In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science 754
Geoffrey.landis writes 'In Britain, libel laws are censoring the ability of journalists to write stories about bogus science. Simon Singh, a Ph.D. physicist and author of several best-selling popular-science books, is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits. A year earlier, writer Ben Goldacre faced a libel suit for an article critical of Matthias Rath, who claimed that vitamin supplements can treat HIV and AIDS in place of conventional drugs like anti-retrovirals. In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence — any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true. Journalists are running scared.'
Did Singh really say anything bogus about the BCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Singh should argue that in calling the treatments bogus, he could not have libeled the British Chiropractic Association because the BCA is not a treatment, it is an organization. Thus, Singh could only have libeled the BCA (i.e., the members of the BCA) if they did not, in fact, promote such treatements (bogus or otherwise). In other words, Singh can say that he attacked the message (the treatements), not the messenger (the BCA), and therefore cannot be found liable for libel against the BCA.
Would the British courts buy it? I have no idea (INABL). But it seems like a reasonable distinction, one that fits well into wide-spread notions of civility as well as the vigorous public discourse required for the advancement of science.
Re:Did Singh really say anything bogus about the B (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you.
I don't know whether the second part of that is true, but I do know that's not what an "affirmative defense" means. (Well, at least in the US. But the US gets its legal system largely from the UK, so I would be very surprised if it were different.) An affirmative defense is one the defendant has to raise himself.
Take self defense. During an assault trial, t
Re:Did Singh really say anything bogus about the B (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, if I go around Britain saying that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are murdering, blood-drinking, child molesters, I could be found li
Re:Did Singh really say anything bogus about the B (Score:5, Informative)
You got it wrong. In the US, it suffices that you believe your statements to be true. In the UK, belief isn't enough, you need to prove that what you said is actually true (it's this shift of burden of proof that characterizes affirmative defence, afaik).
For example, if I were to say "Techno-vampire goes out to bars dressed in drag", you could sue me for slander. In the US, if I could make a reasonable argument that I believed you to be a drag queen, I'd be off the hook. In the UK, actual proof that you had been in a bar while dressing in drag would be needed to successfully defend myself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did Singh really say anything bogus about the B (Score:5, Informative)
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
Yes, you've pointed it out several times. But, as the GP was saying, you're wrong. The truth is an absolute defence here; you were, however, correct in your OP when you said it is an affirmative defence, i.e. you have to prove it.
See this useful summary [guardian.co.uk]. Relevant quote: "There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true [...]".
In your original post, you say this:
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense.
This is all correct.
That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
But these two sentences are wrong. I believe you misunderstand what an affirmative defence is.
No, this is absolute complete rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there. It is not true.
One counter-reference [swarb.co.uk]
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
Or from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
Now as I'm English I could sue you for saying that ;-)
Re:Did Singh really say anything bogus about the B (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
Yes, it will. Please stop spreading FUD about English law. Proof of the truth of a statement is an accepted defence in English libel law, and every source I see describing English libel law says so. Please provide a direct link and (preferably) quotation of one that says otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That wouldn't work because the courts are already against him on the definition of the word "bogus". He argued that by "bogus" he simply meant that the treatment is ineffective. The courts interpret it as meaning that the BCA is deliberately defrauding people. The first thing Singh did was try and get a higher court to accept his definition; unfortunately, last i heard, his petition had failed.
Of course, it shouldn't really matter which definition you go by - the BCA certainly does encourage ineffective
Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, since I'm not living in a country where kooks and liars are given the benefit of the doubt, let me say quite publicly that chiropractors are frauds, along with naturopaths, healing touch types and all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety of those with more money than brains.
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Informative)
20 years ago I was taking a lot of exams and kept getting really serious neck and head pains when I looked down at the desk. Doctor offered painkillers which worked a little but left me too drowsy to take the exams. He suggested a chiropractor, I went for a single 1 hour session and was cured. I don't have any clue what the guy did, and I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone, but it fixed me. YMMV etc.
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people keep thinking anecdotal evidence has any particular value at all? Science long ago abandoned the idea that reliable and useful data could be gained by "After I did X, Y happened".
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Interesting)
People think it because it often does. Survival of this species has partially depended upon the ability to reocgnize patterns and make decisions with limited information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You mean like "after the development of the automobile, the global climate started getting warmer"? Like "after I crossed one pea having quality X with another pea having quality Y, a pea with both X and Y was produced"? Like "after I mixed solution A with solution B, a yellow precipitate formed"? Like "after I dropped a small marble and a large rock from the balcony of this tilting buil
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
That's correct -- all of those are insufficient to show causality. That's why all of the scientific theories you refer to were confirmed by substantially more thorough experimentation than you suggest.
If Y follows X, it suggests that properly investigating the possibility that X causes Y would be a worthwhile endeavour, nothing more.
In short, you just have a poor understanding of how science is done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The statement was not about causality, the statement I replied to was "Science long ago abandoned the idea that reliable and useful data could be gained by "After I did X, Y happened"". There is a big difference between "proving causality" and "reliable and useful data".
In fact, each of the examples of "I did X and Y happened" are part of "science". Mendel's genetic experiments, analytical chemistry, Galileo and gravity, experimental subat
Re: (Score:3)
A statistically valid measurement for a correlation is certainly an option. That's a study. A study really never properly shows causation, but depending on the hypothesis, you can assume causation or not worry about it. (This is part of why medical studies are difficult -- studies are much easier than experiments, and there are so many coupled variables that simple correlation is of limited help.)
