Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council

A letter expressing no confidence in the General Chiropractic Council’s process, interpretation and proportionality in its regulation of the chiropractic profession has been written to the GCC. Its signatories are the chair of the McTimoney Chiropractic Association and the Presidents of the British Chiropractic Association, Scottish Chiropractic Association and United Chiropractic Association.

You can download the letter here.

It’s a long document, with 89 points of complaint to made against the GCC. The most interesting points from my first read were 35 to 38. The trade organisations are accusing the GCC (rightly in my opinion) of doing exactly what they are now accusing their members of.

They correctly point out that the GCC’s patient information leaflet was making similar claims to those Alan Henness and myself complained about. The GCC withdrew this leaflet after I reported them to the ASA in September last year.

They also point out that the GCC was well aware that these claims were being made for some time, from their 2004 survey of the profession, with over 57% of the profession claiming to treat asthma with a back rub, yet the GCC issued no guidance to the profession.

But these are problems that are only to be expected of the GCC. The GCC was set up by chiropractors in order to protect their profession, rather than by members of the public seeking protection from them.

The GCC only acted when they were cornered: their code of conduct states that claims must follow ASA guidelines, and the ASA clearly informed the GCC that these claims did not. They had no choice.

There’s a lesson here for other quacks seeking to regulate their own quackery. You can use people from your own profession to regulate, and they’ll prove themselves incompetent. Or you can use people to regulate your industry properly - and they’ll destroy it.

The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

The Morality of Employment Law

Completely off the normal topic of this blog, but following probably my fifth argument on Twitter over employment law, I figured I’d explain myself in more than 140 characters.

I’ve experienced employment law on both sides of the fence: as employer and as employee. And while I acknowledge that for some people these laws are a benefit, I personally see them as an attack on my freedom. In my experience, the situation seems far worse for the employee than it is for the employer.

So much so, that as an employee in 2000 I spent around £1200 with an accountant to help me waive my employment “rights”. Why, might you ask, would anyone actually pay money to waive their “rights”?

I wanted to waive, amongst other rights:

• My “right” to 20 days paid leave (it’s 28 now).
• My “right” to sick pay, and protection of my job while I’m sick.
• My “right” to a long drawn out disciplinary procedure if my employer no longer wants to employ me.
• My “right” to paternity leave and pay.

So why did I want to waive these “rights”?

Let’s use an analogy: TV rentals.

A TV rentals salesman is pitching to you. It’s the perfect TV and you love it. But there are some strange terms and conditions.

Firstly, you don’t get your TV all year round. For 28 days, you can’t have it. You can rent another TV for that time, but you have to keep paying for the first one.

Secondly, the TV may break. If it breaks, you get a slight discount on the rental price while it’s being repaired but you do need to keep paying for it. If the TV is broken for a long time, you are able to get out of the contract but only after a long drawn out process.

Thirdly, the contract lasts until the TV is 65 years old. If you think the TV is no longer up to the task and wish to change it – or you just no longer need it, you’ve got to follow a long drawn out process. You need to fully document this process in advance, and stick to it to the letter or the TV company may sue you. If the TV company no longer wishes to continue renting the TV, they can take it away easily.

Fourthly, the TV company might need the TV back for a while to help make another TV. They can decide to do this at any time, but you need to keep renting the TV at full price for the first 6 weeks of this process, and then at a reduced price for up to a year. At a time decided by the TV company, they can bring the TV back and you need to put it back in your home and continue paying full price. You can rent another TV to cover this period, but of course it will be under the same contract terms.

Now it should be fairly obvious that if you are trying to rent a TV under this contract, then you’re not going to get a great deal of money for it. This is a very silly way to rent TVs.

But, I hear you say. This isn’t about TVs, it’s way more important than that: these are people’s lives.

And you’re right. My life is way more important than a TV and if I’m going to sell a significant portion of it, it is critical that I am able to negotiate the best possible terms.

I can save up for my holidays; I don’t need my employer to do this for me. I can put money aside for when I’m sick. I can imagine nothing more demoralising than turning up to work and demanding pay from someone who no longer wishes to employ me. I will only make the decision to have children if I can pay for them myself.

