Super!

Sorry it's been so long. I've been busy writing a review about smoking and the myocardium which may or may not get accepted some time next year. Plus the wonky shoulder and codeine have ganged up on me and caused me to dribble like a baby for various reasons. However, I'm doing a little better now and feel up to ranting for a bit here.

And what a rant it is, too, even if I say so myself. First of all came the Trafigura / Carter-Ruck thing, which really got my goat. In case you've been living under a rock, this was where Paul Farrelly MP asked a question in the House Of Commons, Trafigura found out about it and called in Carter-Ruck to take out a super-injunction against the press to prevent even a mention of a question being asked.

Needless to say, once the general public got wind of this (through Private Eye and Wikileaks, among others) Carter-Ruck and Trafigura quietly withdrew their injunction and denied any attempt to prevent freedom of speech.

But then another story in the Eye caught my attention. Now, I've linked to the Simon Singh affair before in this blog but briefly, said protagonist suggested that the Chiropractic Association's claim that chiropractor's practices were little more than quackery (my words). Specifically, Singh suggested that they promoted "bogus" treatments. The response was a slap from Justice Eady and a libel award in favour of the CA. Lord Justice Laws has since allowed Singh to appeal, but such is the WHOLLY BLOODY STUPID nature of the UK's libel laws that even if Singh appeals he will be tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket.

In a similar case, one Dr Peter Wilmshurst has also been given a legal kicking regarding his gentle query as to NMT's cardiac procedure (thanks, Dr Aubrey Blumsohn).Yet more cases seem to be popping up daily.

Now that David Nutt has been given the chop by the UK government for stating a few well-researched points about legal and illegal recreational drugs one can't help but feel that science is being stifled in the UK. No longer can we trust to fact: should a statement of fact be disputed purely as a matter of opinion as seems to be the case with many of these legal wranglings, how long before we revert to the dark ages and place our faith with priests, imams and witchdoctors? A tad extreme, perhaps? I'm not so sure these days.