What does sufficiently show causality is scientific experiment, where variables other than the two of interest a
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why do people keep thinking anecdotal evidence has any particular value at all?
Because most people don't have the time/money/resources to scientifically verify everything.
> Science long ago abandoned the idea that reliable and useful data could be gained by "After I did X, Y happened".
Really? Because, last I checked, that's called an "experiment". You may have heard of them, they are the basis of the scientific method, and thus, science.
Science is based on observation. The only difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not as rigorously controlled and analyzed. In particular, not all of the variables involved in the occurrence of event Y are accounted for, so X does not necessarily effect Y. However, a sufficiently diverse collection of anecdotal evidence can be quite reliable. The more cases there are, the fewer other statistically meaningful (non-X) causes of Y. It doesn't replace a proper scientific study, but shouldn't be completely ignored either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is based on observation. The only difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not as rigorously controlled and analyzed. In particular, not all of the variables involved in the occurrence of event Y are accounted for, so X does not necessarily effect Y. However, a sufficiently diverse collection of anecdotal evidence can be quite reliable. The more cases there are, the fewer other statistically meaningful (non-X) causes of Y. It doesn't replace a prope
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science long ago abandoned the idea that reliable and useful data could be gained by "After I did X, Y happened".
But that is where you begin. There is no other place to start.
If you kick a dog and it bites hard into your leg - perhaps you have learned something significant and useful.
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com].
Indeed, all science is derived from inductive reasoning, which is exactly "After I did X, Y happened." It just tends to get more accurate when you do it a bunch more times, and try to control other variables.
It's not really very hard to imagine a chiropractor working for some actual, physical, skeletal/muscular issues. Chiropractic is far from entirely bullshit. It's just that throughout its history, it's also been plagued by the stupid idea that chiropractic can do anything -- all the way back to the anecdotal story of Palmer curing someone's deafness by adjusting their back.
It's kind of like science fiction writers explaining anything they want with "nanotech" or "quantum mechanics" or whatever the Phlebotinum [tvtropes.org] of the day is. It's clearly absurd, and could be considered pseudoscience if anyone took it seriously (which is why it's science fiction), but quantum physics is real, hard science, and we are actually trying to build some nanotech.
Or, as Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] puts it:
Serious research to test chiropractic theories did not begin until the 1970s, and is continuing to be hampered by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine.
I find GP's story entirely plausible, and it's easy to imagine how that might be true. Now, if he said that chiropractic cured deafness, or gave him the ability to walk, or anything like that, I'd be much more cautious...
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't give a rats arse about the science, it works for me. But I have been priviledged enough to have benefited from the knowledge divulged from my father's Chrio back home and you know what, a lot of it makes sense. At the end of the day, the human body is a very complex machine. If your back is out of alignment and you go through life with undue pressure on certain nerves because of the misalignment, one would imagine that the signals could be interrupted and cause problems. Now I'm not going to say that it's the answer for anyone, I'm just going to say it works for me and it's a whole lot more then a bit of "bone crunching".
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Funny)
The reason you should care about the science is that there may be a legitimate, scientific solution that's cheaper and/or healthier.
The problem being that not even science can explain exactly how the human body works. Yes we do have a good understanding, and what research has taken place gives us a plethora of information we can make judgements on, but who is to say whether that interpretation is right or wrong. I have armed myself with quite a great deal of knowledge and made a choice from that. From what I gather, Scientists haven't done enough research to support or deny Chiropractics, so who's to say it's actually bogus. Your right, my guy isn't crazy, I have had assessments from a few over the years, including one that said I was going to have to see him 3 times a week (each visit costing more than the guy I currently see) for at least 12 months rather then the once every other month, sooner if required (which when I spend a weekend working on my car tends to bring that requirement well forward!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is where you are wrong. It is not a fact, it is your interpretation of three facts.
Fact 1: You hurt.
Fact 2: You went to a chiropractor.
Fact 3: You didn't hurt after you went.
You interpret those three facts to assign the cause of the relief to the chiropractor. However, as has been already mentioned, thi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chiropractice is just a massage. It can have beneficial effects if you have muscle pain or joint pain. Has nothing to do with subluxations, of course.
I had a horrible back pain once (strained a muscle). It was cured after two sessions of massage (with a professional massager).
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Interesting)
My own anecdote:
I was helping a friend move, and wrenched my lower back carrying an old, heavy washing machine. I went through hell for about 3 months afterward. I'm not talking about "my back got stiff", or "I had to take 3 Advil instead of 2!" I'm talking about going to sleep at 10PM on a cocktail of naproxen, Flexeril, and codeine, then waking up at 2AM sobbing in agony as someone shoved a rusty icepick into my spine and pried it open.
I saw my family doctor, an osteopath, and two orthopedic surgeons. They were all very nice and sympathetic, but their treatments never got me more than 4 hours of sleep. By the end of the 3 months, I understood why people kill themselves to escape the pain.
My dad suggested that I go to his chiropractor. Dad was a healthy skeptic, but he'd had good luck with the guy and argued that in the worst case I'd be out $20. At that point, I'd have tried just about anything. I went to Dr. Palmer (coincidental; no relation to the quack) and he ran one of those debunked spinal alignment meter things up my back. I rolled my eyes when he told me he found the problem, then told me to relax so he could pop my back.
I don't remember if I screamed or not, but I might've.
