April Fools Day. What a great day this is.  A sunny, bright fresh day, and to boot we have news that science writer Simon Singh has won his libel appeal agianst the British Chiropractic Association. Dr Singh was sued for libel by the BCA over an article he wrote that questioned the scientific basis of some of the claims (wide and varied that they are) that chiropractors make.

Rather than engage in reasoned debate, and you know, maybe take part in a scientific study or two, the Chiropractic governing body took a leaf out of the American textbook and launched a court action, claiming that they had been accused of dishonesty.

Dr Singh. a writer with no large paying membership to fund expeditionary court proceedings, was forced into hock to defend himself, and was assisted by charitable donations from those keen to defend his freedom of expression.

Fortunately, the Court of Appeal had no time for the BCA’s bullying of a journalist, and declared his right to make “fair comment’.

I am delighted.  Everyone should have the right to question claims made by therapists, some of which are outrageous, without fear of receiving a court summons, the aim of which is not to establish the truth, but to force the defendant in to submission.  I have always supported this right and encourage people to question the validity of all “healing” treatments, including my own.  But then I don’t claim to be able to cure colic (chiropractic), or increase fertility (acupuncture).

So, there you go, the British Chiropractic Association have been declared by the Court of Appeal as the official April Fools!

BBC story is below (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm)

A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.

Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008.

Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions.

The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion – meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence.

‘Meaning of words’

However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had “erred in his approach” last May, and allowed Dr Singh’s appeal.

Dr Singh described the ruling as “brilliant”.

He said: “It is extraordinary this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words.”

In the article in April 2008, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims over conditions such as colic and asthma.

The British Chiropractic Association alleged that Dr Singh had effectively accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.

The case has become a cause celebre for science journalists and led to calls for defamation law to be rewritten so it would not intefere with scientific debates.

Standard of proof

Tracey Brown, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Libel Reform, said: “We are delighted with the judges’ ruling, but it does not go far enough.

“There is a cardiologist currently being sued by a device manufacturer, we have researchers who have been unable to publish their critique of lie detector technology because of threats of libel action.

“A major science journal is also currently being sued and our academics are being told to pull down blogs.”

BBC News correspondent Pallab Ghosh says that, had the High Court ruling stood, science journalists would have required a very high standard of proof to defend libel cases.