Please sign british libel petition

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:37:02 GMT

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to say that homeopathy is claptrap. What I think you might not be allowed to say that a named practitioner is practising homeopathy in the full knowledge that it is claptrap.

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:08:57 GMT

The new government have stated that the libel laws are to be reviewed as they are leading to problems with freedom of speach and free scientific discussion. I cannot remember the details (Radio 4) but hopefully this is another situation where common sense can replace poorly considered legislation.

At the moment am I allowed to say I think homeopathy is claptrap without libel action being possible?

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:43:50 GMT

The court of appeal has decided some time ago that Dr Singh's remarks were, as he said all along, opinion and following this the BCA has dropped the case, common sense has prevailed although Dr Singh is still out of pocket.

In the latest development the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has amended its guidance for practitioners to state that the so called spinal sub-luxation, upon which the entire of chiropractic has been based since it was invented, has no basis in reality!

The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns.

One has to ask, "so what's left?".

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:03:04 GMT

Dr Singh's case has been successful and he has now been granted leave to appeal against the original finding in the case - http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/473/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

It has now cost him 200,000 pounds to "establish the meaning of a handful of words". Dr Singh's full statement is here - http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/simon-singh-says.pdf

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:33:55 GMT

[quote user="Mark Frost"]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

Update today:

A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.

[/quote]

That's fantastic news, I wonder if the "good name" of the BCA includes the chiropracter who caused the permanent paralysis of the previously healthy woman in this case - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=152. A life of total dependency is a pretty poor exchange for one session of a therapy for which there are no known benefits.

"There was nothing wrong with her. She didn’t see the chiropractor for headaches, neck pain, back pain or any other complaint. She went for a “tune-up” that she thought would help keep her healthy. The chiropractor did a rapid-thrust adjustment on her neck. Right afterwards, she complained of feeling “sore, dizzy and unwell.” She tried to leave but had to sit down. The chiropractor failed to recognize the medical emergency, and instead of calling an ambulance he recommended that she would benefit from purchasing massage therapy from his clinic. He let her leave the office and drive home alone. She only made it part way.

In the hospital, doctors determined that she had tears in BOTH vertebral arteries in her neck. One tear was 3 inches long.

Chiropractors would like us to believe that strokes after neck adjustments are mere coincidence, that patients like Sandra go to a chiropractor because they have neck pain from a stroke-in-progress and the manipulation is not the culprit. But cases like this are crystal-clear: she had no prior symptoms and there is no question that the neck maneuvers directly caused the tears in the arteries. One of the doctors in the ER took one look at her and asked her husband, “Chiropractor?” Neurologists, emergency physicians, and rational chiropractors all recognize that neck adjustments occasionally cause strokes, but the majority of chiropractors are still resisting reality."

Sounds like the BCA are now trying to suggest that it was their lawyers who made them do it!

The BCA have made fools of themselves; from the judges' comment, para 12:

"By proceeding against Dr Singh, and not the Guardian, and by rejecting the offer made by the Guardian to publish an appropriate article refuting Dr Singh's contentions, or putting them in a proper prospective, the unhappy impression has been created that this is an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics."

There's no doubt that the bullying tactics of the British Chiropracters has done them far more harm than Singh's original article - sympathy factor zero.

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Mark Frost — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:40:42 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

Update today:

A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.

Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008.

Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions.

The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion - meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence.

However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had "erred in his approach" last May, and allowed Dr Singh's appeal.

BBC News science correspondent Pallab Ghosh says that, had Justice Eady's ruling stood, it would have made it difficult for any scientist or science journalist to question claims made by companies or organisations without opening themselves up to a libel action that would be hard to win.

Dr Singh described the ruling as "brilliant", but added that the action had cost £200,000 "just to define the meaning of a few words".

"After two years of battling in this libel case, at last we've got a good decision. So instead of battling uphill we're fighting with the wind behind us," he said.

"The Court of Appeal's made a very wise decision, but it just shouldn't be so horrendously expensive for a journalist or an academic journal or a scientist to defend what they mean.

"That's why people back off from saying what they really mean."

The British Chiropractic Association said it was disappointed to lose the appeal but it was "not the end of the road".

BCA president Richard Brown said: "We are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial.

"Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity".

In the article in April 2008, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors made on treating certain childhood conditions such as colic and asthma.

The BCA alleged that Dr Singh had effectively accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.

The case has become a cause celebre for science journalists and led to calls for defamation law to be rewritten so it would not interfere with scientific debates.