Within 20 minutes, the rusty icepick had turned into a toothpick. That night, I got 12 hours of uninterrupted, drug-free sleep, and by the next morning I was completely pain free.
Go ahead and write that off with a smug "correlation isn't causation!" I know that. I also know that one nearly-retired chiropractor probably saved me from killing myself with one single $20 adjustment. Again, if I wasn't clear, this wasn't some subjective case of "it kind of hurts when I do this", but a grown man waking up crying tears of pain after a few hours of tortured sleep. Say what you will about chiropractors in general, but that one specific practitioner knew exactly how to fix what was wrong with me when a lot of other doctors had failed.
I love traditional medicine. I'm an ex-Navy surgery tech, and my wife's a surgeon. My college degrees are in science and I'm about as skeptical of pseudoscience as you can get. The scientist in me tells the naysayers to kiss my butt, because my empirical data from the outcome of that experiment holds more weight with me than the sophistic claims that it couldn't possibly have worked.
No, chiropractors can't cure deafness or appendicitis or pneumonia, and the practitioners who claim otherwise are unmitigated quacks. Still, I'd be the first to testify that at least some of them are very skilled in treating certain very specific musculoskeletal conditions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not possible if you have libel laws at all. With such laws, either:
1) People characterized as kooks and liars accurately are given the benefit of the doubt when they sue for libel (British system), or
2) Kooks and liars whose lying consists of defamatory lying about others are given the benefit of the doubt when they are sued for libel (American system).
The burden of proof has to be somewhere, and whichever side
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a good friend who is a licensed Chiropractor, and also licensed as a family-practice M.D. He fully understands the limitations of Chiropractic techniques and won't hesitate to advise patients go to a medical specialist for any condition he might detect. Additionally, he would never make any claims he knows to be false, for example, that chiropractic adjustments can help conditions like ulcers, or whatever other ridiculous things fraud Chiropractors claim. He advises companies on ergonomics, and frequ
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll go easy on you because you clearly have some emotional attachment to the notion that those con artists can do what you describe they do. But the fact remains they can't. I'm very glad your father lived longer than expected, but it had nothing to do with these people. They are, at best, self-deluded, and at worst, scammers.
And surely you must realize the worst kind of evidence short of fabricated evidence is anecdotal evidence.
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Funny)
And surely you must realize the worst kind of evidence short of fabricated evidence is anecdotal evidence.
You realize of course that you have struck a blow to the heart of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know that. The mind is a powerful thing. There is much that we "wise" sapiens do not understood. There are well established scientific phenomena that could explain such results... for example demand characteristics. Believing in a cure may be more powerful than you expect. There's good reason why many alternative healers believe in what they do.
And surely you must realize the worst kind of evidence short of fabricated evidence is anecdotal evidence.
Careful w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the other 99 times out of 100, the real medical treatment is what gives you the best chance of a cure. And when people are advocating their magic sug
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
We should strive to understand *whether* these things work. The fact that your father lived longer than expected only means that the doctor was wrong, it doesn't mean that herbs did it. It only means that the doctor was wrong, which honestly is to be expected with something as complicated as biology.
If herbs (or whatever) actually have an effect, it should be possible to randomly assign animals with cancer (before the human trials of course) to a treatment and sham treatment group, and observe a statistically significant effect on survival rates. That would be actual evidence that this treatment works. If there is no effect, then there is no "how" to understand.
Chances are your father would have lived longer than expected with or without "alternative medicine". When you think about it, doesn't it disgust you a little that people are profiting off of desperate and vulnerable families when they have no actual evidence that what they are selling works?
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
alternative medicine that works is called medicine
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but you are missing an important point:
Herbs aren't some magical thing, it's a lot of plants.
It's meaningless to say herbs have therapeutic effect.
What can be said is 'This Herb has an effect', 'this herb doesn't have an effect'.
So we can take a herb, run studies and determine an effect. If there is an effect, we can do better tests, and then trials.
When that's done you can dose it, control it, and use it to help people.
If it doesn't have an effect, you discard it and go on to the next one. You don't assign i magical effects and excuse magical thing by says 'Herbs have had therapeutic' effect nonsensical thinking.
That's applying science to get an accurate results and help people.
In fact every drug you take that comes from a herb can be track down to a specific field, and often down to a specific plant.
The crap known as 'Alternative' has no dose control, no quality control on the plant, often have other herbs and materials in them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that we've know the health benefits of quinine since long before "alternative medicine" become fashionable. We've proven it's effects time and time again. Centrum, on the other hand has never been proven as an effective treatment for HIV.
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
My grandfather is dying right now of congestive heart failure (among other things). He was supposed to die in December of last year. He's done absolutely nothing (just called hospice) because he's resigned to dieing (he has plenty of other health issues which prevent any surgery, and his second wife just served him with divorce papers, etc) but he is still alive. Sometimes estimates, even when very close to death, are just wild guesses.
Now if there were things you could do that had a great likelihood of helping people like your dad to live longer, wouldn't you want to know about them? People who lie about treatments make it much harder to get people to the treatments that actually work. They cloud the issues and attempt to make everything look equally acceptable, when that's simply not the case. After all, fraudulent treatments are usually extremely low cost (to the professional 'providing' them, usually not so much to the patient) so the profit margins are insane. If we do nothing about people like this we will be flooded with them.
