My Twitter feed has been full of tweets today regarding the Simon Singh / British Chiropractic Association case and a remarkable press release issued by the BCA, but there have also been several mentions of an MP named David Tredinnick.

First, the BCA press release: Jack of Kent has an account of this disaster. I reproduce below the first paragraph of his post.

In an incredible press release published either yesterday or earlier today, the British Chiropractic Association made the serious and completely groundless accusation that Simon Singh had been motivated by malice in writing his original article.

Jack of Kent has contacted the BCA (and their PR company) to ask for an explanation of this extraordinary press release. Simon Singh now has a decision to make - whether to counter sue the BCA for remarks made in the statement they published. This could be the beginning of the end of the Singh-BCA case. There is a possibility that this incident could even be the undoing of the BCA.

I wonder how the BCA and their members feel about what has happened since they began their libel action. Many bloggers (and this includes me, writing at Stuff And Nonsense) have posted articles about the BCA, about claims made by chiropractors, and about the regulatory body the General Chiropractic Council (GCC). A number of chiropractors are being investigated following complaints made by bloggers such as Zeno and Simon Perry. Mainstream coverage of the case began to appear. Ben Goldacre has more details in his Guardian article about a ragged band of bloggers. The BCA released their "plethora" of evidence - which was promptly dismantled by bloggers. This Lay Science post has links to the relevant posts from the likes of Evidence Matters, Petra Boynton, and others.

And what of David Tredinnick? Well, yesterday in Parliament Tredinnick referred, in the same comment, to "negative information" regarding homeopathy and "an attack on a statutorily regulated body dealing with chiropractic." It is interesting that he believes negative information to be a problem. If it is accurate and truthful, then so what if it is negative? If homeopathy works no better than placebo should we not be told? Should we be kept in the dark?

Well, Tredinnick believes that the negative information specific to the Royal London homeopathic is "disinformation" and presumably believes it is not truthful and accurate. He seems to make no claims as to the accuracy and truthfulness of negative statements about homeopathy, so I shall. Based on what we currently know, it is accurate and truthful to say that homeopathy probably has no benefit beyond placebo effects. It is utterly implausible, and the best evidence we have (in the form of systematic reviews) suggests that the effects of homeopathy are compatible with placebo effects.

There are, however, problems with the MP's comments in the House of Commons other than his views on the accuracy of information about homeopathy and his characterisation of complaints about chiropractic as an "attack" - for example the following comments:

The opposition is based on what I call the SIP formula—superstition, ignorance and prejudice. It tends to be based on superstition, with scientists reacting emotionally, which is always a great irony. They are also ignorant, because they never study the subject and just say that it is all to do with what appears in the newspapers, which it is not, and they are deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced too, which is troubling.

It is remarkable that Tredinnick characterises scientists as reacting emotionally in response to complementary and alternative medicine - and astrology - and being ignorant "because they never study the subject" (I wonder if scientists who happen to be Professors of Complementary Medicine are excluded from this particular criticism).
It is astounding that he alleges that scientists are "deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced too" and I have to wonder on what basis he makes this claim.

Having read these comments, one may find it hard to be surprised by anything that is said by David Tredinnick. See if this does it:

Whatever one believes personally, the issue [of the impact of astrology and astronomy on medicine] is one that we should look into and consider. We must get away from this awful, mediaeval superstition.

I'm rather baffled as to how Tredinnick can characterise a scepticism of astrology and its effects on medical treatment as superstitious and mediaeval. I've noticed that I can sign up for emails whenever David Tredinnick speaks in Parliament. I have yet to decide whether to do so, as I am unsure whether the result will be a bemused fascination with his overheated rhetoric - or painful frustration.