Tracey Brown, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Libel Reform, said: "We are delighted with the judges' ruling, but it does not go far enough.

"There is a cardiologist currently being sued by a device manufacturer, we have researchers who have been unable to publish their critique of lie detector technology because of threats of libel action.

"A major science journal is also currently being sued and our academics are being told to pull down blogs."

British scientific organisation the Royal Institution welcomed the judgement.

Director of programmes Gail Cardew said: "It will encourage scientists and the public to discuss evidence freely without fear of legal threat."

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:07:36 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

Read about the Henrik Thomsen/GE Healthcare case in last week's Sunday Times signed petition. Now off to email friends to do likewise.

[/quote]

I hadn't heard about this case until you mentioned it. The Guardian article is here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/20/scientist-libel-law-henrik-thomsen. He has been discussing the potential fatal or disabling side effects of a drug marketed by GE healthcare:

"GE Healthcare alleges Thomsen claimed it marketed Omniscan despite knowing about its adverse side-effects. It alleges he claimed the firm suppressed the information and concealed it from radiologists, and was therefore guilty of exposing patients who used the drug to a condition that causes tightening of the skin. It claims that Thomsen may also have defamed the company "by way of innuendo".

Shocking - Yet another example of big corporations picking on the little guy to suppress information through the courts rather than arguing the evidence. If/when the pharmaceutical company loose I would like to think that the CEO would be prosecuted for supressing information in a manner which has endangered life.

Fat chance I'm thinking!

Hope everyone had a cool yule, cheers.

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Virginia Campbell — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:38:16 GMT

Read about the Henrik Thomsen/GE Healthcare case in last week's Sunday Times signed petition. Now off to email friends to do likewise.

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:16:28 GMT

The latest message from the campaign - another signature required, even from thos who already signed the original petition. With apologies for length, I received this message last week from Sile Lane of sense about science:

A message from Simon Singh:

"It has been 18 months since I was sued for libel after publishing my article on chiropractic. I am continuing to fight my case and am prepared to defend my article for another 18 months or more if necessary. The ongoing libel case has been distracting, draining and frustrating, but it has always been heartening to receive so much support, particularly from people who realise that English libel laws need to be reformed in order to allow robust discussion of matters of public interest. Over twenty thousand people signed the statement to Keep Libel Laws out of Science, but now we need you to sign up again and add your name to the new statement.

The new statement is necessary because the campaign for libel reform is stepping up a gear and will be working on much broader base. Sense About Science has joined forces with Index on Censorship and English PEN and their goal is to reach 100,000 or more signatories in order to help politicians appreciate the level of public support for libel reform. We have already met several leading figures from all three main parties and they have all showed signs of interest. Now, however, we need a final push in order to persuade them to commit to libel reform.

Finally, I would like to make three points. First, I will stress again - please take the time to reinforce your support for libel reform by signing up at www.libelreform.org. Second, please spread the word by blogging, twittering, Facebooking and emailing in order to encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Third, for those supporters who live overseas, please also add your name to the petition and encourage others to do the same; unfortunately and embarrassingly, English libel laws impact writers in the rest of the world, but now you can help change those laws by showing your support for libel reform. While I fight in my own libel battle, I hope that you will fight the bigger battle of libel reform."

And from me, Síle:

The campaign for libel reform was launched by Sense About Science, Index on Censorship and English PEN on Wednesday 9th December. You can read about it in the following articles:

BBC NEWS Comic Dara O Briain says libel laws 'quash dissent'

The Times Scientists urge reform of 'lethal' libel law

The Independent Comic Dara O Briain lambasts 'bully' libel law

The Mirror Dara O Briain wants libel reform

THE UCL provost: libel law is stifling academic freedoms

New Scientist blog Campaign to reform English libel law launched

Press Gazette'Libel can kill - reform it now'

The Press AssociationDara O Briain wants libel reform

To read the background of this campaign see www.senseaboutscience.org/freedebate. We still need your support. Add your voice at www.libelreform.org and help us reach our fundraising target at www.justgiving.com/bookfund.

Best

Síle

Síle Lane, Public Liaison, Sense About Science, 25 Shaftesbury Avenue, London W1D 7EG

Reg. Charity No. 1101114

Tel: +44 (0)20 7478 4380

www.senseaboutscience.org

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:36:14 GMT

Looks like the general chiropractic council has made a climb down on some of its claims about being able to treat asthma, headaches and colic.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4124312&c=1

A small victory for rational thinking !

