Unity republishes Simon Singh’s article in a Spartacus move:
So as the call has gone out from Sense About Science, asking bloggers to reproduce the article for which Simon Singh is currently being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association then, of course, I’m more than happy to oblige.
Much as I dislike our libel laws and much as I believe the BCA’s action is misplaced, I will not be joining this one.
In part, this is because I am not moved by Singh’s piece. He starts by referring to claims made for chiropractic in its early days. Yes, well, contemporaneous conventional medicine was hardly perfect. Sure, there may be some chiropractors making silly claims, but mine has never made any such; merely that he can (and does) ease my back pain.
Singh then goes on to cite one specific case as an example of what can go wrong and an inference from several hundred others according to Edzard Ernst. Again, similar can be said of conventional medicine. So what? Is chiropractic dangerous? This is what he appears to be inferring and presumably this blanket inference is what has got him into trouble. If his claims are true, there would be thousands of chiropractic patients dropping dead from strokes caused by neck manipulation. As this is not happening – and I have not yet dropped dead as a consequence of such manipulation – I can only conclude that Singh is exaggerating. As with conventional medicine, there will be poor practitioners, quacks and the occasional mishap.
Singh and his co-author Edzard Ernst have both published articles in the Groan and during the subsequent discussions I have noticed contributors offering anecdotal evidence from their own experience, having despaired of conventional medicine’s failure. Experiences similar to mine. This however seems not to move Singh or Ernst, who clearly have an agenda.
I can only go by my own experience here – since seeing a chiropractor, my migraines have decreased dramatically. Twice my chiropractor has managed to resolve problems beyond the ability of my GP – in one instance he diagnosed correctly when she did not. Comparing my experience with the statements made by Singh and Ernst, I am inclined to dismiss their claims as exaggeration at best.
So, on balance, for back pain, in my experience chiropractic can be effective. Singh’s dismissal and attempts to slur a whole profession based upon outdated claims and a few hundred cases is not something I am prepared to support. At best, he is overstating his case, at worst, it probably is libellous.
Sorry, this is too good to resist although I am busier than loading jackrabbits onto a flatbed right now with all the combining (oats, wheat, barley,) anyway:
When the state at the behest of the professions conspires, for lack of a better term, at sole licensure, it is at bottom a matter of monopoly.
This in turn is a function of rationing and in all cases, not just of “national” health services as for example American conservatives aver.
They forget conveniently that their own “health-maintenance” organizations (HMOs) ration services and decree which practitioners one may see and so forth.
When there are downturns in the cycle, the pressure for protective governmental swaddling from “the professions” comes into play, as it does from all of the clientles of the prebendary state.
The manifest concern — they say — is for the health of “the people,” who in this narrative are treated as such doltish products of government-run “education” that they will, one and all, poison themselves with over-the-counter vitamins, and die in their hecatombs of cancer as a result of misplaced chiropractic.
The structural drive, however, is to maneuver a position in which the allopaths will /also/ prescribe — and, hence get their cut — vitamins and chirporactic.
All of this at correspondingly “professional” prices — which we are “assured” “assures” “quality” and “the people’s health.”
Of course, it also prices these adjuncts out of the direct reach of the many, as well as much the rest of institutional, professional and “ethical” medicine — Mr Singh, I am sorry to say, is a cunt and shill.
(As well, “Edzard Ernst” rather obviously is not…English.)
This is a very difficult area. I was once on the Standards and Ethics Committee of the British Association for Counselling (now British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy). We had some very troublesome complaints to deal with – mostly by trainees against their trainers – some of which turned out to be completely unfounded. I have not been a member of that association for some years, and it is still in negotiation with equivalent bodies and the government about a statutory regulation scheme.
However rigorous training standards are, it is inevitable that some unsuitable candidates will slip through the net and obtain a qualification they are unfitted for. But on the whole I am inclined to think that self-regulation, if honestly and conscientiously applied, is preferable to state regulation because all too often it is clear that government-appointed regulatory bodies require regulation themselves.
Oh, absolutely and this will always be the case in any profession. I agree, self-regulation is a preferable option to government regulation – after all, MPs have conclusively demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves, so are hardly the people to legislate on regulation for others 😉 Besides, government legislation and regulation is likely to be top heavy, over burdensome and incompetent.