General Chiropractic Council admit chiropractors may be ‘bogus’

You may be aware that Simon Singh, the science writer and broadcaster, has been a victim of Britain’s odd libel laws and Judge Eady’s creative interpretation of the word bogus over an article he wrote for The Guardian.  Outstanding legal pillar of the sceptical community and blogger JackofKent describes Eady’s interpretation of bogus as follows:

The word “bogus” meant deliberate and targeted dishonesty. So it did not mean that chiropractic for the six named children’s ailments (including asthma) was simply wrong, or that it was contrary to established medical practice or research, or even that it completely lacked evidence.

“Bogus” meant a lot more. The judge held that by the mere use of the word “bogus” Simon Singh was stating that, as a matter of fact, the [British Chiropractic Association] BCA were being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for those children’s ailments.

JackofKent continues:

The ruling means that, as it stands, Simon Singh would have to prove at full trial that the BCA were being deliberately dishonest. This is not only extremely difficult but it was undoubtedly not Simon Singh’s view in the first place. The BCA, as with many CAM practitioners, may well be deluded, irresponsible, and sometimes rather dangerous; but calling their promoted treatments “bogus” was not an express statement of their conscious dishonesty.

Interestingly it appears the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), regulators of the profession, have used the word bogus to describe some practitioners, their 2003/4 report begins:

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has spent a year working hard,maintaining momentum and keeping focused. Like all health regulators the GCC has a statutory duty to set standards of education,conduct and practice and maintain a register of appropriately qualified and experienced practitioners. It is,in part,through regulatory mechanisms that the public is protected from the bogus,the incompetent,the dangerous and the unprincipled health practitioner. Even though such individuals crop up relatively rarely we must identify and deal with them promptly,openly and firmly.

We can argue over the precise definition of the word bogus and the context the GCC used it in but it is certainly a term chiropractors have used self-critically, thus acknowledging its validity as a descriptive term for at least some chiropractors.

So how many bogus chiropractors are out there?  Well thanks to the Quackometer on the 5th of June we may just find out, so if you know a bogus chiropractor then tell the Quackometer.  After all the GCC admit they exist.

*update*

Posted something on an ASA judgment on a chiropractor’s claims today.

[BPSDB]