Today Le Canard Noir introduced the bizarre McTimoney Letter to the international skeptic and science blogosphere.
It was a real scoop, and the document was quickly subjected to a first-rate but severe Blogging by diverse hands.
There is not a lot for me to add.
However, the importance of the McTimoney Letter should not be overstated for the ongoing libel case.
On the narrow legal ground of the ongoing libel case brought by the British Chiropractic Association, the McTimoney Letter does not have any direct effect.
The McTimoney Chiropractic Association (MCA) are not the BCA, and so what the MCA can be shown to believe cannot be neatly projected onto the BCA.
That said, the indirect legal impact may be more significant.
No longer can the BCA pose in Court - or elsewhere - as the professional face of chiropractic in respect of promoting chiropractic for various ailments; instead it is now merely another face of the chiropractic association, one amongst others, and where different views are held by different groups.
So it is not a helpful dilution by their CAM colleagues.
And before the McTimoney Letter, the BCA faced Simon Singh, various experts and researchers, the scientific and journalistic communities, and - lately - the Advertising Standards Authority.
Now it is demonstrable that another - albeit smaller and less well-known - chiropractic association does not feel confident that certain claims can currently be substantiated by chiropractic research.
The views of other chiropractors on this particular point will be harder for the BCA to dismiss.
So, in the context of the libel case, the McTimoney Letter is bad news - though not a disaster - for the BCA.