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

The SkepVet — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:17:50 GMT

Sorry, everyone for taking this topic off-thread

Wynne

Sorry, everyone for taking this topic off-thread>>>>

I would not worry, as long as God can make you his bitch and convince you its for your own good I am skeptical the vets who post here will feel the rath of God for going "off topic".

art malernee dvm

Art, you asked me for an example of something I don't understand. That last post seems as good as any. It seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. What do you mean? What is your point?

"Sorry, everyone for taking this topic off-thread"

Ok, I will try to esplain it to you.

Would you like the stop sign policeman at the corner of your street to only stop you and a few friends that like you for stop sign violation? If we are going to have a "off topic" policeman lets have that policeman treat all the vets that compete with each other in business equally and stop ALL the vets for "off topic" violation not just the ones the off topic policeman wants to stop. I am skeptical that can be done without prospective written "off topic" rules or software programs that will treat every vet equally. Wynne reported herself "off topic". If we all post

"Sorry, everyone for taking this topic off-thread"

will that keep me from being stopped by the "off topic" police?

art malernee dvm

Re: Please sign british libel petition

sophia guymer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:25:50 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Just out of interest Sophia how did you know it was your childrens' necks that were the cause of the crying?

[/quote]

The oldest would only ever hold his head to one side when laying down. I don't KNOW it was his neck that caused the problems but it seemed a logical conclusion. Deprived of sleep, anything is worth a try!

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]If you acknowledge the latter how is it you can be so sure about the former?[/quote]

I was meerely trying to beat you (and others) to it and answer the question that was immediately going to follow, how did I know it wouldn't have resolved in that time anyway. Well, I don't. It seemed at the time that it worked brilliantly. I am realistic enough to know that that is not proof as such.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"] what type of osteopathy was it that was used in this situation and did the practitioner discuss potential risks with you before hand?[/quote]

It was cranial osteopathy, or so I have been told , I have to admit to be rather sceptical about any alternative med but have a father who has complete faith in his homeopath and as such I am kind of intrigued by these things and willing to give it a chance. We went and it looked like nothing was happening, Peter just layed on his back and got really relaxed while the osteopath cradled his head. She never spoke about risks. Apparently it is all about giving pressure on diff parts of the skull. I don't know, to be honest, I am not that interested in the how and what, just that it did really seem to do the trick and not long after he started to move his head both ways. That was at the time enough for me. All I am trying to point out is that things may not be as black and white as some of you seem to think they are?

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Niall Taylor — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:43:39 GMT

In an attempt to haul this thread kicking and screaming back on-topic...

[quote user="sophia guymer"]After my boys were born (now 4 and 3) they both had problems with their necks and with crying. We went to an Osteopath[/quote]

Just out of interest Sophia how did you know it was your childrens' necks that were the cause of the crying?

[quote user="sophia guymer"]It worked brilliantly, as it did for kids of 2 of my friends. I am very aware that it is possibly it would have all come right on its own given, possibly even the same amount of, time.[/quote]

There could be said to be a contradiction here. On the one hand you say the osteopathy worked brilliantly yet on the other you acknowledge that the problem might have resolved in time anyway, without intervention. If you acknowledge the latter how is it you can be so sure about the former?

As a matter of interest what type of osteopathy was it that was used in this situation and did the practitioner discuss potential risks with you before hand? Obviously osteopathy is different from chiropractic and generally is more highly regarded and carries less risk apart from the version known as cranial osteopathy or "cranio-sacral" therapy which has been associated with problems, particularly in newborns.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Please sign british libel petition

sophia guymer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:20:59 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

My intention is to provide EXACTLY as you describe:

[/quote]

And so you do Arlo!

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I'm not talking in relation to Skepvet's posts here. But I do believe that there is a perception amongst many more moderate vets that forums are sometimes populated or dominated by people with extreme or very emotionally expressed views, (that's the polite way of putting it, moderate vets would call them nutters). It's for that reason the moderates often don't get involved. More [/quote]

Exactly!! Well said!

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]stay on-topic within a thread[/quote]

Far more important than you may think, Skepvet, as it is hard for people to find a topic when it is not under the right heading (vacc in the thread, please sign british libel petition??)

Sophia

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Alex Gough — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:39:17 GMT

It's certainly a challenge, because it is very easy for forums to be taken over by the vociferous and those with an agenda (and maybe some would count me amongst that number!). That's why I think forums need a moderator, and someone who is not a vet, but has some knowledge of the industry, and as far as i can see has no vested interests beyond making this forum work, seems like an ideal candidate.

