Simon Singh to appeal libel decision

Simon Singh has decided to appeal the grossly unfair and astonishingly illiberal ruling from Sir David Eady in the libel case over an article he wrote in The Guardian newspaper brought about by the British Chiropractic Association.  The charity Sense About Science working with Simon Singh are launching a campaign to highlight issues raised by this case, I will be adding my name to the great and the good who have already signed the statement below, I hope you will too.

This is a risky and brave decision by Simon Singh.  There is no guarantee that he will win, British libel law is notoriously unfair, with success often decided by wealth than by ideals of fairness.  Nevertheless Simon Singh must be supported, science and science communication depends on the free and frank exchange of ideas and accepting criticism is a necessity, not a choice.  All too often we have seen those who peddle pseudoscience, nonsense and bogus treatments resort to threats and actions involving lawyers and libel in attempts to silence their critics.  A clear message needs to be sent that those who care about evidence, science and free debate will not stand for such behaviour.

The campaign website is below:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate

Sign the Support Statement.

Also, download the campaign button and add it to your website.

A rolling update of the blogosphere’s reaction to Simon Singh and the BCA is kept by Chris Kavanagh here.

The law has no place in scientific disputes

We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children’s ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Signed

Derek Draper is unfit to practice psychotherapy *update*

Derek Draper, educationally diminished psychotherapist, is all over the political blogosphere and Sunday papers today (Times and NoTW have all the detail) for his involvement in a campaign, organised by a government official – Damian McBride to smear several opposition politicians over allegations of sexual health problems, drugs and prostitutes, affairs, outing a homosexual, and the mental health of a politicians wife.

This blog isn’t particularly interested in the prurient details of the allegations, nor the politics that gave rise to a planned campaign to use them – while disgusting and despicable in their conception and planned utilisation they are not atypical of the depths the political blogosphere occasionally plumbs*.  I am, however, interested in Derek Draper’s involvement, the man is a psychotherapist with professional responsibilities and privy to the confidences of his clients who need to trust in his credibility, judgement and demeanour.

Guido and I have already shown that Draper’s qualifications are not as he has stated, his MA is in Psychology not Clinical Psychology – an important difference when you consider that Clinical Psychologists are statutorily regulated whereas Psychologist is an unprotected title, and I have repeatedly asked him to correct this on his personal website.  He has repeatedly ignored this request and resorted to threating me with his lawyers by way of a response.  It is also clear that Draper is happy to promote misleading and nonsensical advice on his website as well as displaying an acute lack of expertise in public pronouncements on gender differences and history, amongst others.  Now it seems he has reached a new low.

Iain Dale has reproduced an email that clearly shows Drapers involvement with and support of McBride, including an express desire to cover these stories on the Labourlist website, of which he is editor.

These are absolutely totally brilliant Damian.

I’ll think about timing and sort out the technology with Andrew this week so we can go asap.

Do we want to tip off anyone about Red Rag having set up? Walters? I could do it and say LabouLlist had been sent the link anonymously.

PS Don’t forget LabourList Damian!

Draper insists on his website that he is professionally competent and that he is

[...] a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) and adhere[s] to their ethical framework (PDF)

I have previously complained about his breaches of this ethical framework in relation to his qualifications but this latest scandal is far more damaging, there was no allegation that Drapers qualifications rendered him unqualified to be a psychotherapist, his latest actions suggest he is.  While ordinary members of the public, bloggers, and even government advisers are free to behave publicly and privately as they choose within the bounds of the law, those who sign up to membership of a professional organisation are making a formal acknowledgement that they are committed to upholding a stated standard of conduct and practice.

