The article discusses science writer Simon Singh’s use of the word “bogus” in a previous article published in The Guardian.

In this article, according to The Guardian:

‘Singh criticised the BCA for claiming that its members could use spinal manipulation to treat children with colic, ear infections, asthma, sleeping and feeding conditions, and prolonged crying. Singh described
the treatments as “bogus” and based on insuffcient evidence, and criticised the BCA for “happily promoting” them.’

The BCA (British Chiropractic Association) is now suing Singh for libel. It denies his criticisms and maintains that the efficacy of chiropractic treatments is well documented.

Singh is co-author with Professor Edzard Ernst of a recent book about alternative medicine called Trick or Treatment and maintains that, whilst chiropractic might be an effective treatment for back pain, its claims to be able to cure other medical problems are “bogus,” since Ernst examined 70 trials for the book and found no evidence to support this claim.

The current libel case between Singh and the BCA appears to hinge on Singh’s use of the word “bogus” to describe chiropractic treatment.That one little word is crucial. The judge ruling in the case, Mr Justice Eady, has said that because Singh used the word “bogus”, he now has to prove that chiropractors knew
these claims were worthless but “dishonestly presented them to a trusting and, in some respects
perhaps, vulnerable public.”

As a hypnotherapist that word “bogus” is very interesting to me. There are other words often bandied around to describe hypnotherapy – such as ‘unscientific’ or ‘voodoo.’ They are guaranteed to raise the heckles of the many professional and well-trained practitioners who, like me, continue to invest their own time and money (not public time and money, I might add, but their own) in ensuing that their practice is as informed, up-to-date and evidence-based as it is possible to be.

After all, can you say that for the GP you last visited? Can we say that the practices of many big pharmaceutical companies are not purposely misleading to the public? Recent examples I have blogged
about are the misinformation put out by manufacturers of nicotine patches, gum and spray and the prmoters of weight loss pills, all of which are regularly presecribed or available over the counter and which are understood by the public to be completely genuine and reliable forms of help. But are they?

OK, I am getting on a personal hobby horse now. The truth is that I do not know about chiropractic and, to be honest, if I had an ear infection, I would not choose to see a chiropractor or a hypnotherapist. I would go
to my GP. I might have to go back several times until I received the help I needed – but there are excellent GPs and not so good GPs, just as there are good hypnotherapists and some pretty poor ones too.

If I had a headache, I probably would not spend twenty minutes on letting go of it using self-hypnosis. I would be more likely to pop a couple of paracetamol. (Several of my colleagues would not agree with me here.) However, if that headache came back frequently and, let’s say, I noticed that I had a lot of tension in my body, I would acknowledge that I might need to do some work in self-hypnosis… or see my GP for further tests.

My point is that this is about appropriate behavior and good old common sense. I regularly insist that clients contacting me with headaches, tinnitus, stomach problems, and so on all ensure that they have
the appropriate tests done through their GPs before I agree to work with them. I see this as a matter of professional ethics and responsibility.

However, the problem with the word “bogus” is that it tends to feed this tendency among many elements of the mainstream media to lump all “alternative” medicine together as at best a load of hippy nonsense and
at worst something that is purposefully exploitative or misleading.

In my opinion, it is definitely not OK to spray words such as “bogus” or “nonsense” around so freely. That
in itself is misleading to the public and may prevent someone from getting the help they need.

When the book hypnotically titled ‘Trick or Treatment: Alterantive Medicine on Trial’ (and how’s that for a subtle implication?) by Ernst and Singh came out last year, I blogged about my disappointment
that, although hypnotherapy was recognised as useful by the authors in the treatment of tinnitus and fibromyalgia, their coverage of it was lumped in with complementary supplents – psyllium husks, St John’s
Wort, and the like -  which seemed a little odd. The book also completely ignored the growing evidence base for hypnotherapy’s use in mainstream medicine, incuding in IBS.

I don’t want to get embroiled in the debate about chiropractic, but what concerns me is the use of imprecise language in the media reporting of such important topics as health care. If we cannot question a writer’s
use of the word “bogus” in the Comments section of a national newspaper, where does that leave us? Surely writers on such issues need to be clear about whether they are reporting personal opinion and interpetation or hard fact? And hard facts, in the imprecise science of people’s minds and bodies, are often difficult to come by.

Add in the concept of the ‘expert’ who appoints himself or herself as gate-keeper to a body of knowledge/interpretation and you have a potentially dangerous situation.

Now Singh’s use of “bogus” is itself ‘on trial’ and you only have to look at the comments
in the The Guardian’s article online, again somewhat perjoratively titled Why are they trying to gag a top British science writer?‘ (who is ‘they’ and is ‘gagging’ or censorship actually what is going on
here?), to realise the extent of the support for Singh’s right to express his opinion in the word “bogus” and the utter contempt of many people for the judge in upholding the BCA’s rights in this case.

I find it worrying.

I would like to see more awareness of the language we use when we talk about health care of any kind. It really does matter.