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
He proved the official story wrong
This seems to be a common theme when people are arguing against science. Because a doctor got it wrong or because the person who doesn't believe in science cannot understand it somehow that is supposed to add to the legitimacy of other approaches.
We should strive to understand how these things work when they do work
In science being right is having the best answer not necessarily having all the answers. All science, including biology, falls within the limits of empiricism when subject to reality (as Einstein might have put it). Unfortunately what you are saying is about as good an answer as flipping a coin. You tell people to look into "how these things work" without proving that they have worked. Hell, you haven't even provided a statistical correlation let alone anything that would constitute proof, all you have given is an anecdote of coincidence. People don't laugh at you because they believe in doctors or scientists they laugh at you because they believe in science itself which as a concept is merely a formula and thus irrefutable.
because we can prove they're lying.
Who is lying, the doctors? You certainly don't offer any evidence that they are, being wrong isn't the same as lying. Maybe you should stop treating doctors as fortune tellers who see the future but instead fallible people who practice empiricism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Delayed? Versus what? A "prognosis", which itself is based on a probability distribution, i.e. "82% of patients with this type of cancer do not live longer than x years"? Your dad could have simply been in that last few percent of cases. Or the doctor could have mis-estimated the size of the cancer or its state of advancement.
In other words you have absolutely no reference point to measure a "delay"
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
MOD UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Great post, and exactly right. These anti-alternative-therapy people keep claiming alternative therapies "aren't scientific", but neither is traditional medicine. Doctors are just trained to compare symptoms with available pharmaceuticals and prescribe something and see if it works. It's totally shooting in the dark, and there's very little work in the medical industry that I see to understand how the body really works and develop safe and effective therapies for problems. Worse, all the pharmaceuticals
Re:MOD UP (Score:5, Insightful)
trying nearly anything beats sitting on your ass and suffering.
Depends. Some "alternative medicine" practices aren't merely useless, they're actively harmful. Further harm comes when people believe they will be magically cured, and ignore traditional medicine entirely, all while illness progresses to the point where some effects are already permanent (or, sometimes, fatal).
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that even though there is evidence that some traditional therapies work, MDs have converted to 80% pharmaceuticals and 20% lifestyle changes, and they are trained in little else.
As an MD, I'll chime in. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and is best addressed by lifestyle changes. The problem with lifestyle change is that most patients are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to change their health. It's that simple. On the other hand, there are certain genetic predispositions that require drugs for supplements if lifestyle change is ineffective: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.
So if you don't want stimulants for your kid with ADHD (now they have straterra, but it isn't very effective), the MD offers nothing else. If you have trouble sleeping, their toolkit consists of hardcore hypnotics. Mild depression or anxiety? All they have are brain-altering and or addictive drugs. Indigestion? You'll probably be on calcium or cimetidine the rest of your life.
I don't deal with most of these, but trouble sleeping, mild depression, anxiety, indegestion, etc. all seem to have a lifestyle component. Now if the patient comes back and says that he/she can't change some lifestyle aspect (eg job stress, home stress, avoiding certain foods, etc), there's not much else to do but try the medications.
I suffered from daily stomach problems for over a decade and saw several MDs and never got anything resolved. The best they could do was cimetidine which barely provided any relief (they found no ulcer, but I had daily abdominal pain). I finally got so frustrated I saw a "quack" licensed naturopath and after cleaning out my diet and replacing my gut bacteria I'm finally pain free. I don't buy into the homeopathy or "cracking your back can cure your asthma" bullshit but thankfully there is exists some other profession that isn't 100% pharmaceuticals.
Looks like you did a lifestyle change. I'm surprised your physicians didn't ask you to take a food diary and go from there.
Re:Well Then (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. The GP sounds like he has a very narrow view of how medicine is actually practiced, probably because he quit going to doctors a while ago.
I don't have what I'd call a "personal physician," but I have a doctor's office that I've been to now and again for various things. Mostly I never see my doctor because I'm a 36-year-old male with few risk factors in my lifestyle or my medical history, and mainly I'm in fine health. When I do see my doctor, the conversation probably lasts about eight minutes. But pretty much every time I've been to the doctor's office, no matter what my problem was, the session is concluded with a few questions, along the lines of: "How is everything else? How's work? Do you like your job? Is it stressful? Do you exercise much?" He clearly understands that there are aspects to human health that aren't strictly chemical.
At the same time, unlike the so-called alternative practitioners, he's willing (and able) to write me prescriptions for real, working medicines when he thinks I'll benefit from them. I caught a sinus infection once that was giving me one-sided headaches that would come on every time I ate and would get so bad that I had to leave my desk at work and lie down. This went on for weeks. By the time someone convinced me to go to the doctor, I was so tired, weak, and sick of pain that I barely bothered to make myself food once I got home from work -- I just went to bed, or passed out on the couch. What could herbal medicine have done for that? It was an infection. What lifestyle change could I have made? But once the doctor prescribed me a course of antibiotics -- the evil, over-prescribed bugbear of the healthcare industrial complex -- I was back up on my feet in less than two days. No more headaches. Problem solved. I kicked myself over how much time I wasted avoiding legitimate medical care.