The BACP demand that their members display the following personal moral qualities:

Empathy: the ability to communicate understanding of another person’s experience from that person’s perspective.
Sincerity: a personal commitment to consistency between what is professed and what is done.
Integrity: commitment to being moral in dealings with others, personal straightforwardness, honesty and coherence.
Resilience: the capacity to work with the client’s concerns without being personally diminished.
Respect: showing appropriate esteem to others and their understanding of themselves.
Humility: the ability to assess accurately and acknowledge one’s own strengths and weaknesses.
Competence: the effective deployment of the skills and knowledge needed to do what is required.
Fairness: the consistent application of appropriate criteria to inform decisions and actions.
Wisdom: possession of sound judgement that informs practice.
Courage: the capacity to act in spite of known fears, risks and uncertainty.

Draper’s involvement with McBride’s planned smears do more than question his sincerity, integrity, respect, humility, competence, fairness, and wisdom, they firmly dissociate him from these traits.  How can one of Drapers clients look him in the eye knowing that he has no qualms about smearing somebody over allegations about their sexual health, morality, sexuality or mental health?

He has signed up for a set of standards in his role as a psychotherapist that he ignores as a blogger removing any pretence at sincerity.  His integrity is compromised by his dishonesty and lies over his relationship with McBride and his misrepresentation of his qualifications.  He has shown no respect to the targets of McBride’s smears, preferring instead to express his glee and support.  He has no humility, no understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses by his involvement in this affair.  No competence, not just in his ignorance in newspaper profiles, but in his failure to understand appropriate behaviour.  His fairness is clearly questionable as he is happy to smear individuals over problems that he would be demanded to be considerate of in a professional capacity.  His wisdom is lacking as his poor judgement in supporting McBride, and his attempts at legal bullying, shows.  Perhaps, charitably, the only traits above Draper displays are resilience and courage, but probably not in the manner the BACP expects.

Derek Draper has been walking a tightrope between his activities as a blogger and his practice as a psychotherapist, a few months a go he would have been well advised to choose between one or the other so as to avoid situations that might challenge his professional activities.  It is now too late, his involvement as a semi-official Labour blogger is almost over, his fitness to practice as a psychotherapist certainly is.  In my opinion he has brought the profession into disrepute through his actions, something the BACP take strong views on:

A finding of bringing the profession into disrepute signifies that the practitioner has acted in such an infamous or disgraceful way that the public’s trust in the profession might reasonably be undermined, or might reasonably be undermined if they were accurately informed about all the circumstances of the case.
A finding under this head must amount to ‘disgraceful conduct in a professional respect’.
This involves consideration of three elements:
Conduct that is regarded as ‘disgraceful’ need not amount to moral turpitude or be restricted to acts of serious immorality.
The conduct must have had some connection with a professional role in order to be considered as falling ‘in a professional respect’. It ought not to be concerned with matters that can reasonably be viewed as solely personal and private.
Conduct ‘in a professional respect’ is not confined to the pursuit of the profession in question.
What is not considered to be disgraceful to an ordinary person may be considered to be disgraceful to a professional person.
A finding of bringing the profession into disrepute will result in withdrawal of membership.

Draper has used his psychotherapy practice to offer opinions to newspapers and frequently as a shield to avoid criticism.  That he has not mentioned it in the McBride affair is irrelevant, he has firmly associated himself with psychotherapy in the media.  Furthermore, it cannot be argued that his involvement with McBride was personal and private as it concerned attempts to smear public figures in public forums.  That his behaviour is disgraceful is beyond dispute, even to ordinary people, let alone professional persons – one only has to look at the outrage expressed on Labourlist.

I strongly encourage anybody named as a target by McBride, and any concerned members of the public,  to submit a complaint to the BACP regarding Draper.  I also encourage Draper to show some semblance of professional responsibility, if only in the dying of his career, by resigning from the BACP and publicly stating he will not continue to practice as a psychotherapist.

* Although the involvement of government officials really is profoundly sad, government should be above this, there are considerably more pressing issues that they should be concerned with.

thanks to Guido and Petra.

update
Dr Petra Boynton has put together an excellent analysis of just why a psychotherapist should not be smearing people in the manner Draper has and the issues this raises for the regulation of psychtherapy.