Now when can I get those post point things converted into cash?

alex

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:22:06 GMT

[quote user="Robert Whiteford"]Arlo - you don't want to stifle someone like the SkepVet. [/quote]

That's certainly not my intention. Skepvet, I apologise if that is how it seemed.

My intention is to provide EXACTLY as you describe:

[quote user="Robert Whiteford"] I may have got it wrong but I thought this site was more a sort of relaxed chatty style of site that any vet could just dip into as and when they had time and not fear they may have stumbled across some sort of closed shop or old boys network that was too intimidating to contribute to.[/quote]

but

[quote user="Robert Whiteford"]We all need to hear the extremes of opinion. [/quote]

I'm not talking in relation to Skepvet's posts here. But I do believe that there is a perception amongst many more moderate vets that forums are sometimes populated or dominated by people with extreme or very emotionally expressed views, (that's the polite way of putting it, moderate vets would call them nutters). It's for that reason the moderates often don't get involved. More than one person has said that to me in relation to 'the thread that dare not speak its name' :)

This is probably the biggest challenge for me in building this community. My aim is unfettered free expression. My aim is for all vets to think of VetSurgeon as 'relaxed, chatty, open, helpful, informal', and most importantly 'used by people like me'.

I find these two aims can sometimes conflict, hence

[quote user="Robert Whiteford"]A forum like this should be as free from constraints as possible[/quote]

It is . There are three basic guidelines: be polite, try and stay on-topic within a thread, and be transparent about who you are (i.e. add photo and biog) so others can put your post in some context.

Just one rule at the moment, which is that if a subject becomes heated, it goes in the 'controversial box'. Anyone who repeatedly raises the subject outside the controversial box might be booted!

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Robert Whiteford — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:55:04 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="The SkepVet"]I am not familar with the term "common nature of the disease". [/quote]

I meant as in 'it's common' or 'widespread' - not that I know how widespread it is, I was just referring to Alex's earlier post in which he said:

You will also have to explain to me how the risk of annually revaccinating in the absence of proof of an extended duration of immunity outweighs the benefits of vaccinating annually against this common, fatal, zoonotic disease.

[quote user="The SkepVet"] I noticed there is no question mark after your word "things". Should there be?[/quote]

Yes. In my haste, I omitted the question mark. Not sure I understand the relevance. Perhaps you could esplain? (sic).

[quote user="The SkepVet"] I am skeptical that those vets on this list will be able to "stay on-topic" if we have no prospective written guides that define what you believe "on- topic" means. Retospective guides in my opinion will only serve to limit debate to what we believe you want us to say.[/quote]

Art, I can't figure out whether you are making a serious point, or just trying to be difficult. Remaining on-topic within a forum thread simply means trying to keep the discussion more or less to do with the original title of the post. Remaining on-topic does not stifle debate, it improves it. It means posts remain relevant to the debate, and it means members can find information more easily (let's face it, 'Please sign the british libel petition is not the first place I would look for a discussion about vaccination).

Anyway, forum guidelines are here: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/forums/p/2650/5322.aspx

[/quote]

Arlo - you don't want to stifle someone like the SkepVet. We all need to hear the extremes of opinion. A forum like this should be as free from constraints as possible without causing WAR. The danger of setting too many rules is that you suppress the ordinary man or women who wants to contribute but may feel that they are not opinionated enuff!!

I may have got it wrong but I thought this site was more a sort of relaxed chatty style of site that any vet could just dip into as and when they had time and not fear they may have stumbled across some sort of closed shop or old boys network that was too intimidating to contribute to.

Skepvet - you need to chillout........ I would be wanting the drug companies to prove their claims or withdraw them. . . and I thought we had a robust Law that prohibits the diagnosis and treatment of animals unless you were an MRCVS.. . . . I have reported several people advertising locally re healing animals - IT IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS YOU ARE AN MRCVS.

Anyway it is excellent banter between you guys

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Alex Gough — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:27:22 GMT

Hi Art,

Some definitions from thefreedictionary.com

Common: Widespread; prevalent.

nature: A kind or sort

disease: A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

Feel free to shout if you are struggling with any other words.

[quote user="The SkepVet"]

I will be glad to discuss reasonable and informed comments.

[/quote]

Since this last was directed in response to Arlo's request to you to respond to my post, I feel I should ask you to either respond to my comments, or tell me why you they feel they are unreasonable and/or uninformed.