Waiving these “rights” gives me the negotiating power to demand more of what I do want. For me personally that means more holiday time, flexible hours, better pay, great people to work with and interesting & challenging work.

I’m not negotiating a simple contract to rent a TV; I’m selling a significant portion of my life. When the government forces me to sell under these ludicrous terms that personally offer me little benefit, they’re not controlling and devaluing my TV.

They’re controlling and devaluing my life.

Controlling another person’s life when they are causing no harm is immoral. Controlling another person’s life in a way that significantly devalues it is exceptionally immoral. This is the morality of employment law.

It's a real shame nobody will help stop Boots making false claims

Sadly, the 240 ASA complaints about quack medicine products being sold at Boots got nowhere. Boots took the rather cowardly decision of withdrawing the 3 for the price of 2 offer to take their products outside of the ASA's remit, rather than defend the claims they make about their products.

I didn't think they'd be able to get away with this, though I'm continuing to learn about how the ASA operates. When I complained about the GCC's patient information leaflet last year, the GCC agreed to remove the claims, but initially continued making the claims on a PDF on their website. When I queried the ASA about this, they asked them to remove it even though being online, the PDF was presumably outside their remit.

When I asked about this apparent double standard, the ASA replied as below (I'd skip reading it, it's quite dull):

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your e-mail, I’m sorry for the delay responding to you. As I explained, our remit does not cover material on advertisers own websites where it does not refer to a sales promotion. While I appreciate your concern about these claims and the manner in which Boots have brought their promotion into line with the CAP Code, the ASA (at this time) is not entitled to comment on claims on companies’ own websites (outside of promotions), such as the Ladycare menopause relief magnet you mention.

Leaflets available to download on advertisers websites, when they are also distributed to the public as hard-copy (the contents of which therefore fall within the ASA’s remit) are generally also subject to any ASA Council adjudication on the hard-copy. However, this only applies where the leaflet itself is available to download in identical form to that which is distributed as hard-copy material.

Our main aim in cases such as the original investigation into the objections you raised about numerous claims on Boots’ websites is to ensure claims which fall within our remit are amended or removed. In this instance, Boots agreed to ensure that any claims subject to the CAP Code would in future conform, without a formal adjudication from the ASA Council being necessary and there do not appear to be grounds to challenge this decision, nor material within space governed by our remit which appear to give us grounds to investigate further.

However, claims made on companies own websites is sometimes subject to specific legislation which Consumer Direct (0845 4040506) or the MHRA (020 7084 2000, www.mhra.org.uk) might be able to advise further.

Again, I realise this will disappoint, but thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact us with your concerns.

Kind regards

Sam

So I think I've hit a dead end with the ASA. Next stop Trading Standards. The thing is, Trading Standards doesn't really do anything unless a lot of people complain.

And I can't imagine there will be many people who will have come back inspired by the excellent TAM London speakers, ready and willing to do the following:

• Choose one product to complain about. You might like to complain about the Fanny Magnet that apparently "helps to reduce or completely eliminate the symptoms of menopause". Or maybe about the BioFirm Danish Detox Plan, which they claim "naturally supports the body’s own internal processes of elimination and detoxification." Or maybe you're really angry that they sell "Boots Teething Pain Relief" which claims, in the title, that it is for teething pain relief yet can't possibly work as it's homeopathic.
• Go the Consumer Direct Complaints Form.
• Fill it out. I've helped with that below by making it easy to copy & paste some basic info that will be relevant to all complaints.
• Submit the form.
• Put a comment below so I can see who did what.

Sadly, I doubt anyone will do this. What a shame.

Helpful advice and information to copy & paste:

Section 1:

Clearly quote any text you believe to be unsupported by robust evidence. Point out that Consumer Protection Regulations 2008 require the company to be able to back up any claims with evidence.

Section 2:

Name of Trader: Boots UK Limited

Address: 1 Thane Road West

Town or City: Nottingham

County: Nottinghamshire

Postcode: NG2 3AA

Telephone Number: 0115 918 2000

Trader's website address: http://www.boots-uk.com

Trader's email address: [Leave blank]

Section 3:

Have you paid for goods or services from this trader?: NO

Leave rest of Section 3 blank.

