We were interested to see (among a number of documents sent in response to our FOIA request to the General Chiropractic Council) that the GCC acknowledges that
The available evidence of the efficacy of the chiropractic contribution to the management of some types of asthma, migraine headache and infant colic is inconclusive
While one might argue that the evidence re chiropractic treatment of some of these conditions is actually negative, this GCC acknowledgement is still significant (we were pleased to see that this letter is already discussed on the Bad Reason blog).
The BCA libel case against Simon Singh has generated significant criticism. BCA responded by arguing that
It has never been the BCA’s case that the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. It is the BCA’s case that there is good evidence.
Does the UK chiropractic’s statutory regulator disagree with the BCA on this? And will we now see the GCC standing up for Singh and critiquing the BCA’s position?
The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) are currently suing Simon Singh for stating, among other things, that 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
The BCA have now – somewhat belated – summarised [PDF] the evidence which they feel relates to the article and the use of chiropractic treatment for various childhood illnesses. Other bloggers are assessing various aspects of this evidence – we’ll consider what might constitute good evidence in this context.
It was interesting to see the BCA quote Sackett et al on “Evidence based medicine [EBM]: what it is and what it isn’t”. They summarise (p. 7) the paper’s conclusion as
Evidence based medicine is about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence
However, while they might orientate themselves towards EBM, this PDF from the BCA provides a nice example of what EBM isn’t Continue reading