BCA Shoots Itself in the Foot—Can an Adjustment Fix That?

Paul Newman/The Australian Courtesy National Museum of Australia

(Hat-tip to Le Canard Noir/Quackometer.)

In its quest to silence critics of chiropractic claims, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) may have shot itself in the foot.

Chiropractic claims of efficacy in treating a wide variety of ailments have long prompted criticism from scientific-minded folks, but complaints about unsubstantiated claims have not garnered much attention, and chiropractors have been able to market their wares with relatively little public and official scrutiny.

It’s likely that Simon Singh’s Guardian article would have met with the same general shrug of the shoulders had the BCA not decided to go on the offensive and file their lawsuit. As I wrote in an earlier post, the BCA now claims it didn’t intend things to turn out as they have.

I bet they didn’t.

To prove their libel claim, the BCA boasted they could produce a “plethora” of evidence supporting chiropractic’s efficacy in childhood ailments like asthma and colic. Of course, they could have taken the Guardian up on its offer of an opportunity to do just that in its pages more than a year ago, but they declined, deciding to go after Singh personally. Why submit their evidence to public scrutiny if they didn’t have to?

Now, they have to.

Singh opted to fight on, even when an initial ruling went against him, and his cause has been taken up by numerous scientists, celebrities and bloggers, bringing a focus on the BCA that they probably didn’t anticipate.

In an attempt to recover some public credibility, the BCA decided to pony up the “plethora” of evidence it claimed to have, but declined to produce, some 16 months ago, resulting in a predictable feeding frenzy in the skeptical blogosphere.

Now the British Medical Journal has weighed in, and found the evidence… wanting.  In the July 9 issue, Richard Brown, vice-president of the BCA, attempts to paint the issue as a simple question of the rule of law:

“It is quite remarkable that scientists should expect themselves to become exempted from the laws of the land for publishing defamatory comments, be they about an individual or an organisation.”

Brown goes on to repeat the claim that “substantial evidence” exists for chiropractic claims for treating childhood ailments.

In an accompanying article, Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, makes rather a meal of the alleged evidence, and notes that the BCA’s list is curiously incomplete, as it knowingly omitted several important studies that don’t support chiropractic claims.

Blogs are one thing; now, an acknowledged expert in “complementary medicine” has demolished the so-called evidence, and stated that the BCA  intentionally omitted evidence, in an internationally read and widely respected journal.

The BCA lawsuit has had other unintended consequences for UK chiropractors.

Several weeks ago, a few skeptics decided to retaliate, and filed a host of complaints against chiropractors whose advertising appeared to violate UK regulations governing chiropractic practice and advertising standards.

On June 8, the McTimoney Chiropractic Association issued a panicky notice to its members instructing them to remove from websites and printed materials any reference to “claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research,” [emphasis mine] and recommending that members simply take down websites and remove:

“…any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact details on them.”

[Many of the sites in question have been archived. You can find them via this compendium.]

They also recommend members remove any business cards or materials wherein members refer to themselves as “doctor” without noting that they are not doctors of medicine, or that they are doctors of chiropractic.

The most astonishing section of the notice, however, instructs members to cover up their activities:

“Be wary of ‘mystery shopper’ phone calls and ‘drop ins’ to your practice, especially if they start asking about your care of children, or whiplash, or your evidence base for practice. [SNIP]

“Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients, Firstly it would not be ethical to burden patients with this, though if they ask we hope you now have information with which you can respond.”

So there it is. Public acknowledgement that:

• Many chiropractic claims cannot be substantiated with evidence;
• Some chiropractors engage in misleading advertising regarding both their qualifications and the efficacy of their treatments;
• At least one major chiropractic association does not want patients to know what is happening within the chiropractic profession.

If I were a British chiropractor, I would be mad as hell at the BCA for spending my member dues to bring about a lawsuit that is very likely to hurt my profession.

More than that, if I were a chiropractor who adheres to real, evidence-based, ethical practices, I would be livid at the associations and individual chiropractors who have effectively tarnished an entire profession with their activities.

E-mail this post