But what do you do with this latest case of Mr Draper? That’s taken us to a whole new level where someone isn’t just speculating on a case study. From the media coverage of this case it appears Mr Draper is endorsing invented scandals to be used within a media context to discredit people.

While the media’s been obsessing over blogs and politics I think they’ve missed a major shift within ‘media therapy’. We’ve seen therapists speculate and judge to benefit their own careers, but now we’re seeing the potential case of them creating problems in order to benefit themselves AND which have the ability to deliberately harm others.

I wish there was another way of looking at this case, but I can’t see it. And it scares the hell out of me.

[BPSDB]

Matthias Rath plans to illegally spam every politician in the the EU with the help of his supporters

I received an astonishing email this morning from the European Referendum Initiative (ERI), the Matthias Rath funded organisation working with alternative health groups and, in the past, MEPs.  In this email the ERI detail their strategy for emailing every single MP in Europe with an automated campaign of spam in favour of no regulation of vitamin supplements*.

Jeremy Sherr – in breach of Tanzanian law?

Jeremy Sherr, the homeopath who is carrying out homeopathic trials on AIDS patients in the developing world with the support of the homeopathic establishment, believed he was justified in his actions on account of a recently passed bill in Tanzanian law*.

Sigs explained about the Tanzanian law that support homoeopathy and other traditional medicines; Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act No. 23 of 2002. You can read it on

http://www.lrct.or.tz/documents/23-2002_The%20Traditional%20and%20Alternative%20Medicines%20Act,%202002.pdf

Sigs has been the main force behind this law, and he made sure that it was done properly and safeguards homoeopathy and just about every other major alternative medicine. It is a major achievement. This law is very important, because without legal backing from the government nobody wants to know. But once it is clear that we have government backing the staff is very interested. And once Sigs tells them about his clinic treating up to 100,000 patients a year, mostly for malaria, they are also very impressed.

Derek Draper – quack in a spin *updated 3 times*

After a couple of really rather charming emails from Derek Draper I have made a couple of modifications to this post.

You may remember that the BBC disgracefully employed the services of a quack psychoanalyst who, overcome with delusions of competence, blurted out inappropriate, unfounded and irresponsible comments on the mental health of the prime minister, Gordon Brown.  Now it turns out that the Labour Party are employing the services of a quack psychoanalyst of their own, former spin doctor Derek Draper, with all the problems that come with quacks.  Such as honesty over qualifications.  Derek Draper in a recent Guardian profile claimed to have a MA in Clinical Psychology from Berkeley, University of California.  Guido Fawkes has been doing some digging and found out that Mr Draper has not been entirely honest.  It turns out that Berkeley have no record of Derek Draper and, as The Guardian report today, he actually received his degree from a private institution, the Wright Institute, which does not offer full time degrees, which no longer runs a full time MA, and has no affiliation with Berkeley, merely sharing a neighbourhood.  Derek Draper admits that while the Wright Institute have no academic connection with Berkeley “I did have the use of the facilities at the Berkeley campus.”, but his use of the gents at Berkeley has not prevented him from implying that he studied there on his website.

Jeni Barnett’s MMR scaremongering – the role of homeopathy *update*

As you may be aware there has been a bit of bother in the bad science blogosphere after lawyers for LBC radio demanded that Ben Goldacre remove a lengthy excerpt of the Jeni Barnett show posted as an example of media irresponsibility over the health issues arising from MMR scaremongering.  Despite taking the clip down the threat of legal action still hangs over Goldacre’s coiffured curls and he has posted a spirited defence of his actions on his blog.  Despite the attempts of LBC lawyers to protect their copyright, coincidientally at the same time Jeni Barnett posted a couple of rather ungracious responses on her blog, the excerpt in question has been posted to wikileaks and a transcript of the show is now available online (links, along with other blogs covering this, at the end of this post – the Streisand effect in action).

