Astroblog

Today, in Solidarity with Simon Singh, who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for the temerity of writing the truth, blogs an internet magazines world wide are reprinting his article that started the case (see below).

If you want to help in the campaign against the flagrant misuse of libel laws to silence critics go to Keep Libel Laws Out of Science.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal

Simon Singh
The Guardian, Saturday April 19 2008

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let's be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes [redacted word begining with b] treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus [changed to "utter nonsense" in the scrubbed version] because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

· Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial

www.simonsingh.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See more info at Respectful Insolence.

Labels: Science Blogging, science matters

Simon Singh, scientist and science writer, who was being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for the temerity of writing the truth, has had the libel case against him dropped. While this is a win and cause for celebration, there's a long way still to go. As Simon writes:

“It still staggers me that the British Chiropractic Association and half the chiropractors in the UK were making unsubstantiated claims. It still baffles me that the BCA then dared to sue me for libel and put me through two years of hell before I was vindicated. And it still makes me angry that our libel laws not only tolerate but also encourage such ludicrous libel suits. English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest. In the area of medicine alone, fear of libel means that good research is not always published because those with vested interests might sue, and bad research that should be withdrawn is not pulled because the authors might sue the journal, and in both cases it is the public that loses out because the truth is never exposed. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are okay, because I won despite the libel laws - we still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world.”

Read more here, and see the commentaries by Bad Science, Respectful Insolence and Pharyngula.

If you want to help in the campaign against the flagrant misuse of libel laws to silence critics go to Keep Libel Laws Out of Science.

Labels: Science Blogging, science matters

You may remember how the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh because he had the audacity to sepak the truth about Chiropractic. Now a medical testing firm, Doctors data, is suing Dr. Steve Barrett of Quackwatch, for criticising it. Well warranted and scientifically supported criticism. You can read more detail at Respectful Insolence. As with the Simon Singh case, pass the news on so we can raise awarness of this latest round of anti-science bullying, and you can contribute to Dr. Barrett's legal defense fund by donating to Quackwatch here.

Labels: miscelaneous, scepticism, Science Blogging, science matters

Scientists have to put up with a lot for speaking plainly about research that challenges preconceived notions or vested interests. From Simon Singh to Michael Nutt,  the price for speaking the truth can be high.

Climate scientists in particular have borne the brunt of those who feel threatened by reality. Michael Mann in particular has borne the brunt of many of these attacks, as he produced some iconic research the "hockey stick" which has clearly illustrated the unusual nature of recent warming.

He's had to put up with people claiming his research was fraudulent for a long time, despite it being independently replicated by many others (see diagram above). Well, he's finally striking back, yet another correspondent has publicly accused him of doing fraudulent research in print.

Now, the "Hockey Stick" is not fraudulent. This discussion of the "Hockey Stick" goes into much better detail about it (actually, it gets a bit technical), but the take home message is that the results are well validated, reproducible in other studies and most importantly, the statistical treatment (it wasn't a "mathematical formula as most lay people would understand) did not automatically generate "hockey sticks" (It was principle component analysis for crying out loud). See also this discussion of "Hockey Stick" myths. 

Anyway, he has, through his lawyers, issued a letter asking for removal of the article and a public apology. Good on you Michael, let's hope you get the apology.

If you are interested in helping climate scientists defend themselves for the numerous attacks on them, you might consider contributing to the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund.

Labels: Climate Change, global warming sillyness

The Adelaide Festival of Ideas is free, and has world famous science communicator Simon Singh speaking on sense and nonsense, world renowned origin of life researcher Antonio Lazcano speaking on the origin of life, and the two of them team up to discuss "Beyond Evolution".

Program and time here.

Labels: c, science, science matters

Some weeks back I was interviewed for a TodayTonight program on homoeopathy. It was screened on April 4th, and the segment is now available on the web. You can use this link, or play the embedded video. I appear in a few segments, as do such illustrious people as Dr Simon Singh, Richard Saunders and James Rand. I think it worked very well, and I didn't make a complete fool of myself. The homoeopathic overdose section was fun to do. I have a post on more resources for you to understand homoeopathy if you wish. And today Dr. Rachie posed on the “National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia declaring: homeopathy ‘not efficacious’” (go NH&MRC!!!)

Lost opportunities; I knew the homoeopath was going to mention quantum mechanics, but I didn't do a section on that, when I said "lets wait a bit" in response to the homoeopathic sleeping tablet overdose, I should have said, "if this was real medicine, we would be in hospital having our stomachs pumped now".

Oh yeah, and to all the sceptics who signed up to my twitter account, this blog is mostly "look up it is pretty" astronomy, although I am on a bit of a roll with my comet Elenin and Nibiru posts, the "life in a meteorite" flap, the odd global warming post too and of course Intelligent Design creationism.

Labels: Pseudoscience, science communicators

The Podcasts from the Festival of Ideas are now up at Radio Adelaide. The podcast for Simon Singh (Trick of Treatment, homoepathy) is here 15 Mb , Antonio Lazcano (Origin of Life) here 15 Mb and Beyond Evolution is here 35 Mb (I turn up asking a question near the end).

Labels: science, science matters

10:15 am: I'm currently having coffee in the booksellers tent at the entrance to Elder hall, while waiting for Simon Singh's talk to begin. As typical, there are lots of things I want to see that are all on at the same time. Climate change and Drug Prohibition for instance (hey, I'm a Pharmacologist), then Life: It's Origin and Evolution is on at the same time as New Directions in Astronomy and Darwin's Armada (sobs).

1:15 pm: I suck at this. But I got to talk personally to Antonio Lazcano and Alex Wodak, that was brilliant. If you want to listen to these talks Radio Adelaide will be streaming audio from the sessions, and podcasts will be eventually available here.

First off, my (very brief) talk with Antionio Lacanzo. I was waiting to get into the session on drug prohibition with Alex Wodak (see this youtube Video) when I notice that the tall (at least to me) figure standing next to me was awfully familiar form varuious book covers, I introduced myself and established that he was indeed Antonio, and then I went all fanboy. Look, this man is one of the top origin of life researchers in the world, and I've been following his work for years. He said that Australia was one of the leading places for Astrobiology, and we had an advantage that the US didn't, our secular society and low level of creationism. I had to point out that we export our creationists to the US.

Yikes, it's almost time to go into the session on Origin of life, I have no idea how PZ Myers can liveblog conferences. Gotta rush.

2:52 pm: Antonio Lacanzo's session was brilliant. Did you know the first letters in ribose stand for Rockerfeller Institute of Biology? I didn't. Seesh, by the time the computer boots up it's time for the next session, "Beyond Evolution". I'll have to wait until I get home to write propper descriptions of these talks.

Labels: scepticism, science, Science Blogging, science matters