote for them, or hope they'd win before I was old enough to vote. Examples include proportional representation and the 50% tax for the highest earners.) Anyway, it's a great speech and I thoroughly recommend a read, if you didn't at the time.

It contains many sinister reminders of how thoroughly money can stop mouths, and in London worse than anywhere; the quote I would like best to share with you is this:

Homeopathy is obvious nonsense, and given another two minutes I could prove it to you. It can even be damaging, if it lures patients away from seeking the best, evidence-based medical advice until it is too late. Yet before saying a thing like that, I have to look nervously over my shoulder, intimidated by the notorious English libel laws. The biologist Olivia Judson wrote last week in the New York Times: Several times this summer, science journalists in London have leaned over to me and said something along the lines of, "I was thinking of writing," and gone on to describe an article that was going to be critical of someone. "But then," the speaker would gloomily conclude, "I thought to myself, 'Simon Singh,' and I decided not to."

The article, written of course in the States, an outside perspective, is here - and excellent. Well said, Olivia Judson. There's also a good article about Sile Lane in the Irish Times - who, as they say, started off with an interest in stem cells to fight lung cancer, but has now ended up running the "Keep Libel Laws out of Science" campaign.

On a more general note about scientific journalism, Crispian Jago offers a highly useful device for how to create sensational articles as a result of a conference he attended. Very funny, as ever.

It's only 11 days to go until Simon's oral appeal now. Things should start getting extremely interesting again soon. This is a matter of great importance to the future of science in the public eye, and in public health and education too. Which will win, power and money, or the best truth science can find? If you feel as I do, please sign in support of Simon Singh and freedom of debate in science here.

Scene 4: The Back Knight. Dedicated to Simon Perry, Crispian Jago and Simon Singh.

An extremely bogus representation of the Adventures in Nonsense carried out by Simon Perry in the wake of Simon Singh, inspired (if after a 2.5 month-long pause) by Crispian Jago. Thank you and all the very best to all three.

(Sorry for the excessive colourfulness, but I found it was easier to read that way. I'm just not giving up my Pleiades.)

Enter PERRY and PATSY.

PERRY walks ahead, carrying a briefcase; PATSY walks behind with a camera and clipboard. They overhear howls of pain and soon come upon a chiropractic practice named "The Back Knight". After a few minutes a patient stumbles out rubbing his back. BACK KNIGHT watches him go with a stern expression. PERRY and PATSY examine numerous claims in the windows.

PERRY (to BACK KNIGHT): You practice on the strength of many claims, Sir Knight.

Silence.

PERRY: I am Simon Perry, interested in trading standards.

Silence.

PERRY: I seek the finest and the bravest chiropracters in the land to join me in my quest for science.

Silence.

PERRY: You have unproved claims! Will you talk to me?

Silence.

PERRY: You make me sad. Come, Patsy.

PERRY and PATSY attempt to enter the practice. BACK KNIGHT spreads his arms to block their entrance.

BACK KNIGHT: No scientists shall pass.

PERRY: What?

BACK KNIGHT: No scientists shall pass.

PERRY: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must investigate your evidence.

BACK KNIGHT: Then you shall waste your time.

PERRY: I challenge you, as an honest man, to prove that!

PERRY points at a large banner claiming that manipulation of the spine can cure toddlers' asthma.

BACK KNIGHT: I prove for no man.

PERRY: So be it!

PATSY backs off and starts taking photographs and scribbling down frantically everything on the window. PERRY's briefcase springs open by magic (accompanied by battle-style music) and out shoots a scientific journal in which a blind trial finds no evidence that chiropractic helps infant asthma. It blazes a laser-like beam at the window advertisement. Another laser-like beam emits from inside the practice, carrying a bulletin of blogs, advertisements and other unconvincing sources of evidence to fight PERRY's journalistic weapon. After a few flashes of light, etc, BACK KNIGHT's weapons puff out and his advertisement falls crumpled to the ground.

PERRY (at door): Now stand aside, worthy advertiser.

BACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a displaced vertebra.

PERRY: A displaced vertebra!? Your advert's off!

BACK KNIGHT: No it isn't.

PERRY: Well, what's that, then?

BACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.

PERRY: You liar!

BACK KNIGHT: Come on, you traditionalist!

