From the BCA's official statement [http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/B...]:

[...] the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.

A realisation that did not strike them until the prospect of an embarassing loss.

I hope the BCA is forced to bear the costs to Singh. I've been following this story closely and it was setting up to be a real triumph for free reporting and science etc.

Damn the BCA for chickening out of their drubbing early :(

Rather heart-warmingly Google returns dozens of requests from people to contribute to his defence fund, but he has stated he will bear the costs himself:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/3...

"The reason that I have been able to fight this case is that I have the financial resources to do so. Three international bestsellers have provided a very comfortable cushion for trouble indirectly caused by 'Trick or Treatment?'. If I lose, then it will be a major financial blow, but my wife and I will be able to cope. Hence, I have asked myself if supporters should donate money to a more need cause, one that this will also help the cause of free speech and science journalism. I currently have two suggestions [...]"

Hopefully the additional attention this case has brought to Simon's work will translate into an increase in revenue from his books -- furthering the "cushioning" effect.

Just buy his books. He does a great job. Hacker News books all the way!

No because they didn't lose. It's a standard technique for corps suing individuals, you string the person along for years as they rack up $100,000 in legal fees while your costs are for your own internal lawyers - and wait for them to go bust. You drop the case before it goes to court so there is never any chance of you losing.

Where are barratry laws when you need them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

But remember the crackpots (sorry homeopathists) were the innocent victims here - the nasty journalist said they were a buch of frauds - so causing them to lose money and their patients to go untreated.

I'd love to see him counter sue for, I don't know, besmirching his good name.

They accused him of lying right? Can he not ask them to prove that.

Would be amusing (but I realise, sadly, unlikely)

They accused him of libel, actually. In the UK you can both be telling the truth and be guilty of libel. (Hence the hubbub there about libel reform)

Fair point; I forgot the precise bit they were suing over. :)

> No because they didn't lose.

Perhaps not legally (and so, yes, they probably won't be made to pay). But I think publicly they have lost on this.

If the aim was to ruin his reputation that doesn't seem to have worked and neither has trying to ruin him financially.

I would say Singh has won in every sense of the word but a legal ruling :)

If you are interested in more stories of bad science and medicine, then check out Ben Goldacre's site: http://www.badscience.net/ He has a book of the same name.

It's not quite as good as rationality winning hard, but still, it's not bad - and yes, the BCA should bear Singh's costs. And a change to British libel law would be nice, too.

Agreed. This chap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Eady needs sorting also...

"And a change to British libel law would be nice, too."

There were some moves in this direction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8259814.stm

If this sort of war against quackery is of interest to you, I recommend the Australian site 'The Millenium Project' http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/.

Check the site for why it's spelled that way.

IANAL, but wouldn't a win in a court create a precedent that could be used in similar cases? I am really happy about this turnuot, but the early retreat by the Chiropractic seems in part like an unfortunate turn of events, overall...

Edit: Ignore me, I was wrong.

The loser pays the other party's cost in the UK system. How does it work when it is dropped in the middle of the case?