Another time, I caught scabies, a skin parasite. I have no idea how I got it. But try going online and finding home remedies for it. Find the message boards for "scabies sufferers." The stuff you'll find is frightening: Douse your skin with bleach. Scrub it with rock salt. Scrub it with Comet cleanser. Shave off the affected areas with razor blades. Dig them out from under your fingernails. Find the burrows and dig them out with X-Acto knives. Make your own medicines from ingredients you can buy through livestock veterinary supply wholesalers (I'm not kidding). The actual treatment that most doctors will prescribe is a cream, which you apply to your entire body and leave on for ten hours. This treatment cures as many as 90 percent of patients after exactly one application -- that's right, do it right once and you're cured. Compare that to the suffering that people who don't believe in doctors or medicine might endure.
Do you see my point? No good doctor is going to tell you that every health problem in the world can be solved with medicines. But the alternative, too often, is people who have gotten it into their head that modern medicine is never the solution. I think the latter attitude does people a far greater disservice.
Re:Well Then (Score:4, Insightful)
My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would,
We can't even predict the weather. What makes you think we can predict cancer?
When you are going to die in horrible pain, you stop giving a shit about "truth" and "science", and start looking for anything that works.
I hope I don't, because if the choice is between dying in horrible pain, and dying in horrible pain while pissing away the estate on nonsensical claims...
Now, I'm not going to side with GP on this issue and say that it's all a con or self-delusion... If nothing else, I feel good after a chiropractic session. But I'm sure as hell not going to use it in place of western science, and I'm not even going to consider demonstrable bullshit like homeopathy.
And especially, I am going to make the point to people like you that truth and science are the most reliable way of finding what works -- they are the sum total of what we know to have worked in the past, and they are the reason your dad had a chance at all. Remember, it wasn't the "absurd lying pieces of worthless trash" who removed two-thirds of his liver and his right lung, without which I assume he'd have died much more quickly.
Maybe it was the placebo effect, who knows.
Yes, maybe. And you know what? The placebo effect is measurable. Things which are more effective than that become medicine.
Or for that matter, sometimes things like this -- especially things which aren't fully understood -- seem to clear up completely on their own.
It's especially interesting how you "don't know which delayed his death" -- you're assuming that it was one of them, but you were doing so much that you have no idea what it was. That's about the most unscientific way to do things, even considering you're already an anecdote.
When you live with someone who should've been dead for 3 years already, you tend to look a bit differently at medical science.
Yes -- if I lived with someone who would've been dead three years ago without actual, real, peer-reviewed, government-approved medical science, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for it than you seem to.
I certainly doubt it would give me any sort of belief in medical superstition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, what arrogance. Who the fuck are you to say that those people did not heal anyone? My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would, after having two thirds of his liver and his right lung removed. When you are going to die in horrible pain, you stop giving a shit about "truth" and "science", and start looking for anything that works.
Having family members with chronic diseases has taught me a little about medicine. The first misconception to be dispelled is that medicine is all an exact science. The more complex conditions involve a lot of educated guessing. So when a Doctor says something like one having X years to live, it's not because he's gleened some hidden expiration date stamped on your foot. It's a guess. People die unexpectedly. People survive longer than could be expected. My father-in-law lived for over 30 years longe
Science versus quackery (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, what arrogance. Who the fuck are you to say that those people did not heal anyone?
I'll bite. Among other things I'm a logical thinker and am a trained (though not practicing) scientist. My wife is an MD and we've discussed this very issue many times.
My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would,...
That is a happy state of affairs but your logic is failing you. Doctors are wrong all the time. I know because I'm married to one who specializes in cancer diagnosis. It is an imperfect science and cancer is nowhere near being completely understood. Some cancers regress spontaneously for no explainable reason. Some cancers progress more slowly than average. No doctor can tell you more than a statistical likelihood for time to live and their answer is most likely incorrect - the only question is by how much. If your father sought unproven "alternative" medicines that is his right but the burden of proof is on you to show that they had some effect. I'm not about to assume that some snake-oil works just because some people believe it may have helped without any evidence to back up that assertion. That may sound cold but science is cold in a way.
I know a ton of doctors personally and I don't know a single one that wouldn't use something to save a patient that could be *proven* to work or even had a logical premise for why it should work. All progress in medicine is exploratory and comes about through trying things that we don't know if they'll work. But there is a threshold for absurdity. Claiming that you can cure cancer through chiropractic joint manipulation or acupuncture is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
We still don't know which one of those "absurd lying pieces of worthless trash" delayed his death this much.
Quite possibly none of them. Cancer doesn't always behave the way we think it will. Survival statistics are simply probabilities and sometimes people beat the averages by quite a lot.
Maybe it was the placebo effect, who knows. But do you think we care? When you live with someone who should've been dead for 3 years already, you tend to look a bit differently at medical science.
I have lived with dying people. My wife has worked in a hospice and diagnoses cancer patients daily. It hasn't changed my view on medicine one bit. The human body is incredibly complicated and there is far more that we don't understand than what we do. Getting cynical about medicine because we can't cure or even diagnose every disease is a waste of energy and time. If seeking emotional solace in "alternative medicine" or religion or whatever else help you cope, I guess I can't argue with that. But I certainly can and will argue against quackery because it hurts more people than it helps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe the doctor made a horrible mistake and he didn't actually have cancer at all, but those alternative treatments gave him cancer and hence killed him.?
When the doctor says "you have 3 years to live" he doesn't mean "you will drop dead at this minute on this date in 3 years time" he means "95% of people with what you have die within 3 years, 4.98% die in 3-10 years time, 0.01% drop dead while I am saying this and 0.01% live for another 50 years." (with less made up numbers hopefully...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People are often very polite about Pauling because in other areas he was quite brilliant, but unfortunately he became sort of a Louis Leakey figure in the later areas, and said some rather absurd things.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, hemlock tea mixed with battery acid is far superior to both, and will eventually replace them, assuming that pink unicorns don't start farting pixie dust first.