More light flashes from inside the practice and out whooshes a soppy anecdote of a mother whose child's crying and bed-wetting improved after a session of chiropractic, the two events which she links with gratitude. A volume of statistics and the method for a blind trial shoot out of PERRY's briefcase. They do battle, and the anecdote crumples on the pavement beside the advertisement.

PERRY: Victory is mine!

PERRY turns away momentarily, calling Trading Standards on his mobile.

PERRY: "We call thee, Lawrence, because in your district . . . Ouch!"

BACK KNIGHT picks up a lawyer and hits PERRY with him.

BACK KNIGHT: Come on then.

PERRY: What?

BACK KNIGHT: Sue at you!

PERRY: You are indeed genuine, Sir Knight, but your science is wrong.

BACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough courtrooms, eh?

BACK KNIGHT throws a brief at PERRY. PERRY starts to look slightly annoyed.

PERRY: Look, you stupid woo-woo, you've got no claims left.

BACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.

PERRY: Look!

BACK KNIGHT: It's just a subluxation.

BACK KNIGHT throws the lawyer at PERRY.

PERRY: Look stop that!

BACK KNIGHT: Skeptic. Skeptic!

PERRY: Look I'll have your reputation.

BACK KNIGHT throws a judge's wig at PERRY.

PERRY: Right!

PERRY darts into the practice and comes out with a business card which titles BACK KNIGHT as "Dr". He throws it to PATSY. Immediately a distant condemning-sound horn blows, green lights flash and a medical definition of "Dr" appears in the air. BACK KNIGHT's lawyer suddenly starts to look nervous, puts his judge's wig and briefs back in his briefcase, and scuttles away leaving BACK KNIGHT looking distinctly off balance.

BACK KNIGHT (fearfully): Right! I'll do you for that!

PERRY: You'll what?

BACK KNIGHT: Sue you!

BACK KNIGHT makes as if to run after his lawyer, who is by now out of sight. He turns back to PERRY looking hopping mad.

PERRY: What are you going to do, practice on me?

BACK KNIGHT: I'm infallible!

PERRY: You're a loony.

BACK KNIGHT: The Back Knight always cures! Have at you! Come on then . . .

PERRY looks up at the sky. Huge brilliantly-lit diagram-ghosts of bacteria, viruses, multiplying cancer cells, crowded conditions and poor hygiene zone in on the last remaining large claim in the window, which quotes from Daniel David Palmer that 99% of disease is caused by displaced vertebrae. Within seconds this last advert crumples and falls to the floor.

BACK KNIGHT (pleasantly): All right. Direct your questions to the BCA.

PERRY: Come, Patsy!

Exit PERRY and PATSY.

BACK KNIGHT: Oh, I see! Running to scientists, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll sue your legs off!

At this point a black-robed group of faith healers go past, hitting their noses so as to have something to heal, and a reversal of time takes place in order to take us to Scene 5, The Scientist Trial by Crispian Jago.

Adventures in Nonsense, Correlation, and Pity

I am having great fun reading the excellent blog "Adventures in Nonsense" by Simon Perry, he who, unknowingly along with Zeno, sent the 500 individual complaints about incorrect claims made by chiropracters. I was very interested to read a reply he received from a "Dr" Paul Homoky in response to a request for this evidence chiropractic claims to have that it treats colic.

Read the post and particularly the letter here.

In the comments especially, the question is emphasised: Are they claiming to treat colic or not? The chiropractors say no, we're not. But it seems that there is a claim on their website that colic may improve after treatment.

First of all, colic probably improves after treatment because colic goes away on its own anyway. A blind trial would demonstrate whether it goes away faster or more commonly (or what have you) following chiropractic than following no treatment, or some other treatment. I am sure such a trial would have been unearthed by now if there were such results?

But there is an interesting point raised here. Scientifically, a lot of things can happen in conjunction. Place a beaker of cold water over a Bunsen burner flame, and you'll find after a while that there's a lot of steam in the air. Therefore, the Bunsen burner flame gives off steam? No, of course not, the water does. The two do happen in conjunction, though.

Or take the case of a patient with anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome and a general feeling of ill health. The doctor prescribes an antidepressant for the anxiety. The anxiety diminishes - and the irritable bowel syndrome and general health also improve. The antidepressant was not prescribed for the physical symptoms, but it did end up affecting them. Improvement in one thing may lead to an improvement in others. The mind and the body work very much together: it is all too well known in the teaching profession that teachers suffer from illness in the holidays because their bodies hold it off until they have time to be ill. (Or, if the stress overcomes them, they get ill a lot during term time.)

