The British Chiropractic Association has made a public statement.
However, it has not used this to clarify whether it still endorses the now seemingly withdrawn Happy Families pamphlet, the basis of the current libel litigation.
Nor has it confirmed whether it continues to promote chiropractic for colic, even though the Advertising Standards Authority has banned a chiropractor from making the same claim.
Instead it has published this extraordinary Press Release.
The overall tone is remarkable.
The lumbering BCA seemingly finds it incomprehensible that its tactics have not so far worked; that it has not so far forced Simon Singh to back down.
Tellingly, the BCA seems to think it is to Simon Singh's discredit (rather than its own) that he, unlike almost any other science writer, has the time and money to mount a defence to the horror of an English libel claim.
I would like to draw particular attention to the following passages of the Press Release:-
"Much criticism has been levelled at the BCA for not entering a debate, criticism which is in itself misguided.
"The law exists to protect citizens and organisations from falsehoods and the BCA used the law because of the damage caused by Simon Singh's Guardian article.
"The case brought against Dr Singh was simply a case to establish a libel contained in his article; it never was, and still is not a “freedom of speech” issue.
"Had Dr Singh simply apologised and retracted his remarks, as the BCA originally requested, any action would have been averted – he has chosen not to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence."
"In the course of this litigation the BCA has disclosed to the Courts a plethora of medical evidence showing that the treatments work and that the risk associated with the treatments is minimal, if indeed any risk exists at all."
So all this is not, it seems, a free speech issue.
Well, it is.
(Indeed, to adapt Arthur C. Clarke's famous maxim, when a defendant to a libel claim states there is a free speech issue, he is almost certainly right. When the claimant states it is NOT a free speech issue, he is very probably wrong.)
But I would like to emphasise their "medical evidence" point.
Significantly, the BCA now says it actually has the medical evidence to support the promotion of chiropractic for the children's ailments in question, but so far this crucial evidence is only being disclosed to the court, rather than put into the public domain.
It simply should not have taken Simon Singh to defend libel proceedings for the BCA to be forced to disclose its supposed supporting evidence for the claims, and then only (so far) to the court. The BCA should have disclosed it publicly and immediately, in response to Simon Singh's original article.
In my opinion, that is what a responsible and reputable body should have done.
More on this development later.