The present situation is even worse than the article states, with authors being sued in the English courts for material published elsewhere if copies of the material are purchased in the UK, something the plaintiff can readily engineer. So the threat of suppression is worldwide. Again, legislation could easily address this.

What I do not understand is why critics or commentators of un-scientific therapies (or any other non- science come to that) do not use more moderate libel proof language.

Not “These claims are bogus” – but “Given the paucity of credible evidence, some might think that the proponents of this treatment are seeking to deliberately mislead the public and promulgate false information…”.

Use Private Eye as an example. “Allegedly” seems to be a handy word.

As for homeopathy – “Given there can be no molecule of the original substance in the ‘remedy’, any effect it may have is so unlikely to be due to that molecule as to make such an explanation totally implausible to classically trained scientists. Some homeopaths suggest water has a ‘memory’. If that is ever to be shown to be the case and accepted as such, a Nobel prize would be in the offing, but at present there just is not sufficient evidence. Any effect that homeopathic treatment has is more likely to be due to psychological mediation, best described by the term ‘placebo effect’.”

Surely such a comment does not libel anyone, yet encapsulates the issue.

Unless of course it is felt the therapist is indeed intending to be fraudulent and bogus!