Are you familiar with British libel law? It's infamously plaintiff friendly. People have lost even though the statements in question were, in fact, truthful.
Imagine I contacted someones workplace and business partners and told them about a drug conviction that occurred 22 years ago. Or if I took a statement you make after a some drinks in the pub and stuck a print out on poles all around your business.
There are cases where suing someone for libel even if what they say is true doesn't seem demonstrably wrong.
As Top Gear is a big winner for BBC Worldwide (commercial, not-license fee funded), it's been frequently the case in the past that they will fund any legal action should that become necessary.
I'm a fan of electric cars, but I am disappointed by Tesla on this... using the legal system like this leaves a bad taste.
Simon Singh has since won that case last I heard, but it was by no means a given. That it took so long for him to get off for saying fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) should say a lot about the extent to which correctness or belief in correctness is a real defense.
edit: spelling
You're mis-informed. Chiropractic treatments are very useful for certain problems. Some quacks say it will treat any and all illness, but most licensed chiropractors I've dealt with have been highly professional.
I have first-hand experience. After a knee injury playing on my high school basketball team, I suffered from mild swelling in my right knee. As a result it was difficult for me to fully bend it. This condition persisted for 4 months, despite icing, anti-inflammatories and several treatments by multiple physicians. Eventually, one referred me to a chiropractor. It took him about 10 minutes to find the problem, and he was able make the proper adjustment. Within two hours, the swelling was gone and the range of motion was back to normal.
Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors. (FYI, my mother is an MD. I'm hardly a healing crystal using homeopathy enthusiast.)
The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact on in scientifically executed trails, they are only acting as (often unlicensed) physical therapists. IF this is what you go to the chiropractic for, and IF they are a licensed physical therapist, then call them your physical therapist. If on the other hand, they're not licensed, then do yourself a favor and go find one that is.
"Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors."
The industry itself doesn't seem to agree that whiplash is among the defensible things they treat:
"If you have a website, take it down NOW.
"REMOVE all the blue MCA [McTimoney Chiropractic Association] patient
information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own
that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your
clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact
details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice."
This all said, even IF chiropractics can effectively treat a subset of the things the claim, they are still quacks for daring to claim the rest.
What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.
And your personal anecdote is meaningless. I know an elderly lady who swears she's met aliens. Nice lady, not trying to get on the local news, no reason to lie. I honestly think she believes it. Doesn't mean alien encounters aren't bullshit.
Unreproducible anecdotes are not how science works.
EDIT: There seems to be a believe in some circles that chiropractors are just a type of legitimate "back doctor". This is the most important misconception that needs to be stopped in it's tracks, the rest would really just be icing on the cake.
A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest spinal manipulation achieves equivalent or superior improvement in low back pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain".
Many, many other citations of relevant research can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_manipulation#Effectivene...
Funnily enough I might have wholeheartedly agreed with you before my wife, who suffered from back pain which numerous conventional health care professionals have failed to correct, was recommended by a friend to see a chiropractor. She did, with immediate and excellent results; her back problems are now largely a thing of the past.
Yes, another "meaningless" personal anecdote, I don't expect to convince you. But it's caused me to examine my former blind belief in "the science", especially when it comes to health.
I've never even been to a chiropractor but I have seen a Reiki master do work that was impossible to do for the best surgeons in an excellent German hospital. What baffles me is how western medicine is able to ignore things that quite obviously and for all to see work, and ridicule them as "quacks".
IMO quacks are the ones prescribing Ritalin to kids to stop them from running around. Those are the quacks.
If I distribute pamphlets that say "John Smith is gay", even if true, its libel because it isn't information that serves the public's interest.
If, however, I distribute pamphlets that say "Smith Jones is a convicted pedophile", then I'm on much safer footing (assuming it's true) because it can (and has) been argued that such information does serve public interest.