It's all a bit like this great XKCD comic, Correlation:

I have the feeling that if we had a well-educated, scientifically aware and confident public, there actually wouldn't be a problem with presenting the case scientifically. Get some treatment, and your general health is likely to improve. As things are, there are just too many problems associated with that.

For one thing, chiropractic is not as risk-free as claimed. For another, it's operating as a business, and therefore it should be subject to the same standards as other businesses. I remember an incident when I was very little: I noticed an advertisement on a shop sign saying "A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play". I remarked to my mother that surely that wasn't true. She said indeed not, and they had in fact been prosecuted for saying it.

"Dr" Homoky challenges Simon Perry with the statement: "I wonder if you have applied the same rigorous analysis to a wide range of medical treatments which are provided by medical doctors on a daily basis—many of which are proven to be ineffective, unnecessary and/or carry a high risk of negative outcome." The difference is that this is well known and acknowledged. If I go to the doctor and am prescribed a medicine, they say, "Make an appointment for a week's time, and tell me how you're getting on with it. It's different for everyone. If it doesn't work for you, we'll try something else." A good doctor will discuss an operation with a patient and their family before they go ahead with it, so that they know the outcome may not be what they want. Traditional medicine does not claim to provide miracles.

A patient is a vulnerable person. They're often tired, their minds are seldom at their best, and they may be lonely and very stressed and unhappy. That, I believe, is at the heart of what's wrong with the government's great idea of providing "choice for patients". I know what it's like to be severely ill, and the last thing you want then is to have to make choices. If the patient chooses, they're still responsible and in charge just when they need a break. It also means that if they make the wrong choice, the outcome is their fault - I can't think of anything that would make one more bitter about lasting ill health. If you really are ill, you need someone knowledgeable to take over. I don't make these statements lightly; not only have I experienced serious illness but come from a medical family.

Chiropracters are posing as these knowledgeable people. A suggestion that they will help your screaming baby's colic sounds like a godsend. And that's why more care is required: they're not addressing a scientific journal, but often very tired people who want quick remedies and often lack knowledge. Ah - how very convenient.

According to the e-mail Simon Perry received, knowledge is none of the public's business. "I’m afraid I won’t be sending you any information . . . I was happy to provide details to the Edinburgh Council as they requested, but this is, quite frankly, our business and not yours." Not to mention criticising Simon Perry's not talking to him whilst making it clear that he's far too busy to talk!

I also couldn't help noticing that behind the very friendly, polite tone of "Dr" Homoky's letter was the tactic of guilt trips. "My new wife and I have had our first baby, and we would like to enjoy his beautiful entry into the world. Please do not send any further emails to me." He's made it clear he's not on leave, he has the time to be practicing, so the implication is that Simon Perry is preventing him from enjoying his baby by e-mailing. This "poor little me, my feelings are so hurt" attitude seems to be the reasoning behind which the BCA sued Simon Singh, too. Diana Wynne Jones has written a wonderful book "Black Maria" about how people use guilt to control others!

In effect, it's using weakness as a weapon: not countering an argument, but "You wouldn't stoop to hurt me, would you?" Now I'm being very naughty to go down this route, but I suspect clashes between this approach, and the more straightforward battling one, is one symptom of cultural clashes. When I was 21 I lived in southern Spain, and it was well known that the Spanish and the Moroccans didn't always get on. I hadn't been there long when I noticed that, while the Spanish often enjoy a shouting match, the Moroccans tended (no, I am not saying "exclusively Moroccans" or "they always did this" - I don't want to judge or generalise, merely to report something I spotted over 10 months) to use the weakness approach, particularly in facial expression. It was only days before I found that the less help I asked for, the more determined I was to settle my own problems out there, the more the Spanish bent over backwards to help me. They admired independence. This snippet has no relevance to the BCA or the e-mail other than entertainment, and the tentative suggestion that it's a cultural difference. Science enters straightforward battles. Chiropractic says "Poor little me". What do you think?

All in all, I can't resist quoting just once more from Ben Goldacre's wonderful article that led to my previous post: "You may view this as bullying individuals, and initially I had some sympathies. But my heart was hardened." Poor Little Me is not a statement of competence or truthfulness. Would you put your health in the hands of a doctor who refused to give you information but only asked you to protect him? I don't think so.