Section 4:

Please let us know how you heard of Consumer Direct: Website/Internet search.

But as I said, I can't imagine anyone will actually do this and comment to let me know they have done so. Real shame.

Off skiing in Tignes.

1023

I wasn’t able to make Frank Swain’s talk at Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday night, but I did catch up with the uncensored parts on The Pod Delusion Podcast later.

Frank is right when he says that there are a whole host of reasons why people believe, and to convince them we need to meet them on their own turf. If anecdotes convince people to believe, anecdotes will be more effective in convincing them not to believe. (I should clarify that I’m summarising what Frank says, these are my words.)

As an example of a campaign that was not effective, Frank cited 1023.

On the point of 1023 being ineffective, I disagree.

What Frank was saying is that the main message of the 1023 campaign is that “there’s nothing in it”. Homeopaths know there's nothing in it. People who have been shunning real medicine in favour of homeopathy for years know there's nothing in it.

And people who already know there’s nothing in it are not going to be convinced by being told that there’s nothing in it. Frank’s right here - but he’s very wrong when he says that this makes it an ineffective campaign.

A tiny percentage of the population shares our skeptical viewpoint. A larger, yet still small percentage; practice homeopathy.

In the middle sits the vast majority, ready to be plucked by either camp. They go to dinner parties and people tell them they’ve visited a homeopath. They walk past homeopathic practices on their way to work. They’re mostly rational, but don’t know what homeopathy is. They may know there isn’t much evidence to show that it works, but they don’t realise that it’s been tested time after time and shown to be ineffective. They don’t realise that it lacks an active ingredient altogether. They don’t realise that it’s a thoroughly discredited absurdity. They don't realise that there's nothing in it.

It is these people who will be convinced by 1023.

If you’re trying to convince as many people as possible, and are within an environment where the vast majority of people are ignorant yet open minded, only a complete fool would target those who already know about the subject, but are so close minded that they ignore the knowledge they already possess.

I have had a couple of opportunities to speak to open-minded, intelligent audiences on this subject. Most people don’t know what it is. Simply explaining it is all that is required to convince them, completely, that it’s nonsense. It takes minutes.

1023 did this on a mass scale. It was a beautiful, engaging demonstration. Hundreds of people took 42 times the recommended dosage of so called "drugs". This impersonation of a crazed religious sect grasped the attention of newspaper reporters. How can a paper not report a mass drug overdose?

The message was clear: we’re able to do something that seems implausible because we’re using implausible medicine. Or - we’ll be fine: there’s nothing in it.

Of course you won’t convince a homeopath. But that homeopath needs customers. And because of 1023, homeopaths are now operating in an environment where many more people know they’re peddling pills that contain nothing. Their customers are socialising with more people who know the pills contain nothing.

Grow this simple understanding throughout the population and you create an environment where homeopathy will struggle to survive. 1023 did that beautifully.

Frank said people aren’t convinced by facts. Telling a story is in many cases more convincing. So I’ll end with a story. Here it is:

Before I was convinced by facts, I once suggested to someone that they might try visiting a homeopath.

A Step-by-Step ASA complaint

Recently I’ve had lots of requests for advice on the best way to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority about various devices falsely claiming health benefits. The good news is that it’s easy. But of course, if you hadn’t done it before you wouldn’t know that.

I’m going to walk you through the process with a quick example, an advertisement for a Reflexology Circulation Enhancer in July 25th’s Sunday Telegraph.

The first step is to look through the ad, sentence by sentence, to see if you can find any specific misleading claims. You’re not just looking for outright lies, but also what Harry Frankfurt defines as bullshit. Claims that have been made up without concern for whether they’re true or not.

Sometimes the advertiser won’t make their claims clearly, they will imply them. The ASA can still adjudicate against misleading implications.

You can click the picture to the right to see a clearer view of the ad. If I work through from the top, we find something pretty quick.

