The British Chiropractic Association, which sued science writer Simon Singh over a column in which he wrote about the organisation’s stance on certain childhood medical conditions, has now released a list of studies which it says “support the claims which Dr. Singh stated were bogus.”

Singh and others had challenged the BCA to support their claims with scientific evidence instead of taking the case to the libel court.

Skeptics, such as Martin Robbins on Lay Scientist, have already begun to deconstruct the list, pointing out that few of the 29 listed studies dealt directly with the medical efficacy of chiropractic and that those which did failed to conform to the statistically powerful, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind standard to which many medical studies are subject. Robbins also identifies a case of what he calls “dishonest quote-mining.” [The comment is here.]

Robbins provides a list of other examinations of the BCA evidence, included below.

Further Reading from Others:

Jack of Kent – General commentary and legal background.

Prof. Colquhuon – Detailed look at the nine colic papers.

Ministry of Truth – General review focusing on three of the colic papers.

Andy – Comment on the BCA statement.

Evidence Matters – Review of the paediatric asthma papers.

Gimpy – Review of the ear infection papers.

Phil Plait – An overview of the BCA statement and aftermath.

HolfordWatch – What would constitute good evidence?

Apgaylard – A more detailed look at the bed-wetting papers.

JDC – General comment on the BCA statement.

Think Logic – General comment on the BCA statement.

Cubik’s Rube – A review of blog posts on the BCA statement.

Zeno (Think Humanism) – A look at the BCA’s quote-mining of the GCC code.

Dr. Peter Lipson – Provides an overview and looks at the asthma studies.

Dr. Petra Boynton – Provides an overview of resources readers can use to evaluate the evidence for themselves.