Your Nobel Prize Awaits! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, naturopathic medicine is not only legitimate, it is superior to and will eventually replace allopathic medicine (mainstream, drug-and-surgery medicine), assuming the Singularity does not occur first.
Glad we had you to clear that up for us. Nice to know that all those incredibly smart doctors have wasted their time and energy and have no idea what they are talking about. I assume you are just waiting for your Nobel prize in medicine because you know better than all of them? Sorry to hear the Nobel committee screwed you again this year.
For proof, read a book or two by Linus Pauling.
Very smart people say very absurd things all the time. Hero worship does not constitute proof of anything.
As for chiropractics, I am not sufficiently informed to make a judgment.
You're pretty clearly not informed enough about medicine to make an informed judgment either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
read a book or two by Linus Pauling
I read "The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals" and "The Architecture of Molecules". Y'know, books on the subjects in which he is regarded as a genius. I can't say either really changed my opinions on naturopathy. Likewise reading "Six Easy Pieces" didn't change my opinions on Feynman's bongo playing.
Britain's legal system is busted (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, everyone in the world knows their legal system is busted. Why do they even have free speech, if they can silence people with lawsuits?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying out libel system is perfect but before i take shit like this from an American can you please look at which country.
1) has news full of rampant lies
2) has a population where 40-45% don't believe in evolution and believe the world was created in its current form
Oh right its the US, but yeah sure, OUR legal system is busted and cripples science journalism! You still have people on your news claiming provably false [politifact.com] things, but yeah WE are the ones with the libel problem!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who said Britain has free speech?
The Human Rights Act of 1998? The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950?
It very prominently silenced politicians from Northern Ireland in the 1990s.
Though the ban on broadcasting the voices of Irish republicans in the late 80s and early 90s was absurd and draconian, I'm not convinced it was all that significant an infringement of free speech - the politicians in question were only "silenced" in a very literal sense, in that people were forbidden from broadcast their voices. They weren't silenced in the metaphorical sense that they could not express their opinions; people wer
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that would indeed be a mistake. Britain is a free, democratic country governed by an unwritten constitution.
Actually, most of the British constitution is written. Starting with the Magna Carta, and continuing right up to the most recent Parliament Act, huge chunks of British constitutional law have been written. AFAIK there are only a few areas that are yet to be codified in a written form, and these basically come down to what extent a parliament can bind future parliaments (generally held to be "n
300 years out of date (Score:3, Informative)
The monarch hasn't been sovereign since 1688 [thegloriou...lution.org].
Presumption of innocence (Score:3, Interesting)
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence
Isn't Britain otherwise pretty anal about the presumption of innocence, to the point that accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press? Why the huge difference for libel?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the huge difference for libel?
There is not a "huge difference". IANAL but my understanding is that the plaintiff first has to prove that they have been damaged (otherwise there is no libel) but that a defence against this is that it is the truth. It is hard to argue that it is not a writer's responsibility to ensure that what they write is the truth if they are passing it off as fact. If they are not sure that they can prove it then they can always qualify statements with things like: "it is my opinion that this is bogus science". If i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't say the rules made sense, I'm just pointing out that "presumption of innocence" and publication bans are for criminal law, not civil - it's apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The law as described here sounds very much on the side of good science.
Unfortunately, that just means the law hasn't been described well enough.
British libel law is abominably poor, and entirely on the side of the plaintiff. For a start, it's easy and cheap to bring a case, but ridiculously expensive - cost often two full orders of magnitude greater than the European average - to defend it. And the judge can easily hammer you with ridiculous interpretations of the original statement, which you're then required to accept. (For example, Singh has been required to prove a claim
We need someone to take them on (Score:4, Interesting)
McDonalds used to sue people who claimed that their food wasn't very healthy, until the McLibel two took them one, and won on most of the points. McDonalds won on a few minor points but decided not to enforce the judgement as that would just give them even worse publicity.
Ben Goldacre on Bad Science at RI today (Score:4, Informative)
Coincidently, Ben Goldacre was presenting at the Royal Institution today on "Bad Science" - poor media reporting of science. You can view the stream from tomorrow afternoon at The Times Higher Education website: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html [timeshighe...tion.co.uk] . Event details for the RI debate here: http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=948 [rigb.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I thoroughly recommend his book, Bad Science, availible for less £5 on some sites.
bah humbug! (Score:2)
so pass a new law! (Score:2)
This seems to be far outdated. Why don't the journalists and media companies simply lobby the legislature to pass a law declaring that the burden of evidence in libel and slander cases falls on the accuser?
It's clearly the more just method, and it works surprisingly well in the US. It's not like there would be popular opposition to such a change. And anybody who complains is just a champagne-sipping bum, anyway!
Not a new problem nor is it just about journalists (Score:5, Informative)
One Of The Reasons For Emigration To U.S. (Score:2, Insightful)
where there is freedom and democracy
Oh wait....
Pax,
Philboyd Studge
I wonder if this is why publications usually state (Score:2)
I wonder if this (legal action from some party) is why publications usually state something along the lines of "However, X has not been shown to have any Y benefits in independent studies", rather than saying "X doesn't do Y".