1. The title “circulation enhancer” clearly implies that this product is able to increase circulation. I do not believe that the manufacturer JML have any evidence to substantiate this claim.

Easy.

The subtitle is the next obvious bit. “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”. So I’d simply quote this, then question it:

2. The advertisement claims “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:
a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.
b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.
c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

Again; easy. The ad continues:

“For centuries, the Chinese have believed that every part, gland and organ of the body is connected to specific areas of your feet which when manipulated using fingertips help soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again.”

“Bringing that philosophy into the 21st century, the JML Circulation Enhancer uses proven T.E.N.S technology to create the same effect – but this time at the touch of a button and in the comfort of your home.”

I’ll quote this text to the ASA, and then make the following observations:

3. While it may be true that some people believe that manipulating parts of the feet can “soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again”, that advert is implying that these beliefs are true. I do not believe that the advertiser possesses evidence to back these claims up.

4. When JML state “proven T.E.N.S technology” they are implying that T.E.N.S has been proved to be effective for the specific claims they make, for example to “re-energise”.

5. When JML state that their technology creates “the same effect” as reflexology, I do not doubt them, as reflexology is unlikely to have any effect. However, the implication is clearly that both their product and reflexology have a beneficial effect on health.

6. JML state “Chinese have believed…”. While there may be Chinese people who do believe this, I have found no evidence to suggest that it is believed by a significant portion of the Chinese population. I find this statement offensive because it implies that the Chinese are a particularly gullible race.

I should clarify that I don’t think JML are a racist organisation, I don’t think they’ve thought through the implications of what they are saying. That last point was for my own personal amusement.

There is also a testimonial:

“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”

7. Statements made in testimonials need to also be backed by evidence. This clearly implies that the device is efficacious for the health benefits outlined at the top of the advert.

Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.

8. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that “reflex points” actually exist, let alone that they are capable of being “stimulated” by this device.

And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.

9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.

There is also the picture with the magic blue bullshit field around the legs of the lady on the chair.

10. The picture showing the rings around the lady’s feet are clearly designed to imply that there is some sort of magic field emanating from the device. I doubt that JWL have any evidence to show that this field exists.

Once you’ve made the points, simply wrap it up in an email. I generally prefer to email the ASA rather than use their online form because of attachment size limits on their form, but either way is fine if it works.

Here’s the final product.

To: new.complaint@asa.org.uk
Subject: Complaint about Circulation Enhancer advert in The Sunday Telegraph.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to complain about an advertisement I found on page 20 of the Lifestyle section of the Sunday Telegraph on the 25th July. The advert makes a number of what I believe to be unsubstantiated health claims.

I have attached a copy of the advert.

1. The title “circulation enhancer” clearly implies that this product is able to increase circulation. I do not believe that the manufacturer JML have any evidence to substantiate this claim.

2. The advertisement claims “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”

I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:
a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.
b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.
c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

The advert also states:
“For centuries, the Chinese have believed that every part, gland and organ of the body is connected to specific areas of your feet which when manipulated using fingertips help soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again.”

“Bringing that philosophy into the 21st century, the JML Circulation Enhancer uses proven T.E.N.S technology to create the same effect – but this time at the touch of a button and in the comfort of your home.”

3. While it may be true that some people believe that manipulating parts of the feet can “soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again”, that advert is implying that these beliefs are true. I do not believe that the advertiser possesses evidence to back these claims up.

4. When JML state “proven T.E.N.S technology” they are implying that T.E.N.S has been proved to be effective for the specific claims they make, for example to “re-energise”.

5. When JML state that their technology creates “the same effect” as reflexology, I do not doubt them, as reflexology is unlikely to have any effect. However, the implication is clearly that both their product and reflexology have a beneficial effect on health.

6. JML state “Chinese have believed…”. While there may be Chinese people who do believe this, I have found no evidence to suggest that it is believed by a significant portion of the Chinese population. I find this statement offensive because it implies that the Chinese are a particularly gullible race.

There is also a testimonial:

“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”
7. Statements made in testimonials need to also be backed by evidence. This clearly implies that the device is efficacious for the health benefits outlined at the top of the advert.

Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.

8. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that “reflex points” actually exist, let alone that they are capable of being “stimulated” by this device.

And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.

9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.

10. The picture showing the rings around the lady’s feet are clearly designed to imply that there is some sort of magic field emanating from the device. I doubt that JWL have any evidence to show that this field exists.

I am complaining as a concerned member of the public and wish to confirm I have no commercial interest.

[full name, address and phone number]

Many thanks,

Simon Perry

There is little evidence that it doesn’t work

When Maggie Dunn and Maggy Wallace of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council spoke at Leicester Skeptics in the Pub earlier this week, I certainly got the impression that they were, at least to a certain extent, able to be swayed by rational argument.

I think they genuinely took something away from the Q&A session, yet there was one thing that they repeatedly said both in the Q&A and during our dinner beforehand that was (a) important and (b) not responded to. I wish to address this point here.

When faced with points made about the fact that there was no evidence for the claims made by a lot of the practices they regulate, their response was words to the effect of “but there is little evidence that it doesn’t work”.

The argument offered in opposition to this was simply that the onus of evidence is on the person making the claim. While I agree with this, it is more of a custom in argument rather than a valid point. However, there are reasons why this custom is observed that I believe are more influential than simply stating it.

There are two points that are implicitly made when someone points out that there is “no evidence that it doesn’t work either”:

1. That in the absence of knowledge, the probability of being right or wrong is 50/50.
2. That in the absence of knowledge, it is ethical to take a position and communicate it authoritatively.

Both of these points are incorrect.

The human body is an incredibly complex organism, and there are potentially billions of possible medical interventions, only a small handful of which are likely to work for any given ailment.

Even if we find that a given intervention is indeed useful, the probability of it being useful for any particular disease is still small. I can think of no intervention that works for most diseases.

If you were to make one reasonable and thought-through assumption about a drug’s possible effects from extensive knowledge of chemistry and biology, there is a good chance you’re going to be wrong when you apply it to the complexities of the human body.

But if you were to make an assumption based on no knowledge whatsoever, it would be highly likely that you are wrong. What’s more, the principle of Occam’s razor dictates that the chances of you being right will diminish with the number of assumptions made.

For instance, take reflexology. The first assumption is that various parts of the body are somehow connected with pathways to various parts of the foot. The second assumption is that massaging near one end of a pathway will produce an effect at the other. The third assumption is that this effect will be clinically beneficial. The forth assumption is that reflexologists have correctly mapped which positions on the foot are connected to which organs.

The likelihood of any of these single assumptions being correct in the absence of any evidence is miniscule. But for reflexology to be effective, all of these assumptions would have to be correct.

Even if we assume that the chance of each being correct is 10%, a ludicrous overestimate, then the chances of the therapy working would be a tiny 1 in 10,000.

But, for the purposes of argument, let’s imagine we live in a strange universe where the probability of any intervention being efficacious for any disease was the same as a coin toss landing heads.

Would it then be ethical to make claims of efficacy for an untested intervention?

I think not.

By making an authoritative claim that the intervention works, you are implying that you have a greater knowledge of the intervention’s efficacy than someone who is ignorant on the subject. In the mind of a person hearing your claim, the probability of efficacy will now be significantly higher than 50/50. After all, they heard it from someone presenting themselves as an expert.

If you were to ask a person who has never studied the efficacy of reflexology if it works for arthritis, the only honest answer they would be able to give would be “I’ve never studied it but in the absence of evidence it is unlikely to be effective”. For reflexologists, having never tested their treatment’s efficacy, any other reply is dishonest.

At Boots, it's 3 for the price of 2 on quackery

At 2pm on the 14th July, Skeptic Kash Farooq alerted me via Twitter to a quack medicine product on the Boots web site that he was going to make an Advertising Standards Authority complaint about.

The only problem was that the ASA does not regulate web site content. And this has been a problem stopping us from tackling Boots for some time. If Boots has false or unjustifiable claims to make about a product, they only seem to make them in areas where the ASA can’t touch them. They use packaging, point of sale materials and their web site to make their claims – all outside of the ASA’s remit. I’ve personally never seen widespread false claims made by Boots on posters, leaflets or in the press where the ASA can start issuing adjudications against them.