There is much to discuss with respect to this post, the legalities of copyright, there is the responsibility of broadcasters to public health, the willingness in which ignorant individuals issue uninformed opinion in the public sphere, the collision between old media attitudes and new media realities, and the complicity of the media in the falling MMR vaccination rate amongst others.  These issues are being covered by other blogs and in the comments to Goldacre’s posts so I will focus on a particular vice of mine.  Homeopathy.  While bloggers and others are justifiably getting angry at Jeni Barnett and the media over this issue I think it is important to look at professions that feed and grow strong on such public emanations of ignorance and doubt.

Ben Goldacre and The Guardian triumph over murderous Matthias Rath

Matthias Rath, a vitamin pill entrepreneur, has pulled out of his attempts to sue Ben Goldacre and The Guardian newspaper for libel.  Rath claims that his vitamin supplements can reverse AIDS, that his pills are better than conventional AIDS treatments and actively campaigns against the use of drug treatments for AIDS patients in the townships of South Africa.  The Guardian published columns from Goldacre criticising these claims so Rath decided to silence this criticism in the generous libel courts of Britain.  The Guardian, to their immense credit, have spent £500,000 defending Goldacre against this malicious action and yesterday’s victory is a fantastic triumph for free speech.  Before you read further I urge you to click on the following links to appreciate just how egregious the actions of Rath were.

The libellous Simon Singh article on chiropractors

Update

Thank you reddit users. You can find out how to support Simon below:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate

Sign the Support Statement.

Also, download the campaign button and add it to your website.

==================================================================================

Here is the full unedited version, as published by The Guardian, of Simon Singh’s article that was critical of chiropractors and is subject to legal threats by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) as reported by Holfordwatch and the Quackometer. I have added the evidence to support Singh’s claims.

Chiropractors sue Simon Singh – prefer legal action to evidence

Via Holfordwatch and the Quackometer I have learnt that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) are attempting to sue Simon Singh for libel due to allegations contained in an article he wrote “Beware the Spinal Trap”.  This follows attempts by chiropactors in New Zealand to sue David Colquhoun after he criticised their lack of evidence in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

Dore UK go into administration?

Dore UK have posted this on their website:

It is with great regret that we have to announce that Dore has been put into the hands of advisors. As a result Dore is closing all of the UK centres which deliver the Dore Programme with immediate effect.

We are determined to find a way for every client who is on the program to have their treatment completed. We are presently exploring alternative arrangements to ensure every client is cared for.

We will be updating this page of our website every few days with news regarding alternative arrangements for continued programme delivery so please check frequently.

We still want to help people to identify any learning difficulties they may be struggling with, so we are continuing to make our online symptoms test available. We will provide you with a personal report that outlines any learning difficulty and the likely severity.

I will post in more detail tonight with analysis of their financial situation as it is clear Dore have only been surviving for a number of years by their creditors (most likely Wynford Dore) not calling in the debt. In the mean time if any ex-Dore staff or clients would like to leave comments or contact me (gimpyATgimpy@hotmail.co.uk) then feel free. I will provide a round up of other sites covering this as and when they do. If you can then I recommend that you seek legal advice if you are owed money or have paid for treatment you have not received. Dore did not publicise the Australia situation and some creditors may have lost out. Don’t let it happen to you. The Citizens Advice Bureau is a good starting point.

I am really sorry it ended like this.

*update*

Holfordwatch has posted on this
as has podblack

Quackometer silenced!

I have a confession to make. I find the tawdry spectacle of the Diana death inquiry quite fascinating. On the one hand we have evidence from numerous witnesses which stands up to fiercely objective scrutiny and on the other we have the ridiculous conspiracy theories of a bereaved father. The believability of the claims from all sides is rigorously investigated and eventually, one hopes, the truth of the matter will become clear. Essential to this process is the fact that all arguments are subjected to equal scrutiny and assessed by a panel of jurors.

