Rhodes: the next chapter

The offending article

Peter's still a little miffed:

"This morning I updated the piece to make it clear that I don't think poor suffering Pete is a racist, just an ill-informed reactionary know-nothing. "
No you didn't,. You removed the offensive words and apologised because you got it wrong and were frightened to death  about the consequences, like a little boy caught with his catapult next to a broken window. As you put it in your email to me: "OK, hands up: my satire was too broad in this case and I apologise."
Today, inexplicably, you dig yourself into a deeper hole by posting "comments" suggesting I am lying about my CRE award.
As one who presumes to teach media studies, you really should be more thorough. I am astonished that both you and your emailers are so hopeless at using Google. It really is very simple. You type in "Peter Rhodes" and "Commission for Racial Equality" and there it is.
And if that is beyond you, you can take it from me that I won first prize (Regional and Local Newspaper category) in the 1997 CRE Race in the Media Awards. The award was for a "body of work," a number of features written during the year and it was presented, as I recall, by Meera Syal.
Now, if you are big enough, you will remove the comments from your blog.
Incidentally, wouldn't  this be the ideal time to assure your readers that you have never, ever sought to write anything for the "racist" Express & Star?

1. 'Wrong' is an odd word for subjective opinions.
2. I'm not frightened of any consequences. If Peter wants to sue over satirical comments, he's very welcome. This, let's remind ourselves, is a man who equates supporting equal marriage to shovelling Jews into the gas chambers.
3. I haven't posted comments. Readers have posted comments. I don't censor comments.
4. I spent a good long time searching for Peter's award. It doesn't appear anywhere. I invite you to do the search he recommends. There it… isn't. 
5. A prize! In 1997! Presented by someone famous from an ethnic minority! Well, some of my best friends are black too, as the saying goes. 
6. My history with the Express and Star: 
a) I complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the paper equating Travellers with animals. They got away with it because the code - conveniently written for newspaper editors by newspaper editors - said that you can say what you like about entire ethnic groups: you just can't attach racialised commentary to individuals. That's a hell of a loophole. 
b) The Express and Star approached the university looking for a piece about the American election. It was suggested by the university that I co-write it with my boss. The Express and Star rejected this because it doesn't like me. I certainly didn't approach them. 
7. Is the Express and Star racist? Well, it suggested that Travellers are congenitally criminal, which sounds racist to me. It gave notorious racist Enoch Powell a column for many years. It demonises ethnic minorities and religions. So yes, in my subjective view, it is. 
8. I won't be removing comments. Peter has emailed me again:

You are responsible in law for every item appearing on your website. Shouldn't you know this sort of stuff?

I do know my stuff (and nothing posted by my readers is libellous anyway).

Blogger is hosted in the USA and comments are therefore held to be posted there. Under 47 USC 230, I am only responsible for comments made by employees (I have none), comments which breach criminal codes (which none of mine do) or comments I've edited substantially enough to change the meaning (which I don't do). As I'm sure you're aware, libel is a civil matter. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 stipulates that

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Of course, one might dispute jurisdiction: Vole is readable in the UK so its content is actionable here. In which case I would refer you to Google v. Pamiz, in which a British judge decided that blog comments were the responsibility of their authors rather than the platform (in this case, Pamiz's own blog: he objected to libellous comments made about him and sued Google - and lost). UK law isn't completely clear, however. 

(New reader? Start here).

Simon Singh: vindicated

Simon Singh is a science writer who stated that chiropractors claimed they could cure a range of childhood illnesses, despite a total lack of scientific evidence. They sued him for libel, accusing him of claiming that they knowingly peddled bogus treatments.

Under Britain's crazy libel laws, you can't defend yourself on the basis of truth: stating the truth can still be held to be libellous. Facts = libel, comment = fair enough! The chiropractors were out to bankrupt and silence Singh in the courts rather than debate the science, and the early stages of the trial seemed to go their way.

Until today: the Court of Appeal has dismissed Mr Justice Eady's previous ruling that Singh's statement was 'factual' and therefore not 'fair comment' and found for Singh. Eady has appalling form in allowing every tyrant, shyster and quack from around the world to sue in the British courts - it's time for this farce to end.

But for now - bliss that another bunch of charlatans have been defeated.

Justice?

You may know that Britain's libel laws are heavily skewed in favour of rich people and corporations. Being right is no defence, and nor is freedom of speech, unlike the US. Lots of foreign people are suing in the UK courts over articles published elsewhere in the world because they'll get what they want here and not elsewhere. Books which have never been published in the UK have been subject to libel judgements because a single person has ordered one from Amazon US, newspapers with a circulation of 100-200 in the UK have been sued out of existence too.

It's got so bad that the US Congress has passed laws setting aside UK libel judgements, and now US newspapers (a couple of hundred are sent over for expats wanting the baseball results) are planning to cease publication here at all, just in case.

Madness. This country has become a playground for the corrupt and oppressive, thanks to the sterling work of people like Mr. Justice Eady.

Back crackers sacked!

Sorry for the pun. I am truly ashamed. It's the only humorous bit of this piece though.

I love blogging and bloggers because it allows the power of millions of bloody-minded nerds to be harnessed for troublemaking purposes.

Here's an example. As this article summarises, Simon Singh is a serious science writer who quite rightly described chiropractic as 'bogus' - i.e. pointing out that chiropractors' claims that their art can cure all sorts of ailments is untrue, a point supported by the Advertising Standards people, lots of proper scientists and so on.

The chiropractors' trade body quietly told all their members to remove any health claims from their websites to avoid prosecution. Then, instead of providing evidence for their assertions or conducting trials, they sued Singh, who has no money, for a six-figure sum, essentially using Britain's incredibly biased libel laws to silence a critic.

It didn't quite work. Thousands of informed bloggers reprinted the article as did Cosmos, an Antipodean popular science magazine), ripped apart the claims of the chiropractors and generally blew the story up. I'm proud to join in.

Shamefully, the Guardian withdrew the original article, though now it seems to have grown a little backbone in printing the account of proceedings. Almost there, Guardian! Although it's easier for annoyances like me to post stuff like this because I'm not worth suing.

So here it is, courtesy of 'gimpy', who added the comments in [].

Beware the spinal trap

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.

[This claim comes from D.D. Palmer The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.]

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.

[This claim comes from D.D. Palmer The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.]

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 bogus treatments.

[These claims are found in the following documents from the BCA website, Happy Families and A Real Pain in the Back.]

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus 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.

[All details on Ernst's research on chiropractic can be found on PubMed here. Simon Singh has indeed co-authored a book with Professor Ernst.

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.

[This appears to be personal opinion based on research conducted by Ernst & others and is not libellous.]

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.

[This paper can be found here]

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.

[This is a personal opinion based on evidence]

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.

[Some reports here.]

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.

[Details of this case and some conclusions here.]

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.

[Details in this paper.]

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.

Beware of Singh's Sense About Science supporters though. They do some good work in opposing nutters, and have a convincing set of representatives, but they're a front group for some extremist weirdos who gather around Living Marxism, the Insitute of Ideas and Spiked, organisations formed of ex-Trotskyists who now exist solely to push the ultra-libertarian ideals of doing whatever large corporations want and never questioning the behaviour or motives of global capitalism. Interestingly, they all use pseudonyms and don't seem to like dialogue. We're down the rabbithole here, children - they're a fascinating example of what happens to vanguardist leftists who lose sight of reality and become ultrarightwing - as happened to many of Bush's henchmen. Lobbywatch summarises their network here, here and more shockingly here.