I can understand why scientific publications don't; they're scientific, after all.. maybe the studies done had flaws, or were inconclusive, etc. But popular media does the same thing.
published speech in Britain = presumed guilty (Score:2)
I watched a riveting documentary called McLibel a few weeks ago about activists who fought a McDonalds libel lawsuit to quell their inflammatory leaflet. Next to the harassment of photographers and the public security cameras it's yet another example of Britain's hostility toward those who exercise their individual rights.
Take the time to watch this important and humble film. [google.com] It shows how capitalism unabashedly exploits plaintiff-friendly British laws to its own ends.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Penn and Teller [wikipedia.org] solved this by calling people assholes (not liars or scammers) and talking about their bullshit (not lies and scams). "Bullshit" is sufficiently (at least in US) vague and opinionated. So: call it bullshit science, written by asshole scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
What constitutes libel in England? (Score:3, Interesting)
The proper way to deal with this (Score:3, Interesting)
Summary incorrect, unsurprisingly. (Score:5, Interesting)
"[...] is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits."
That alone is not why Mr. Singh is being sued. The issue is specifically driven by his use of the word "bogus." The judge has taken it to mean "consciously dishonest." Not just peddling an ineffective treatment, but knowing that it's ineffective and still claiming otherwise. If Singh just claimed it was an ineffective treatment, he would not be criticizing the BCA directly, so it wouldn't be actionable... However, the judge and the BCA took him to be saying that the BCA are knowingly and intentionally dishonest in their promotion of the treatment.
I wouldn't think to interpret "bogus" in this way, but that seems to be the original meaning. I hope the judge realizes Singh was using it in a more modern sense, but if it's interpreted as the BCA claims, then it certainly explains how far this lawsuit has gone, and invalidates many of the comments here so far including the inflammatory summary. Singh can criticize the effectiveness of the treatments to his heart's content, as long as he doesn't accuse the BCA of fraud! You can read some more linguistic analysis of this lawsuit and the evolving meaning of "bogus" over at the Language Log [upenn.edu].
If this is the alternative, I'm against it (Score:4, Insightful)
Having RTFA, I can't help but consider it to be sadly biased.
e.g. One of the criticisms it makes is "in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true."
Maybe I missed something. Isn't this just a perfectly sensible extension of "innocent until proven guilty"? If I call you a thief and you sue me for libel, why should the burden of proof be on *you*, exactly?
What's more, it makes it sound like Singh has made the claim that chiropractors are completely bogus and can't help you with anything. When in fact, what they quote is that he argues there's no evidence to back up claims that getting your bones cracked can help with things like ear infections. Well, that's fair enough. I've been a chiropractor a few times for joint pain. They helped. Would I go to one for ear infections? Like hell would I.
In Britain, if you say "This person is a fake", you have to be able to prove it or you're liable for libel. If you say "I believe this person is a fake", that's a statement of opinion and not fact, and is held to a less rigorous standard. What, exactly, is wrong with this?
If this NY times article is an example of how good the journalism is outside of the UK, I'll stick to the current 'scared British journalists', thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK, the "falsehood" element is missing; a true statement can be considered libelous. This makes life much harder for the defendant.
This is incorrect. If you can prove the statement is true, it is not libelous.
Minister praises science journalism (Score:3, Funny)
The minister for science and innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, has praised the high standards of science journalism [today.com] at the sixth World Conference of Science Journalists in London yesterday. About 900 delegates attended the conference to congratulate each other on the remarkable quality of their press release transcription skills.
"The public relies on dependable science journalism to understand the forces shaping the modern world," said Lord Drayson. "Your work covering the things that really matter, such as pseudo-evolutionary explanations of current fashion trends, what will give us cancer this week, scaring the crap out of people over the MMR vaccine so their kids die of birth defects from measles instead and why fellatio is required for female health helps people make important choices about their lives and builds a vital gap between scientists and the public. I mean bridge."
He dismissed claims that typical science reporting primarily results in sensationalist and misleading headlines. "I wish more journalists would follow your example. The ones covering MPs' expenses certainly should have been working the way you do."
The speech was delivered to a backdrop of A-level students in lab coats. And bikinis.
Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro calculated that Lord Drayson's speech could power all of Britain for six months purely from harnessing the steam coming out of Ben Goldacreâ(TM)s ears.
Premature judgement (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that Goldacre won against Rust. To me, and to most of /., I am sure that the case is obvious. But anybody is entitled to their day in court: you sould not be able to say that someone's claim is "obviously" false, no matter how much you respect the person being claimed against, as I respect Goldacre.
And the Singh/Chiropractors case is still in the courts: the chiropractors have not won.
I am afraid this is an example of the cost of Free Speech: the Black hats have as much freedom as the White Hats - and so it must be.
The case here is for a common defence fund for the White Hats. Private Eye, when it was fighting Sir James Goldsmith, had such a fund, known as the Goldenballs fund. Lots of people chucked in a tenner or so to support the defence costs of the good guys. And if anybody is running such a fund for Singh, or for any future complants against Goldacre, I will chip in. It would be good if their attackers knew that the defence was well funded.
Re: (Score:2)
You blew it! You could have been FP with Godwin's Law and called them (UK) a bunch of Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
"...any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true."
Now that's good science, why can't everybody stand behind this simple phrase.
It would clear a whole lot of political mudslinging up and get a better discussion of so many areas going between different perspectives.
