Skip to main content

Stick up for Simon Singh

You may well have come across science writer Simon Singh, probably best known for writing Fermat's Last Theorem.

His most recent book, Trick or Treatment, was a superb analysis of alternative medical practices, showing just what rubbish many of them are. Singh wrote an article (as you do) along the theme of his book and made some negative comments about chiropractors. This wasn't attacking them for what they can do for backs, but rather their claims to be able to help with a whole host of conditions that having nothing to do with the spine - such as colic and asthma in children.

In response, the BCA, their UK national organization, has sued Singh. The first hearing, to determine just what he is alleged to have done, went badly for Singh. The judge decided that Singh's comments were 'statement of fact' rather than fair comment, and that his use of the word 'bogus' meant that he was accusing the BCA of deliberate dishonesty, despite Singh specifically defining what he meant by 'bogus' in the article, and it was clearly something different. Apparently this judgement, which is almost impossible to appeal, means that the actual case will be much harder for Singh to win.

Whether or not you agree with Singh on alternate medicine, it's hard not to see this as a terrible attack on free speech. If you want to follow what's going on, the best way is to keep an eye on Jack of Kent's blog, which is detailing the legal proceedings. There's also a Facebook support group - and if you're in London on Monday (18 May), there's a public support meeting (which Simon and arch-supporter Dave Gorman will be at) at the Penderel's Oak pub at 6.30pm.

I'm appalled, both by the lawsuit (anyone who uses chiropractors should really be thinking 'is it time to switch to an osteopath?' as a result of this action), and by the initial judgement. Spread the word - support this excellent author.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney15 May 2009 at 10:03

    You're right. This is appalling! Can you put on facebook the time of the meeting? I may be able to make it....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg15 May 2009 at 12:37

    Sorry, Sue - forgot to put the time on. Amended above to show it (6.30pm).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lucy P15 May 2009 at 12:49

    hear hear. it's astonishing to me that the libel suit got further than a solicitor's desk, let alone in front of that idiot judge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Bridger15 May 2009 at 13:06

    Thanks for the heads up, Brian.

    You're right - it's appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ms A15 May 2009 at 14:54

    This is totally outrageous. That book needed writing - we need to be able to question medical practice in all formats, especially the kind that costs large sums of money. Simon is a fabulous writer. I'll be signing anything I can to support. Thanks for the head's up Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cromercrox15 May 2009 at 15:02

    The Dark Ages snap once more at the gates.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more