Comments on: Science writer Simon Singh wins ruling in chiropractic libel battle

By: Michael Fiske DC -- Vacaville chiropractor

Michael Fiske DC -- Vacaville chiropractor — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:54:09 +0000

Of course “bogus” means deliberately dishonest, and it appears that the writer’s intent was to imply that. Not objective journalism.

By: karl

karl — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:30:16 +0000

I’m all for the freedom of speech but when it comes to health care i feel you need to back your opinions even in opposition. to use the word “bogus” is inflammatory and is an example of negative linguistics(negative framing). to me,( often not always) this indicates an obvious bias and/or agenda. if singh would have nuanced his opinion with reasonable/moderate linguistics it would not have gotten the dramatic response he wanted. it might have indicated that this treatment for colic that needs more research and could be helpful for example but instead he was absolute and indicated it was “bogus” indicating it was not worth considering. this was a reasonable ruling by the court. to me singh did some damage by just getting his opinion printed because it was black and white/dishonest about at best. he was being dishonest about chiropractic practitioners and their intentions to treat the conditions noted in the article. their intentions are alleviate/reduce/end symptoms and conditions not to mislead/cheat the public.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:18:33 +0000

I am not pleased. I agree that writers should have the right to point up the weakness in someone's argument. However, to characterize case studies as BOGUS, rather than as a weak form of proof, is wrong. Here's some definitions of the word BOGUS: fraudulent; having a misleading appearance wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Counterfeit or fake; not genuine; Undesirable or harmful; Incorrect, useless, or broken; a totally fictitious issue printed for collectors, often issued on behalf of a non-existent territory or country; That is based on lies, half-truths, or made-up statistics en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogus So...would you characterize our whole Research Section as fradulent etc, or is it the best available evidence our profession has been able to generate to date, paid for from own pockets??? You make the call. Do any of those Case Studies misrepresent themselves as randomized trials? Hardly! I feel that Mr. Singh KNEW better...isn't he an esteemed scientific author and wordsmith? And shouldn't he be held to a higher standard (as are doctors and other professionals) when he makes public statements? Why not, I ask? Is it a *chilling* effect on journalism to expect them to use accurate words in their commentary??? I say Guilty As Charged!