Here’s a little puzzle. Spot the difference:

(a) “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 these treatments.”

(b) “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 these bogus treatments.”

Spot it?

That single minor difference underpins a seriously spurious legal action foisted on fellow science writer Simon Singh and which he is currently fighting through the court of appeal. At stake is our freedom to conduct coherent scientific, evidence-based debate about alternative medical practice and the freedom of so-called practitioners to make unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific, evidence-free claims for costly yet generally non-efficacious quackery.

Let’s hope the court of appeal judges spot the difference and show us that the law is indeed a member of the mammalian subgenus Asinus* characterized by an equine appearance and bearing protuberant ears but because of its reputation for considerable toughness and endurance rather than stupidity.

You can sign for Singh here.

Related articles

• Test medicine in the lab, not in the court (stephenlaw.blogspot.com)
• UPDATE: Simon Singh libel case (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Simon Singh goes to Court of Appeal (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
• Telegraph.co.uk: It’s too late for me, but libel laws must change, says Singh (blogs.journalism.co.uk)

*For US readers who may not know, an ass is a donkey not an arse.