[2] The BCA have implemented campaigns regarding awareness of many modern technologies and the injuries that can result from them, such as RSI from smartphone and laptop use.

[10] In his article, Singh questioned the BCA's claims that chiropractic treatment "can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying".

[14] On 29 October 2009, Times Higher Education reported that Singh had won the right to appeal against the preliminary ruling on "meaning" in the case.

[16] An editorial in Nature commented on the case, and stated that although the BCA has said that it believes in open discussions about the evidence base for chiropractic treatments[17] and beliefs, it instead appears to many observers that the association is trying to use libel laws to suppress debate.

[18] Sense about Science has been a major supporter of Singh during this case[19] and editorials in BMJ argued that the lawsuit highlights the chilling effects of English libel law on scientific discourse, and free speech.

[20] The backlash to the BCA's libel case has resulted in a lot of coverage in both skeptical and mainstream media,[21] and as such is considered by some to be an example of the Streisand effect.

[23][24] On 1 April 2010, Singh won a crucial appeal that allowed him to clarify that what he wrote was an opinion and was thus protected by the defence of "fair comment" in British libel law.