To reiterate - to lump the practice of annual leptospirosis vaccination, which is a practice based on current best evidence, with chiropractic, which is a practice that is for many things unproven and for some things disproven, is not logical, scientific or rational. I believe in scientific scepticism and evidence based medicine, but your comments on annual revaccination for leptospira are not evidence based. If you cannto provide evidence to support your position, how can you expect professional bodies to take such drastic action as to suspend the licences of vets who are practising according to current best practice?

Alex

Re: Please sign british libel petition

The SkepVet — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:07:45 GMT

The SkepVet:

Yes. In my haste, I omitted the question mark. Not sure I understand the relevance. Perhaps you could esplain? (sic). >>>>

sorry, I just read the forum guidelines and cannot esplain.

art malernee dvm

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:21:17 GMT

[quote user="The SkepVet"]I am not familar with the term "common nature of the disease". [/quote]

I meant as in 'it's common' or 'widespread' - not that I know how widespread it is, I was just referring to Alex's earlier post in which he said:

[quote user="The SkepVet"] I noticed there is no question mark after your word "things". Should there be?[/quote]

Yes. In my haste, I omitted the question mark. Not sure I understand the relevance. Perhaps you could esplain? (sic).

Anyway, forum guidelines are here: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/forums/p/2650/5322.aspx

Re: Please sign british libel petition

The SkepVet — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:35:22 GMT

I am not familar with the term "common nature of the disease". Please esplain.

will be glad to discuss reasonable and informed comments. I'd argue that VETS need to focus on what they do best - taking care of patients with real medicine. If CLIENTS want something else, they can go somewhere else. If something works then it can be shown to work. Demonstrating the mechanism isn't necessary, but demonstrating the effect IS.

<<<Can I ask you a couple of things. First, please try and stay on-topic>>>

I noticed there is no question mark after your word "things". Should there be?

Please post a link to any written guidelines you want me to follow and I will try my best to follow them.

I am skeptical that those vets on this list will be able to "stay on-topic" if we have no prospective written guides that define what you believe "on- topic" means. Retospective guides in my opinion will only serve to limit debate to what we believe you want us to say.

>>>I must say, I'm a bit confused by some of your posts, which contrast with your very clearly written (and nicely designed) website (here).

I believe that we should focus on the message, not the messenger. What message of mine confuses you?

art malernee dvm

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:47:34 GMT

Hi Skepvet

I must say, I'm a bit confused by some of your posts, which contrast with your very clearly written (and nicely designed) website (here).

Can I ask you a couple of things. First, please try and stay on-topic (especially within your own topic!). Discussing vaccination within a thread about the riveting BCA / Singh situation makes it harder for others to find and get involved in the debate.

Second, it would be really helpful if you could reply directly to points raised by other members, such as Alex's question about how you reach your position on vaccines given the common nature of the disease being discussed, low risk of vaccination, and lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy beyond a year.

If anyone wants to continue the vaccine discussion from here, could you start a new thread titled appropriately.

Thanks

Arlo

Re: Please sign british libel petition

The SkepVet — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:06:31 GMT

Art. Can you imagine this scenario.? >>> lions and tigers and bears oh my!!!!

I am skeptical that any vet board in the UK can force doctors to practice unproven medical care even when it is promoted by the profession.

art malernee dvm

Re: Please sign british libel petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:58 GMT

Art. Can you imagine this scenario.? A veterinary surgeon vaccinates a puppy, but says regular re-vaccinations are unnecessary. A few years later the pup is presented with vomiting and diarrhoea. It is not jaundiced at 1st presentation, so Leptospira is missed and it is not given antibiotics. A child in the household develops the same symptoms, and the parents do not think to tell the doctor that the dog which frequently drinks from puddles is also affected. End result-child dies of Leptospirosis. Not an impossible or even improbable consequence

Wynne

Re: Please sign british libel petition

The SkepVet — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:58:00 GMT

Latest UK news

http://open.salon.com/blog/chris_macdonald/2009/06/10/british_chiropractors_retreating_from_publicity

"A chiropractic association in the UK has taken the very unusual step
of contacting all of its members and recommending they take down
their websites, apparently because of the risk that those websites
contain unsubstantiated claims about chiropractic's ability to treat
certain conditions. etc..."

I am skeptical that the veterinary association in the UK will also take the very unusual step of contacting all of its members and recommending they take down
their websites, because of the risk that those websites contain unsubstantiated claims about annual revaccination until the UK government starts to treat veterinarians like they do chiropractors and the UK licence boards start to pull the licence of the annual revaccinating vets,. If the UK government can understand they should not let chiropractors and physicans promote unproven medical care in the market place maybe there is hope the UK government will not let UK veterinarians do it either.

art malernee dvm