The bereaved father has a long history of writing letters to newspapers and hassling pillars of the establishment to support his lurid allegations. However far from being silenced by the sinister hand of the state he, as his is right, is allowed to make baseless claims with little fear of sanction. However, he is being derided as a clueless fantasist utterly bereft of reason and decorum over his beliefs and nobody in their right mind takes him seriously any more. Now imagine if he could censor these opinions and prevent free discussion purely by the act of penning an angry letter, allow his conspiracy theories to propagate unchallenged? Would we want to live in a society where emotional fantasists can silence criticism and delusional beliefs go unchecked?

Are Dore in deep finanical doo doo? *updated*

Dore, the dubious dyslexia people, have recently come under criticism from brainduck and holfordwatch for publishing their research claiming to successfully treat Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) in the mighty Leamington Courier rather than a peer reviewed journal. Holfordwatch and Brainduck are very critical of the research methodology, the sample size and the ethics of advocating unproven treatments while charging hundreds of pounds. However there are more serious concerns about Dore.

Joseph Chikelue Obi is a quack, a fantasist guilty of serious professional misconduct, unfit to practice medicine and he hates the Quackometer

Joseph Chikelue Obi MD MPH FRIPH FRCAM FACAM MICR is very obviously a fantasist quack who has been sacked for professional misconduct and suspended by the GMC, taken advantage of a poor widow and is in charge of an imaginary college amongst other misdeeds. So why bother with such an obvious charlatan? Well it turns out that being an obvious charlatan is no barrier to the suppression of free speech on the internet. The Quackometer penned a couple of highly critical, although absolutely not defamatory, articles on Mr Obi a while back and now Mr Obi has taken a leaf out of the Society of Homeopath’s book in an attempt to censor the Quackometer. This attempt has been successful with the Quackometer having had to take down the relevant articles. However, this isn’t an example of a professional organisation, which loosely and arguably the SoH are, trying to prevent criticism, this is an example of a spineless hosting company, netcetra, caving into the demands of charlatan who is attempting extortion.

The Society of Homeopaths (try to) silence criticism through cowardly legal means (and fail, miserably)

In August Le Canard Noir of the Quackometer posted a blog entry accusing the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) of having little interest in enforcing their code of practice. After randomly picking a SoH registered homeopath Le Canard Noir was shocked to find that the homeopath was in clear breach of SoH code of practice. Recently the SoH have attempted to silence Le Canard Noir’s criticisms by targeting, not the Duck, but his web hosting company. The implications of this action are described here, Le Canard Noir’s explanation here, and here is the cached version of the offending entry. Considering my earlier post on a homeopath undertaking gynaecological examinations and not taking an apparent tumour seriously it is deeply worrying that the SoH would rather suppress criticism through legal means than examine the conduct of their members.

Update:

Oh dear, look what the results of searching for The Society of Homeopaths on Google turns up

DC has covered this too jdc325 as well The Voyage conspiracy factory replicates

and Andrew Clegg turns up on nnseek too Ithika has the links tobascodagama A thoughtful post from sciencepunk

and here badchemist joins in The Bronze Blog house of pancakes
and here Shpalman has fun poor pothecary skeptico joins the fun pvandck

Rob Hinkley too twonilblankblank has the links nana mirrors PowerUp

A day at the pharmacy replicate this blog The ‘Amazing’ Randi takes note (and buggers up the link)

Orac as well PJ invites the SoH to pucker up unfiltered perception sceptiphrenia The Millenium project

Coracle expresses displeasure PalMD coracle does some more apathy sketchpad helps out

Skeptical dog too Be lambic or green A night on the tiles matheru’s blog Skeptix

Inalienable rights do it Sunclipse Gas Clioaudio Action Skeptics Hyperactivity-stage help out

In case the cached version of the article disappears I have reproduced it below: