Complementary Responsibilities

I’ve just stumbled upon this article via the Twitters. It’s a blogpost by the Leukaemia and Blood Foundation about some complementary therapy workshops (by @drshaunholt) in New Zealand.

I just want to take some bits from their post and add my own comments as it’s raised an issue in my mind that maybe isn’t condsidered too often in the various ‘communities’ of relevance; medical, skeptical, patient-centred and so on.

Who has responsibility for complementary therapy education?

That’s the question I’ve been pondering, admittedly since about 10 minutes ago so apologies if this isn’t very well-formed.

The therapists?

An obvious candidate would be the provider of said ‘therapy’. However, since we have the unknown quantity of deliberately misleading, fraudulent individuals who are simply out to make money, this is an unwise group to rely on.

This by no means includes everyone working in the ‘field’ but I think we can safely assume that asking a chiropractor if you should pay them to crack your spine because it hurts will result in a resounding “Yes!” in most (but not all) cases.

The patients?

This is the group that most skeptical activities seem to focus on. Sense About Science, for example, aims to arm the public with the tools to ask the right questions and protect themselves against potentially damaging offers of hope, sometimes where none really exists.

We often talk about the people who read the papers and believe poorly-worded articles. People who forsake validated medical treatments in favour of something their mum’s friend’s brother’s daughter recommended and DEFINITELY WORKED. This is another goal of SAS, to address poor science reporting in the media – also mentioned by Dr. Holt.

We’re keen that fewer people allow themselves to be misled and taken advantage of – and I continue to believe this is an important mission, if one that usually feels somewhat futile. If you know your stuff and can be assertive, you can stand up to a barrage of nonsense and come out of difficult situations largely unscathed, and without lining the pockets of charlatans.

What about healthcare professionals?

Here is a group of people oft ignored in this complementary confusion. Regarding the aforementioned Dr. Holt, the blog states:

Shaun is not afraid to tell it like it is. He has had well-publicised battles with both the chiropractic and homeopathic communities due to the lack of evidence that these treatments are effective in helping cancer patients.

Excellent. We need more of these. The diagnosis of a serious illness has to be one of the most traumatic experiences anyone can go through. Healthcare professionals are the ones to break this news and to offer advice and support as people take it in and make their choices about what to do next.

Having clued-up doctors has to be a priority if we’re to help people make sensible decisions for themselves and their families, that will avoid needless suffering and false-hope chasing.

This doesn’t just apply to cancer but to all manner of debilitating and/or potentially life-threatening illnesses:

It is completely understandable that cancer patients will do anything possible to maximise their quality of life and chances of recovery but it does appear that at times certain complementary therapies can interfere with medical treatment.

One of the most famous cases is probably St John’s Wort, a plant and its derived herbal products well-known for supposed anti-depressant properties. However, its active ingredient is also known to interfere with prescription drugs and if people are taken in by those purporting the benefits of ‘all-natural’ treatment approaches, it can lead to disaster.

Something that pro-CAM people will often argue is that there is a place for complementary therapies and patients should be informed of these and given access to them. This may be true to an extent,

Shaun’s research indicates that around five per cent of complementary therapies have real merit in helping address the symptoms and quality of life of cancer sufferers. These therapies include acupuncture, aromatherapy, meditation, art therapy, yoga, certain herbs and vitamins.

However, it should be made abundantly clear that these things are not alternatives, they are not treatments and they will not cure. As Shaun and the blog report lays out,

What must be stressed however, is that complementary therapies can not cure cancer, and it’s really important that patients do not delay seeking conventional medical treatment which may save their lives!

I would like to see a nomenclature change here; therapy can be be somewhat of a misnomer, since we would also apply this term to effective interventions – chemotherapy for example.

These are therapies in the sense that a cup of tea is therapy. Yes, there can be real, measurable benefits but it’s in a more general sense than the treatment of a specific problem in a known, targeted manner.

No one is suggesting we deny people access to lovely things like massages, foot rubs, mugs of tea, candles and fluffy pillows. God, I love candles – my university peers can attest to this (I filled my gigantic room with them and frequently pissed off my housemates with incense. But they let the kitchen descend into a hazardous-to-health state so much it’s not really possible for me to feel bad about it!).

The point is, while it’s good to support ourselves emotionally in difficult times with these little things that can make a big difference in day-to-day life, medical professionals should be clued-up on the associated dangers of fields that make claims bigger than what they can deliver. They should not be shepherding patients in the direction of ‘therapists’ without full explanations of the reality.

Homeopathy will not fix your RSI. Aromatherapy will not sort out your cataracts. Sure, doctors are largely intelligent individuals who won’t fall for any of this stuff, but an alarming number do not know what homeopathy is (or more importantly, isn’t), let alone be able to explain it clearly to someone who’s under considerable emotional stress and may well know nothing at all except hyped-up anecdotes from concerned friends and relatives.

As pointed out by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst in Trick or Treatment, healthcare professionals hold a lot of responsibility in the drive to educate people about CAM and perhaps it’s time we teamed up with those who are already doing a fantastic job to spread their knowledge so that more doctors can help their patients with these  decisions more effectively.

Libel Reform is ongoing

Hello all. It’s been a horrible week for free speech in the UK; look into Paul Chambers’ #twitterjoketrial (and #iamspartacus!) for the main example.

Sorry I do not have time to do a more personal take on this at the moment, but do read and pass this on because it’s important and I’d love you more if you did

The Mass Libel Reform Blog

Fight for Free Speech!

This  week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global  audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

 

Thank you!

A crash course in skeptical activism

Simon Perry, convenor of Leicester Skeptics, gave his talk at Westminster Skeptics on 12/7/10.

After a rousing introduction from another super Simon, Mr Singh, we were given a run-through of the results of Mr Perry’s desire to complain about things that deserve to be complained about; amongst them, the great Quacklash – read more about it over at Zeno’s Blog!

Skeptical Activism & The Quacklash

Simon:

I’m more of a troublemaker than an authority.

Lots of us see things that we find objectionable and annoying. However, especially if we’re English, actually bothering to do something about it is quite rare. The world would much likely be a better place if more people took a bit of time to point out when something is amiss, so I respect Simon’s efforts – even if he mainly does it for fun!

I’ll recount:

1) the story of the Quacklash

2) Simon’s tips on complaining to the ASA and a few ‘case studies’

3) post-talk questions and comments.

The BCA (British Chiropractic Association) claim that spinal manipulation was used in China and Greece from as early as 2700-1500BC, but if you ask a historian; this predates writings by about 1000 years. So they’re off to a good start.

The BCA sued Simon Singh for libel; you can become familiar with the story via most skeptical blogs (including this one!). Since he couldn’t help Simon out directly, Mr Perry decided to look at the BCA’s members – all making the same kind of spurious claims.

Simon wrote a program to search the BCA member database using (but checked their claims by hand!) for practitioners’ claims and addresses of local Trading Standards Offices.

Mail-merge was well-utilised and letters posted; with 3 letters per ‘quack’ for good measure.

Similar was done for the GCC (General Chiropractic Council) – Zeno got out 524 complaints!

Results

245 websites are now down. Some websites are still making claims but far fewer than before.

Editor's comment on Ernst's examination of the 'evidence'

The GCC was reported to the ASA ; it has protected people (chiros) it should be regulating. Practitioners had to pay £1000/year to the GCC to be members; but if you’re being investigated you didn’t have to pay! The resulting investigations would have cost the GCC £600,000 so… they changed that rule.

The ‘evidence’ for chiropractic was released and debunked almost instantly by the blogosphere, many science blogs and indeed Prof. Edzard Ernst (left).

A review of the ‘evidence’ presented led to the judgement that the BCA was

not dishonest, just incompetent

The GCC admitted that there is no evidence for the existence or, therefore, pathological effect of subluxations; the fundamental principle of chiropractic. For more, see Zeno’s Obituary and Skeptic Barista.

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3CazojK7Q]

A choice exerpt from Skeptic Barista’s post being:

“..the treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions has yet to be properly explored in terms of efficacy and safety, and in terms of what both the patient and the clinician believe to be the purpose of the osteopathic intervention.”

Another admission that there is insufficient evidence, more worrying is the fact that its ‘safety‘ has not been properly explored!  

WHY SHOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE!

Tips

Use the ASA - they only work with leaflets and promotions though.

Going to Trading Standards won’t work the first time; multiple complaints from different people along with follow-up are required. One letter with hundreds or even thousands of signatures is useless; it’s still just one letter. But if many people have been ripped off/conned, they’ll listen.

Use the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to access documents you’re entitled to see.

Use regulatory bodies; if they should be discredited, it’s more like tackling the root of the problem.

And finally, he really encourages people to go for it! Which is nice, when there’s been a lot of ‘blogging is pointless’ sentiment around lately (as there always has been, I think).

Sorry; seemed like an obvious one to me

If enough people do then it starts coming up in Google results and can overthrow the misinformation.

So, on to some examples.

I’ll give you something to complain about

First we see this leaflet as an example of something worth of complaining to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) about. Typical use of ‘quantum’ and other lay-baffling terms to sell rubbish to gullible/desperate people.

Some of the text, (?) where I can’t quite read it properly myself:

NES is a revolutionary approach to health. The culmination of 25 years of work into how physics explains biology – through the mapping of the quantum [?]dynamics body-field. Developed by Henry Massey(?) and Peter Fraser(?), the NES-Professional system integrates research from the fields of physics quantum biology, mathematics and Western and Chinese medicine. The results are the first accurate map of the human body-field, which acts as the master control system for the physics body like software on a computer and the development of a clinical system for restoring optimum health.

All Certified NES Practitioners are highly trained and are able to give screening results immediately which provide the basis for precise treatment recommendations via the NES infoceuticals.

Multi-Energetics has devised a unique method of imprinting a base of organic colloidal minerals with information representing different aspects of the optimal human body-field. When you take an infoceutical as drops in water, the OED(?) information acts as a magnetic signpost to the subatomic particles in your body-field, aligning these particles helps to restore optimal health.

The NES software is able to “read” your body-field and compare it to the optimum human body-field, which is encoded in the software. The NES infoceuticals then prepare information (or software) to restore your body’s proper functioning.

Hopefully, you think similarly to Simon:

How do you narrow down on one sentence in SO much bullshit?

Note that these little bottles of ‘infoceuticals’ (water) cost £12, the scan £60 - and it’s not just customers being ripped off. The ‘practitioners’ pay £5,000 for the software!

Sadly, while the company is still up and running, following ASA adjudication they are not making claims in advertising anymore.

On a more serious note, he points out that first generation Hindu immigrants are often fooled by such schemes – for example, in Leicester flyers were distributed by one Pandit Harinath Mukya saying that “people are conspiring against you” and have spent a certain amount of money doing so – now you should give him a load of money to find out who they are and what they’re doing.

Simon and friends had fun trying to get a photo of the guy as he was very secretive (but they did succeed!).

Trading Standards haven’t done anything so far; they need to receive several complaints, preferably from different people.

Sorry, I’m allergic to BS

Allergy tests crop up everywhere nowadays. Partly as a by-product of the kind of hysteria I was talking about in my previous post, people are obsessed with what they may or may not be allergic to. Life-threatening allergies seem to be more common (though whether they actually are, I don’t know) and people are being conned into spending lots of money on finding out what they should be avoiding eating/touching/seeing day-to-day.

‘Vega testing‘ is one such con, bringing in our favourite alt med, homeopathy. It is supposed to detect allergic reactions by passing a bit of electricity through glass-encased homeopathic ‘substances’ while you hold onto a probe. The current can’t actually pass through the non-existent substance anyway, seeing as glass is not well-known as an electrical conductor. D’oh.

Trading Standards didn’t do anything until 5 people were ripped off and went to the Small Claims Court separately, resulting in letters with cheques; the company claimed they weren’t using Vega machines (despite the advertising descriptions matching perfectly and people in consultations repeatedly using the term) and Trading Standards shut them down eventually!

400 (or 300??) items 'tested from a piece of your hair'

Similarly, Chinese Medicine Shops are quite common. This one (right) was charging £35 for an allergy test, the specifics of which they couldn’t even agree on in their advertising!

Simon and a friend went in for the same tests; the results didn’t correlate with their actual allergies at all and they got two different sets of results… despite his friend taking in a sample of Simon’s hair!!

The shop owners actually defended themselves in the court (with a lot of spelling mistakes) but gave up to the tune of £95 cheques in the end. However, they are still running tests and Trading Standards hasn’t made a move in one year.

Another jewel in the crown of money-making cons is applied kinesiology; Simon described his experience of visiting a practitioner, in which they basically made things up about his ‘balance of good and bad bacteria’ based on how many times they pushed his arm down a bit (and his apparent resistance to that) when he was holding bottles of stuff.

Simon also said a few words on local psychics:

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gggcOm7lprc]

Questions!

Have things ever not gone so well?

Yes! Lots of these tests are still operating. But it’s still worth doing; you learn to be more effective. Alan [Zeno] goes into depth and makes their life hell forever!!

We need another legal campaign! There’s a mess; for example Trading Standards and the MHRA ['homeopathic' neuropeptide for MS; do read this, it's shocking] - can we sort out responsibility? - David Colquhoun

Yes, it needs to be done; Trading Standards don’t really know what their job is.

Are skeptics trying to have it both ways? [By going to legal regulators, whilst complaining about litigous indiduals/corporations etc.] – Jack of Kent

A line is crossed when dishonest claims are made in order to sell a product. When [perceived] Authority in a subject is used to make a profit.

The UK has fairly well-functioning authorities compared to, for example, South Africa. How do we go about these kinds of activities elsewhere? Do you have any recommendations?

No… If there are no regulatory bodies, blog? But this has a limited audience. Try to educate locals, hold protests, use the press.

Which is preferable? More stringent regulation or power to the people?

Why is enforcing honesty in business against ‘power to the people’? I have issues with other regulation but not honest claims; if anything well-informed people have more power [with which I wholeheartedly agree, by the way!].

Is part of the problem with alternative medicine that if fosters bad feeling towards ‘scary science’?

Yes, certainly in some cases. The Mail etc. undermine science and spread the naturalistic fallacy ['natural' == good].

Can skeptics come across as intellectually elitist and should campaigns be more focussed; demonstrating why you choose these things? If there’s a different in the scale and/or seriousness of the problem, should we present reasons?

[See next post for a thorough examination of this question!]

Have you experienced bullying?

Yes! I love hate-mail. The decisions are down to the regulators in the end.

Are there absolute right/wrong issues?

Should we avoid things because it could be seen as elitist?

No!

Are we dissipating our energy by being unfocussed?

Yes. The Quacklash focussed on something and was effective and 10:23 was genius!

Is the danger in putting emphasis more on easily-deconstructed things, rather than things of great danger to public health?

We can use certain serious cases to demonstrate points. Pick the lower fruit first [to address JoK's Why not Big Pharma?]. Also these ‘little’ things can actually be a lot more focussed and serious under the surface.

Do you despair at made-up claims that are ‘scientific’ and marketing picking up on this?

It’s not that harmful with a disclaimer. It’s a bit stupid and contributes to scientific illiteracy.

Is there a danger of racism/cultural stereotyping [re: the Hindu community]?

I don’t see a problem, but regarding anecdotes on superstition in first generation immigrants, it’s racist to not attack claims because someone is of a particular ethnicity or religion.

Don’t you think cosmetics industries etc. contribute to fatalities and illness due to stereotypes that shouldn’t exist? [Re: an earlier point that adverts for make-up etc. aren't significantly damaging]

I’ve never personally seen the influence, are these not different from medical claims?

The ASA issued guidelines regarding survey size and conclusions etc. – originating with “8/10 Cats” … Statistics can be correct but still misleading. - Zeno

Is there any benefit to taking out fliers when people get free publicity from newspaper reviews?

The ASA deals with advertising, yes, and also press releases? [I don't know if we got a definite conclusion on this]

Closing Comments

My only prior experience was complaining about sausages.

- Simon P.

Complain to the ASA if the advertiser says <this> and you don’t think they can provide the evidence. Use a bit of common sense, intelligence and skepticism! They are causing people to part with their hard-earned cash.

- Zeno

Simon Singh WIN!

They think it’s all over… it is now! Plus other selected victory clichés. Edit: Simon blogs!

(Stolen from Crispian Jago)

BCA admits defeat – Ely Place news, INDEX on Censorship (including a timeline), the BHA, BBC News, Nature (lots of groan-worthy back/crack/spine puns on Twitter right now! Follow #SinghBCA) also le Canard Noir blogs (highly recommended).

Implications of this by Jack of Kent.

Important statements from Simon, Robert (his lawyer) and Sense About Science here. Bit of audio in this out-law piece.

Key points:

One in four chiropractors in the UK is now being investigated for making allegedly misleading claims

None of this would have happened if I had backed down and the BCA has successfully silenced my article

The case is not quite over, because we still have to argue over costs. Having backed down and dropped the case, I expect the British Chiropractic Association to pay my legal bill of 200,000 pounds

I will never get back the two years that I have wasted on this case

- Simon Singh

Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about 20,000 pounds… In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful.

- Robert Dougans

BCA V SIMON SINGH – PRESS STATEMENT – 15th APRIL 2010

“Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.

As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”. The Honourable Mr Justice Eady, the UK’s most experienced defamation judge, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it made a serious factual allegation of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal, in its recent judgment, has taken a very different view of the article. On its interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh. While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.

As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.

The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

Ends
More media information from Carl Courtney on 07785 397321 but no new information will be given.”

I’m sure more will be coming in thick and fast all day!

Also, bit of extra link round-up:

Interesting post here mentioning some results of the case and other attempts to shut people up.

Quite shocking data on frequency and cost of libel cases here in the Guardian. Also for the Guardian, Ben Goldacre sums up the human cost of silencing criticism in medicine.

Richard Wilson and Skepchick blogs, plus Zeno on chiropractic awareness week.

Debate on libel costs – Simon speaks (from 10mins in) as part of a panel on publishing, journalism, privacy and UK laws (libel reform is an ongoing campaign; please keep sharing the petition! Now >50,000 signatures, fantastic).

Alice in Galaxyland adds more perspectives to the Westminster Skeptics experience and talks about one of my favourite Thames bridges.

Also, a homeopath gave a talk in Oxford recently (sadly the same time as Jack of Kent so a lot of people missed it!) but here’s a nice blogpost on the event – watch this space.

So, let’s keep on with libel reform (Padraig sets out why), but today is a great day! Congratulations to Simon and everyone involved in the campaign

Simon Singh Rally

Last night was the Westminster Skeptics gathering in aid of Simon Singh support… so sympathetic are the skeptics to his situation (sued by snake-oil sellers) that we sojourned in the saloon, sipping spirits and swigging cider (hmm), saluting Simon’s superhuman strength. But enough of the alliterative nonsense. Get the full audio from the main speakers from the Pod Delusion here.

Dave Gorman warmed up the crowd

NB/ some F-word usage at the start (for good effect)

He points out that the BCA, considering their job description, haven’t done a very good job of looking after chiropractic interests! Far more people are now critical of them than before. More people know what chiropractors are claiming to do and that it’s distinctly dodgy (uh-oh… let’s not do that again).
He observes that pro-homeopaths “like being renegades” – believing in “something outside science” and reiterates the BCA’s error.

To not take the right of reply… is to spectacularly miss an open goal

When asked why homeopathic products are on the shelves of their stores, Boots answer: ‘yeah, we know [there's no evidence] but people want to buy it!’ So why did the BCA not say that? Why argue? They insisted it’s all about Simon lying about them. That ‘happily’ = ‘knowingly’. Would they rather the statement had read more like:

They honestly think this stuff works but it doesn’t and they’re stupid

So the BCA decided to sue Simon personally, not the Guardian. The only way that makes sense is that they thought suing author was a good idea because he’s less able to defend (there’s the bullying element). Apparently we’ll hear what their new position is in 1 week…

Dave asked for a hands-up: Who writes a blog? Who uses medicine? Who wants to know more than they did last year? It affects everyone who raises their hand.

It’s not about making libel inaccessible… the only people who can play are very wealthy

As has been said many times – when the only people able to defend themselves against ‘attacks’ are the richest, the law no longer works to protect reputations, but to allow to rich to remain so through silencing all, including fair, criticism.

Dave’s proposition: very rich people have nice cars. So let’s make the person with the nicest car in world a dictator. Or perhaps libel as a game of poker – someone goes all-in; can you afford it? Most people just have to fold.

Simon Singh took the floor

…receiving much applause, whoops and cheers and so on.

He points out that the campaign means we’ve gone from people who weren’t thinking about free spech at the first meeting last year to having representatives from every major party in the room.

First up is the representative for Labour (whose name I didn’t catch but see James Streetly & Alice in Galaxyland for more on this speaker) who congratulates everyone and states that the campaign has the party’s ‘full backing’, citing section 9:3 of their manifesto and describing the case costs as ‘scandalous’.

Next JackofKent introduces Joanne Cash for the Conservatives as the “strongest supporter of free speech“. Herself a libel barrister, Joanne reiterates the importance of commitment from politicians.

One choice line from the evening had to be:

Jack of Kent… is a fantastic force for good

She notes that this movement has come so far that the Lord Chief Justice has now intervened on the issue of free speech and the Reynolds defence.

Edit: today, we have this…

We will review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism

- Tory manifesto, Page 79

For the Lib Dems, Dr Evan Harris

He reminds us that the libel laws have reached much further than cases like Simon’s. It has been blocking publication in peer-reviewed journals – the BMJ editor Fiona Godlee spoke at the mass lobby of parliament on the subject for that very reason. We must campaign for specifics from all the parties.

He points out that the Labour manifesto mentions ‘defendants‘, which is already a presumption.
From the Lib Dems:

1. “we are committed to a statutory public interest defence”
2. Specific protection for peer review – though the ‘special treatment’ of science could be debated further.
3. Stop Corporations from suing. Evan uses the examples of Trafigura, Barclay’s and TESCO and that there should be more burden on them to show damage/recklessness on the part of the libel defendant.

Also mentioned are the “value of blogosphere” and the “grassroots campaign” feel to the movement. We have gone from nowhere to being in all three manifestos in less than one year, but the battle is certainly not over.

Nick Cohen attacked the costs

The next wonderful sound-byte was:

I find myself being seduced by Evan Harris, which is rather scary

He recalls that the libel laws have been supporting oligarchs and privacy cases haven’t been no-win-no-fee because of the way superinjunctions have been used.

The model of the 20th century media… is so out of date… we need to protect that freedom the internet has given

This need to update law (and indeed government) in accordance with the way the internet has changed the media and how the public gets its information is now much talked-about – it was the last conversation I had with someone before leaving the pub, too.

Nick observes that it’s likely we’ll end up with a Tory government (!), since historically labour support has always been over-estimated. But… some of them are on our side (!!)

He also quotes a telling line from Gordon Brown’s “thug about Westminster”:

It’s libellous to accuse me of being a bully!

- Charlie Whelan

Jack of Kent had his say

He recalls that after Eady’s initial “horrendous” ruling, he thought…

How do we take this forward? We need to have a meeting in a pub!

And that this evening was reminiscent of the Blues Bros. with ‘the gang’ back together again (aww).

He cautions that not a lot has changed – following the preliminary ruling it is now safer for certain types of writer to write regarding the evidence for some claims. However, nothing has changed regarding libel tourism or costs and it is still easy to enforce the chill, getting posts pulled from websites and so on.

There might not be any more high-profile cases in science and libel but there is still much to be done.

Sile Lane adds that the whole affair has helped to expose cases that weren’t so well known; Goldacre vs. Rath, Wilmshurst, political bloggers on local councillors, patient groups on Alternative Medicine practices, GPs, medical editors, NGOs – the list was long. Her main point:

We need the public interest defence

All 3 parties are now committed but we must not let it be an election promise alone.

Questioning and criticising are cornerstones of science, medicine and democracy.

Padraig Reidy then mentioned his article on Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, whose bank balance plus litigious nature caused Cambridge University Press to scrap a book that he had decided was defamatory to his (clearly fantastic) reputation. Padraig’s point here was that reporting this case felt very dangerous indeed – a personal example of the chill at work.

He says we cannot only talk about costs/defence, but we need a package and can’t get palmed-off with excuses essentially  amounting to “It’s cheaper – now go away!” – we need the 10 points as set out by the Libel Reform Campaign specifically.

Finally, questions

Someone asks is the campaign is taking an ‘extreme position’?

Padraig: No, it aims to make things fairer, giving easier access to justice.

I have never criticised David Eady … the problem is with libel law, not any particular judge

- Jack of Kent, pointing out that it’s too important an issue to make a scapegoat of any particular judge (Eady  was not involved in the Trafigura case, for example).

It’s Bad Law, not bad judge! [But] Eady… unfit to be a judge in a democratic country

- Nick Cohen, going where JoK dared not!

He also emphasises that the libel laws have been failing to recognise when people who have no reputation to lose are suing – using the law designed to protect reputations.

The final comedy moment came when he asked,

How much has Simon clocked up so far? £200k?

and the instant answer came from behind the bar in the form of

*SMASH*

as an utterly stunned barman dropped some glasses.

Next someone points out that many MPs are also lawyers; so why would they act against their own interests?

Padraig: the number wishing to protect their interests is outweighed by how many are signing the EDM.

Sile: there may in fact be more cases going to court post-reform. Fewer people would just keep quiet,if you knew you could defend and get the damages. People (including the butter-fingered barstaff) are scared by the costs and at the moment it’s not always clear what is defensible but common law could develop given enough cases to work with.

To close

JoK: it would’ve been easier for simon to agree and give in – that’s why we’re here. More thunderous applause.

Simon: libel law is a little bit better but there is still bullying, libel tourism, 140-times higher expenses to go through with cases here in the UK – it’s still flawed.

And that’s why you need to sign the petition.