Whether this is a deliberate strategy by Boots, or just through chance alone I cannot be sure. But yesterday, they slipped up.

Kash had noticed that Boots had a 3 for the price of 2 offer “across all vitamins, complementary medicines and herbal products”. There are a couple of exceptions where the ASA will regulate claims made on the web. One is:

“We regulate sales promotions, such as special offers, prize draws and competitions wherever they appear.”

Boots appeared to have put their entire range of alternative health products – the products for which they regularly make unjustified claims of health benefits – fully within the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority.

I had no idea of how long this promotion would last, and with the ASA sometimes taking over a week to look at a case, I did not want the claims to fall out of remit before my complaint went in. Boots may have seen the tweets about them and realised they needed to withdraw the promotion. For the best chance of success, the complaint had to go in by the start of business the next morning.

I started going through the claims and realised that there was no possible way I could get through them by myself. Boots had 679 products in the range, many of which were making clearly unjustifiable claims. And in comes the power of Twitter. With a couple of Tweets, I suddenly had a small army of helpers.

I created a shared Google Spreadsheet in which a team of 9 or 10 people started adding URLs from the Boots web site and copying and pasting next to them the unjustifiable claims made about the product. With a little help from technical wizard @tommorris answering my call for help, I found a program that would automatically download the large number of web pages and print them to a local PDF to hold as evidence.

Watching what was happening on the Google Spreadsheet was awe-inspiring. When I started letting people into the document, there were 80 URLs copied and pasted into the list. By the time I got 15 more URLs into it, @the_beacon, @richardtomsett, @HelenaThomas, @dellybean, @kashfarooq, @nwoolhouseuk, @cherryblack, @RoisinThomas and @kingmuskar had pretty much copied and pasted all of the claims and were now waiting on me.

By the end of the evening, we’d sent off complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about 107 Boots products.

The claims they were making varied from shocking – claiming that a homeopathic remedy is “to relieve the pain of teething.” To the bizarre – a magnet which you put in your knickers which they claimed “helps to reduce or completely eliminate the symptoms of menopause” – something one of my helpers described as a “Fanny Magnet”. There were some less serious claims such as listing “30c Aconitum napellus” as an active ingredient on a product when I can say with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999994% certainty that if manufactured carefully contains no Aconitum napellus (and I worked that number out, it’s not just a guess).

But my helpers continued after I finished. @nwoolhouseuk, @ScepticLetters,
@GDLockUK, @kashfarooq and @the_beacon together sent in a second complaint with another 133 products listed. @nwoolhouseuk was still going at 1:30 in the morning, and @ScepticLetters finally finished it off at 4am.

Boots will now hopefully be held to account. For years, whether accidentally or by design, they been keeping the misleading claims they make about their products just beyond the remit of the ASA. One slip up, and with excellent teamwork we caught them out in one night with a total of 240 complaints.

Letters to the Gideons

I did my Skeptical Activism & The Quacklash talk at Westminster Skeptics in the pub last night. My opening gag for the talk is related to a letter I wrote some years ago.

Several years ago I was inspired by the hilarious Timewaster letters and went through a period of writing daft letters to various organisations for no other reason than my own personal amusement. Last night, someone suggested I should publish these letters on my blog. While I don't want to ruin my opening gag by publishing the one I refer to in the talk, here's a series of letters I wrote to The Gideons, the people that leave Bibles in hotel rooms.

GCC investigations committee refers 36 Chiropractors to Professional Conduct Committee

The GCC has now updated me on the status of 50 of my complaints.

In 36 cases, the Investigations Committee has decided that there is a case to answer and they will be referring an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct against them to the Professional Conduct Committee.

In eight cases, the GCC is awaiting further information.

But in the remaining six cases, the GCC has decided not to pursue the allegation. It reads as though a determining factor was that those chiropractors immediately removed the claims upon being advised to do so by their association. The only explanation I can think of is that the BCA wrote to their members advising them not to make the claims while simultaneously pursuing a case against Simon Singh for referring to those same claims as "bogus".

