The BCA continues to stun people

The British Chiropractic Association continue to make themselves look incredibly bad. Their recent press release is really amazing. They are currently suing Dr Simon Singh for libel over an article he wrote in The Guardian newspaper.

The BCA's response has been amazing. Firstly, they sued a science writer for stating a scientific opinion. That in itself is bad enough, but now, according to them, they have "disclosed to the Courts a plethora of medical evidence showing that the treatments work and that the risk associated with the treatments is minimal, if indeed any risk exists at all."

Really? If this evidence does exist, as they are claiming, then surely it was available a year ago, when Dr Singh wrote his article, and his book on the subject was published?

So why have the BCA never published this before? You'd think they would be keen to promote and back up their views with solid evidence. If good evidence had been around at the time, then Dr Singh would surely have included it in his analysis: he is a very thorough scientist, and his book seems to have been very well researched.

Why have the BCA submitted this evidence to the court? Why not to the general public and the scientific communities as well, so that it can be subjected to the normal peer-review process? It seems very odd that a "plethora" of evidence exists, and yet nobody outside the BCA seems to be aware of it.

The rest of the BCA press release seems equally odd. They make various claims about Dr Singh (such as he has refused to answer questions about which studies he has reviewed) which seems strange. Why would a scientist refuse to answer questions on the research he studied? What is the quote? What's the context? We are not told.

We are, however, given a quote, purportedly from Dr Singh:

His attitude is best exemplified by his statement to the BCA when the association tried to find a sensible compromise. Dr. Singh said that he would continue to litigate because “I’ve got the time and I’ve got the money.”

How many questions are there here? What would the BCA consider a "suitable compromise"? We're not told what their proposed compromise was, so there's no way to tell if it was reasonable or not.

I'm sure he will be happy to retract his statements as soon as the BCA allow him access to the "plethora" of evidence which nobody except them has ever seen before, if it is as good as they claim that it is. He is, after all, a scientist, and cares passionately about evidence-based evaluations.

As for the quote from Dr Singh: what's the context? What else was said around that? It doesn't sound much like the Dr Singh whose books I have read and who I heard speak in person on this issue a week ago. All I can tell for sure is that the context of the quote is missing. I wonder why that could be?

The questions all remain:

• Why did the BCA sue, instead of engaging in debate, as would be normal practice when discussing the effectiveness of a treatment?
• What is this evidence which they claim to have, and why haven't they shown it to anyone outside the court?
• What has happened to the leaflet that the BCA published, promoting spine manipulation for the treatment of cholic in children? Why was it seemingly withdrawn?
  
• Why don't the BCA comment on the seemingly withdrawn leaflet, and whether it still supports those claims? Especially in light of the recent ASA ruling about a Chiropractor, dissected there by legal blogger Jack of Kent and here by writer and comedian Dave Gorman.
  
• Why are they pursuing a seemingly aggressive campaign against Dr Singh, while still refusing to provide any good evidence to support the effectiveness of their treatment of cholic in babies by spine manipulation?
• Why have they launched a libel case in an attempt to silence a critic, and then claimed that this is not a freedom of speech issue, when they had other courses of action open to them?

The case continues.

Important questions

Following on from my post about Saudi Arabia's treatment of women, I was intruiged to find a site which gives various Fatwa (judgements on points of religion by Islamic scholars). Browsing the "selected fatwa" was quite amusing. One wonders what the criteria are for selecting these questions of huge importance.

For example: are you allowed to have silk curtains? To which the answer is "yes", but you can't have carpets with 50% or more silk in them. Obviously. Oh, and you can't have wall hangings or clothes made of silk. That's sinful.

The guy who wants to know if it's OK to take photos with women is in for a shock: "Image-makers will be in Hellfire, for every image they made, Allaah will create a soul that will keep on punishing them in Hellfire." With digital cameras, the soul factories must be running overtime these days.

You'll be happy to hear that it is permissable to show your elbows while praying (if you are a man). Other good news includes the fact that it is OK to wear a condom, as long as you don't do so with the intention of completely preventing pregnancy. I know I always wear a condom to only partially prevent pregnancy, so I think I'm good on this one.

Both men and women cannot dye their hair black. Though women are allowed to use other colours - with their husband's permission, naturally.

Apparently it is not compulsary to have sexual intercourse on the first night of marriage: well, not compulsory for the husband, anyway. If he wants to then it is compulsary for the wife.

But women don't get all bad news: they are allowed to study English Literature and other subjects, as long as they are accompanied by a man when travelling to her exams or otherwise leaving the house.

Finally, and most importantly for women, it is permissable for a man to take penis enlargment pills. Oh, but they mustn't pluck their eyebrows, as that would be sinful.

I simply do not know how I got by without this sort of advice before now.

London Police

It's been a while since the G20 and the death of Ian Tomlinson, but new video footage of the police behaving appallingly continues to surface, from the minor (but illegal) act of refusing to identify themselves to the more serious acts of police assault (towards the end, one officer appears to knee a protestor in the family jewels, and all the officers appear to be trying to cause serious danger to the crowd by repeatedly crushing them into a confined space).

If you can get over the annoying middle-class-teenage-whinyness in the voices of those taking the video footage, then there's serious issues here, and I shouldn't have to point them out. But I will anyway.

The police must be accountable for their actions, and they must remain neutral at protests. It's not their job to interfere with a peaceful protest, and it's certainly not their job to assault people who are doing nothing illegal. They are there to keep the peace in a neutral fashion.

When did police assault become an acceptable tactic for policing peaceful demonstrations?

It's odd that the police attacking hippies and students is now kind of common place and seen by many as just another demo.

I've never been to a major demo, though I would have been to the one prior to the invasion of Iraq if I hadn't been ill. Normally I simply whine a lot, which makes me feel better for much less effort. But now I'm waiting for somebody to organise a demo specifically against the London Police, so I can attend.

I figure I may as well exercise my right to peaceful protest while I still can. But if I'm near the front, I'll be expecting to get a few hard knocks from the police, even if I do nothing but stand still.

It's sad that while I still have the right to protest, I am a little nervous about actually doing so. But maybe that's the whole point.

Scary.