The BCA announce their "plethora" of evidence

Quite an eventful day in blogland. I really have nothing to add, and lack the expertese so to do.

That won't prevent me from talking at length, however, as people who have met me will attest.

Anyway, other (actual expert) bloggers have already reviewed the BCA evidence and the legal position much better than I could hope to do (see links below).

NOTE FOR ANY LAWYER REPRESENTING THE BCA: THE BELOW IS OPINION ONLY, AND IN NO WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT FACT OR THE PRACTICES OF YOUR CLIENTS. USE OF THE WORD "BOGUS" IS MERELY IN REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT CASE, AND IN NO WAY REPRESTENTS MY OWN VIEWS: IT IS USED MERELY IN A SATRICIAL CONTEXT.

The BCA statement appears to be exactly what I expected it to be: largely irrelevent, biased, and not based on good research. It appears to have been hastily put together by people with no real grip on evidence-based research (according to the people who have cast a glance over it in the blogosphere, anyway). That's odd, because the BCA, according to their own rules, value evidence-based research: so why don't they quote anything of value?

In my opinion, the BCA really ought to cut their losses and run. The publicity they are generating about their profession seems to be overwhelmingly negative. After a prolonged internet campaign for them to back up their views with evidence, they can produce nothing of substance. Meanwhile, they are being commented on in many blogs, and in mainstream newspapers. What can they possibly gain from all this negative commentry? They could have prevented this merely by asking a reputable scientist what the value of their evidence actually was before they published it, and dropping the case.

I mean: who cares about a Guardian article? People with long hair, beards, and sandals, surely? I read "The Times": I wouldn't ever have known about it if they hadn't sued.

Even if they win the libel suit against Dr Singh, surely the exposure of their claims to peer review will damage them far more than any possible gain they could acheive?

I really don't understand what they are doing.

Neither, it appears, do the BCA. They say that they never wanted this to end up in court: yet they launched a libel action. As Jack of Kent eloquently points out: if you launch a libel suit, it's very possible that it'll end up in court. That's kind of the point, after all. If you disregard the other reasonable avenues open to you - such as the right to reply in the same publication (the mention of which is noticably omitted from the BCA's recent press release) - then if you didn't want to end up in court, then why did you go to court?

The BCA's press release also claims poverty: yet they have no problem launching a libel suit in the UK: which is the most expensive country in Europe (by a very long way) to launch such a suit. If the members of the BCA were not seriously questioning the management of the organisation before now, then they surely must be after this (latest) debacle.

Analysis of the BCA statement is available from Jack of Kent (legal stuff), Ministry of Truth (science stuff), Lay scientist (more science stuff), and Professor David Colquhoun (detailed science stuff, with links to more science stuff).

I'd lend the BCA a leg to stand on, but I only have the two myself, and I dislike hopping.