Libel claimants get what they deserve. So do you.

April 15th, 2010 by Ben Goldacre in bad science |
Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Friday 15 April 2010

After 2 years of pursuing one man through the courts, at a cost to him of £200,000 and 2 years work, the British Chiropractic Association yesterday dropped their libel case against science writer Simon Singh. The case was over a piece he wrote on this very page, criticising the BCA for claiming that its members could treat children for colic, ear infections, asthma, prolonged crying, and sleeping and feeding conditions by manipulating their spines.

This case has come to embody the need for libel reform, which all too often is used to stifle reasonable criticism. In a year that has seen Trafigura and numerous other cases hit the headlines, the libel reform campaign has gathered 50,000 signatures, 268 MPs have backed an Early Day Motion to reassess our libel laws, and all 3 parties have committed to looking at some form of libel reform.


http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/libel-litigants-get-what-they-deserve-and-so-do-the-public/#more-1598

The British Medical Journal – probably the most important medical journal in the UK – announced the three most popular papers from its archive, according to an audit that assessed their use by readers, the number of times they were referenced by other academic papers, and so on. Each and every one of these papers had a criticism of either a drug, a drug company or a medical activity as its central theme: the risks of Vioxx; failures to properly report adverse events in clinical trials; and the dangers of SSRI antidepressant drugs.
This is the culture of medicine, and it is there for a reason: to catch when things go wrong, because you can’t rely on your own personal appraisal of whether you’re a really nice guy when lives are at stake. We criticise each others ideas and practises, we engage in debate, because that is good .

The Singh case is the most famous, but it is by no means the most sinister medical libel case at present. The examples are endless. Dr Peter Wilmshurt is an NHS cardiologist and academic who spoke out – very mildly – about concerns he had over a flawed clinical trial of a heart implant in which he was the lead investigator. Dr Wilmshurst has now been pursued through the libel courts by the US manufacturer. He has been forced to defend himself, paying his own legal bills into 6 figures, and spending every spare second on the case. He has lost every weekend and all his annual leave for 2 years (and so have his family), he may lose his house, all because he did the right thing.

You should be very careful. One day, writers – and more importantly doctors and academics – will stand up and say: okay. You want these laws. You won’t protect us. We won’t speak out. If we see flaws in a trial, we will keep quiet. If we see false claims, we will be silent. You will suffer. And people will die.