This time last year I had never heard of the now discredited British Chiropractic Association.
If I had read Simon Singh's original article in the April, I soon forgot all about it.
The first time I had ever thought about chiropractic was that May, when Mahlon Wagner gave a fine talk to Skeptics in the Pub in London.
So by the summer, chiropractic was for me just another topic which skeptics had discussed in a pub one evening. It was of no greater interest to me than, say, horoscopes, ghosthunting, or crop circles.
For, although my lovely critic Dr George Lewith has accused me of being "a prominent member of the anti-CAM brigade", I really have never had any particular interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Most of what I now know about CAM has come from dealing with legal threats from CAM practitioners to critics; and so whilst I now know about chiropractic and homeopathy, I still know little about - say - osteopathy, reiki or acupuncture, for the simple reason that practitioners of the latter do not seem to threaten to sue people when criticised to the same level.
Then, one summer day, I get a call from my friend Professor Chris French.
He tells me that Simon Singh is being sued for libel.
I had met Simon Singh, around the time of his fateful Guardian article, when the great and amazing James Randi came to speak in London. At the dinner afterwards I was lucky enough to sit by Simon Singh, and he cheerfully and charmingly fired questions at me about the relationship between skepticism and the law.
So I was shocked and supportive when Chis French told me that this cheerful and charming chap was now being sued.
As I was still "in-house" at time, I was not able to advise or act for Simon Singh.
So I wondered what I could do to help from the outside.
I straight away realised that as a media and communications lawyer I could offer an informed and supportive commentary on this Blog. For although I know little about CAM, I do know about libel law. And, unlike many lawyers, I enjoy writing about law in a popular way.
But as I read further into the case, and finally got hold of the original text, my general wish to support Simon Singh transformed into a stark and fierce passion.
It was immediately obvious on reading the alleged libel that the BCA case was deeply misconceived.
Before I explain the cause of my passion, I would just like to set the BCA case in some legal context.
I have had the good fortune to sit in the same conference rooms and offices as some of the best media litigators in the City.
And of many things I have learned from these experiences, two are salutary:
1. just because a case can be brought it doesn't mean it should be brought; and
2. never, never bring a case unless you are fully prepared to fight it to the end.
(Think about feeding Gremlins after midnight...)
Bad litigation arises when either - or both - of these lessons are disregarded.
I have said before that the BCA do not have a weak case; and the BCA - and The Guardian - lawyers have so far been proved "right" on this narrow point.
Nonetheless, it is a case which should not have been brought.
Nothing important would have been gained by a BCA legal victory - or even defeat - whilst the crucial underlying issue of the adequacy of the evidence base was left unresolved.
And the BCA clearly are bewildered that Simon Singh refused to surrender.
For me, the most telling statement made by the BCA from the plethora of verbiage in their increasingly barmy and desperate press releases, was a snide remark about Simon Singh saying he had the money and time to fight the case.
It was like the school bully realising that someone is both willing and able to take him or her on.
My impression - my guess - is that like a number of such claimants, the BCA did not really think past bringing the claim. To use the dreadful management-speak term, they thought this would be a "quick win".
So, with this background, it was never going to be a good case for the BCA.
However, the source of my passion was nothing to do with CAM or because I had met and liked Simon Singh or that I saw a case wrongly brought.
It was, for me, a free speech issue regarding public health.
In essence, Simon Singh's article was critical of the evidence base for certain treatments for children's ailments.
As such, it is my fundamental view that - absent malice - such statements should be published without fear of legal action.
Indeed, my view is that the law should be there to protect such statements not hinder them.
Debate about public health - and public safety and police powers - should be as free as possible.
As I stated when I set up the Facebook support group (which, incidentally, is now too large for messages to be sent to its members!):
"An informed and responsible science writer should be able to write about genuine concerns on an important public health issue (the correct treatment for children) without the threat and expense of High Court libel claims.
"Even if he is wrong, it would be surely enough for the BCA to simply show their supporting evidence. But they are suing him instead".
The key passage here is "even if he is wrong" - I know little about CAM and did not know if he was correct (though it is now clear to me that he is), but he should have been permitted to raise the issue.
In my opinion, the two sentences in dispute should have been properly sub-edited by The Guardian into being libel-proof - it would have taken five minutes at most.
And, given they were published, the BCA should have accepted The Guardian's offer of a "right to reply".
Or they could have published their evidence base on their website. Perhaps they could have had a conference to discuss Simon SIngh's claims, which I think he would have eagerly attended.
But it was not until Simon Singh forced the BCA with his wide-ranging Defence to set out its purported evidence base for the six children's ailments that the BCA even started trying to substantiate their claims.
(I understand the "plethora" originated in the BCA's attempt to undermine Simon Singh's "Fair Comment" defence - a defence which the BCA strongly opposed. So, had it not been for this defence, we still would not know the BCA's evidence base.)
And when a case is misconceived, disasters can occur.
That said, I never expected the spectacular mess which the BCA has caused by their lawsuit. It really does seem to get worse every week or so.
Yes, the BCA could sue, but it is now obvious to everyone that they should not have done so.
Libel law should not have any role in science generally; but it certainly should be kept out of discussions about public health.
It is where "free speech" should be a given, but it is not.
And so that is why BCA v Singh matters to me.