…my advice would be to politely decline. If the books they return are as overdue and in as bad condition as the evidence they provide, you’ll be in for a hell of a fine.
The British Chiropractic Association have released a statement (PDF file here) in which they attempt to refute Simon Singh’s claims that there is “not a jot of evidence” supporting the use of chiropractic therapy as an effective treatment for various ailments.
The blogosphere really is a wonderful place. Once again, I’ve left it till almost midnight to start writing this, but luckily there are many splendid folks out there who’ve already done the hard work for me of analysing what the BCA have said. I will properly look it over tomorrow, to make sure I’m not just swallowing whatever I’m told blindly and uninformedly, but these people know what they’re talking about in this area much more than me. So, a round-up of what the usual suspects have been saying about this:
Jack of Kent remarks on the fifteen-month delay between the publication of Singh’s original article, and the BCA’s eventual reveal of the data which they consider most strongly supports their case. He’s also unimpressed by the disingenuous nature of their comments about not wanting this dispute to “end up in the courtroom” – what exactly did they think was likely to happen when they filed a legal claim?
Particularly since, as jdc325 reminds us, the Guardian offered the BCA a right of reply at the time, and they turned it down, deciding instead to pursue the libel suit against Simon Singh.
David Colquhoun examines some of the 29 references given by the BCA in this paper, and explains why they thoroughly fail to constitute the “good evidence” they seem to think they’ve provided. Studies with no control groups, studies that weren’t blinded, papers that aren’t research papers, papers that don’t address chiropractic manipulation at all… it seems quite a sorry bunch. And he touches on the matter of other studies not mentioned here by the BCA, which were rather better performed, adhering better to good scientific practices, but show no effect more than placebo.
Zeno points out some sections of the General Chiropractic Council’s Code of Practice which the BCA seem less keen to reference, with regard to the nature of chiropractic’s role in “evidence-based care”.
Gimpy takes a detailed look at some more of the papers referenced: “three trials, two of which are very badly designed and one of which is unavailable… this is the equivalent of a child attempting to convince an adult that his colander on a stick is in fact a super intelligent robot, only without the innocence and charm.” Heh.
The Ministry of Truth is, similarly, much more thorough and useful than me, in explaining quite how methodologically poor and scientifically useless the cited studies are – that is, those which are even relevant to the BCA’s case to begin with.
I’m not going to lie to you, I haven’t read this post on Evidence Matters, because it goes on for pages and pages, and just looking at that right now hurts my brain. But they probably know what they’re talking about as well.
I hope Patrick Holford doesn’t get up to anything sneaky while Holford Watch have taken their eye off him to discuss this too.
Aaaaand The Lay Scientist.
If cultivating an understanding and forming some opinions of my own still seems like a good idea tomorrow, I’ll give it a go. Night night.
Buenas, creo que es un fantastico articulo, me ha gustado bastante ,voy a ver si encuentro otros sobre el tema con esta calidad, saludos.