Re:Obligatory Bogus First Post ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Bogus First Post ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory Bogus First Post ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know someone has reached the end of epistemological line when they have to start invoking nihilism to justify an absurd belief. If all knowledge is suspect, as you seem to indicate, then the whole exercise is pointless. Hell, maybe you don't exist.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know someone has reached the end of epistemological line when they have to start invoking nihilism to justify an absurd belief. If all knowledge is suspect, as you seem to indicate, then the whole exercise is pointless. Hell, maybe you don't exist.
A good avenue to pursue. I'm sure there's a Nobel prize waiting for whoever can convince the litigious quacks doing this that THEY don't exist, as long as it makes them vanish in a puff of logic.
Although, frankly, you could probably boil that sucker down to "make all the quacks vanish" and someone would still give you a medal without asking too many questions about how you did it.
Re:Obligatory Bogus First Post ... (Score:5, Insightful)
All knowledge about the universe—as opposed to logical tautologies, which, while often useful, tell us nothing about the world around us—is suspect. That's the most fundamental principle of scientific reasoning. For a given set of observations there exist two classes of models explaining them: those which may be true, and those which have been proven false via contradiction (either internal or in relation to the observations).
The closest anyone can get to the "truth" within the realm of science is a model which is self-consistent and compatible with all known observations and which involves no unnecessary assumptions or entities (Occum's Razor). The model could still be demonstrated false by future observations, however. The concept of absolute truth, propositions which once (correctly) proven can never be falsified, is the domain of pure logic and/or philosophy, not science.
Misleading article/summary (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the article summary is, as usual, incorrect. Specifically, it is not true that:
Rather, in defamation cases in Britain (and Australia, New Zealand and AFAIK Canada) a statement is first considered in its own right to consider whether it carries any defamatory imputation. If there is no defamatory imputation, there is no libel or slander claim. However, if the Court determines that there is a defamatory imputation on the face of the statement, then it is for the maker of the statement to justify it.
Which is as it should be - if I write "Darkness404 molests goats" then unless it is true why should I not compensate you for the resulting harm to your reputation? Whereas if it is true, then I have done nothing but convey the truth of the situation to the audience. I think that many people here are confusing "free speech" with "freedom from liability for any consequences of my speech howsoever I choose to exercise it" which are two entirely different things.
Justifying the statement is not an exercise in proving its absolute truth, either. Civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities, not 'beyond reasonable doubt' or to some degree of logical or scientific certainty.
The suggestion in the article that all of this is new and has journalists "running scared" is bogus (ahem) too. Essentially the same principles have applied for several hundred years.
Re:Misleading article/summary (Score:4, Insightful)
It does look like guilty until proven innocent, and that's what confuses a lot of people. But if you think about it, the defendant has accused the plaintiff of something, so yes, it's up to the defendant to prove it.
Except that's not true. Simon said "science behind the treatment is bogus", not that the chiropractors were bogus, which means that tey are misinformed, not lying intentionally. And the science behind the treatments they propose is bogus.
An old journalists' proverb is "if in doubt, leave it out".
Yeah, that's what I say - if you can't prove that you don't molest children you must not deny the charges?
Expecting the plaintiff to prove the statements aren't true is ridiculous. Unless Darkness404 has been shadowed by numerous independent witnesses for his entire life he can't prove that he never ever indulged in a little caprine frolicking.
Well it depends if its libel. Simon said the treatments are not proven, which he CAN defend. The problem is the judge interprets his words as "chiropractors are lying to patient" which he did not say and did not mean.
Justifying the statement is not an exercise in proving its absolute truth, either.
If you can convince the court is true, then that's good enough.
You may remember the cases that Fat Bob Maxwell won against Private Eye; at least some of the accusations were factually true, but the magazine couldn't prove it at the time. So legally, they were false.
Yeah, the problem is the court actually misunderstood the words Simon was saying. They are trying him for the equivalent of saying "chiropractors know they are not helping people but lie to them" (which is not only not what he meant but is indefensible in every sense of the word) vs the actual words "treatments chiropractors give have not been proven to be scientifically sound". All the problems are the misinterpretation of the word BOGUS.
Re:Obligatory Bogus First Post ... (Score:4, Informative)
How do you prove something true?
You don't. To (really) quickly summarize Karl Popper's work: You can only falsify a hypothesis, not prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Something being dirty is not an opinion. If it was dirty - and she could prove it - then it's not libellous to say so, full stop.
Libel is a civil offence. You go to jail for breaking the criminal law. Is there anything you don't know fuck all about?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It looks like some cultural illiterates are modding you flamebait and offtopic. I guess they never heard of Oscar Wilde, John Ruskin or James Abbott McNeil Whistler. My suggestion? Don't try to appear as "too smart" with this crowd. They will mod down anything they don't understand. It threatens their claim to intelligence and that claim is often their only comfort. It leads me to wonder how Monty Python became popular among the nerd crowd. The humor often requires a frame of reference for understanding
Re:Proof of absence (Score:4, Funny)
Babel fish.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically everyone is calling everyone else a liar, and somehow a judge is going to make some very interesting decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people of the United Kingdom have been far freer, and had far more rights than the citizens of the USA have ever had.
While the USA was trumpeting their "Freedom" from the Great Britain, a large portion of their population owned other human beings - a practice made illegal in the British isles. (Something they managed to achieve _without_ fighting a major war - they just did it because the people decided it was wrong, and should be fixed).
Other previous colonies of the United Kingdom are completely free