Richard Brown, the vice-president of the BCA, said that the association had sued Dr Singh "only as an act of last resort"

.

"He published what the Association believed were libellous remarks ... The BCA is fully supportive of scientific debate and this should be a fundamental right," he said. "However, with rights come responsibility and scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and libellous."

I find this statement "and scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity" very insightful. From this simple statement it is obvious that Richard Brown believes that statements from the medical community should be fully "backed up" with proof. And of course we all know that in this "Brave New Age " clap-trap world we know live in this is a total fallacy. Especially here in the USA where it seems any claim at all can be made with no accounting to the truth behind the so called "cures".

Now in fairness it is of course possible that the use of the word "Bogus" was a bad choice. My belief is that the phrase "totally unsupported claims with no scientific proof" would have been far closer to the truth.

So, Mr. Brown (is it doctor by the way?), why don't you put this all to bed once and for all. There is a simple way that you can do this. Let there be an independent study by independent doctors and scientists to either prove or disprove your statements. This is obviously an incredibly hard task to put together because you can not really do a  true double-blind study.

But with a little debate I'm sure that you could all come up with a solution that would be acceptabe to all parties.