Looks like the BCA does sometimes give good advice after all.

OfQuack launches six-month bullshit amnesty: the regulator that doesn’t regulate

Regular readers of this blog will know that some time ago I began making complaints to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council about reflexologist members who happily promote their bogus treatments despite the fact that there was not a jot of evidence to support them.

The CNHC has now informed me that for the next six months, they will no longer be processing any complaints that are similar to the ones I’ve submitted. By similar, I take this to mean complaints regarding practitioners who mislead their clients by making unjustifiable or false statements, including practitioners who have already been cautioned by the CNHC for doing it before.

The CNHC ruled in my favour of my original complaints, and told the members to stop making the claims, giving them until the end of March 2010 (4 months!) to remove them from their web sites. So now the four months are up, how many web sites have changed? I went back to look at 13 of the web sites I originally complained about.

Of the 13, two of the websites no longer exist which left 11 I could check.

Three of reflexologists seem to have toned down the claims, though continue to make them:

• Linda Pate seems to have prefixed her claims with the statement “there is a view that”.
• Lina Ramchand perhaps believes that her claims that reflexology releases toxins, can help with "infertility issues" and can "lead to easier child birth" comply now that she’s put them within quotation marks.
• Siobhan Elliot seems to have removed the claims to treat colic, IBS and arthritis from her site but now states “it is believed reflexology may be useful” for pregnancy and fertility. Her site invites you to request more info on reflexology, when I asked I was sent a word doc that claimed to treat IBS. Her page on reflexology links to another site that makes the claim that reflexology has anecdotally been shown effective for migraines, fertility, sleep disorders and hormonal imbalances.

Only one reflexologist has removed the bogus claims from their site. The other seven continue to happily promote their bogus treatments on their web sites on April 1st 2010, the day after the deadline they were given to remove the claims:

• Carole Armstrong claims that reflexology "may help with a variety of conditions both acute & chronic including sleep or hormonal problems, back pain & neck pain, digestive problems such as IBS".
• Linda Walker still makes claims for hay fever & arthritis
• Nuala Bent still claims that Reflexology “is helpful for many conditions including: Sinusitis, Menstrual Problems, Menopausal Problems, Stress, Migraine, Back Pain, Arthritis, Sciatica, Frozen Shoulder”
• Hazel Parry still promotes reflexology for “migraine, arthritis, sleep disorders and fertility issues.”
• Marguerite Gunn still mentions reflexology as a treatment for asthma, joint problems, back pain, colds/flu, hay fever, allergies and infertility.
• Mascha Mieris still advertises reflexology for “Back Pain, Migraine, Headache, Infertility, Arthritis, Sleep Disorders, Sports Injuries, Hormonal Imbalances, Digestive Disorders, stress-related Conditions.”
• Alison Graham continues to promote reflexology to “improve digestive function, lower blood pressure, improve sleeping patterns, balance hormonal problems and benefit the immune system.”

But maybe all of these practitioners had made the changes within their practices, and just failed to update their sites?

No.

I phoned four of the practitioners. Carole Armstrong was more than happy over the phone to tell me that reflexology “can help” with arthritis. Linda Walker claimed to treat both arthritis and hay fever. Hazel Perry said that reflexology “can help her” referring to my mother’s fictitious arthritis. Sharon Dean, the only reflexologist who had removed the claims from their web site, was told me that “some people believe it can” help with infertility problems, though she did clarify that this was “not proven”.

To see what the CNHC would do about their members continuing to flout their regulations in spite of an existing ruling against them, I submitted a second complaint about Linda Walker. I included email evidence that Linda Walker was still making the same claims as before.

The CNHC told me that they would not be investigating this complaints, or any complaints like it. They “would not be able to action any complaints of a similar nature to those you have already submitted for six months from the date of this letter”.

The CNHC, it seems, now refuses to investigate complaints about its members making misleading or unjustifiable claims – even against those it has already ruled against.

Its members have shown their lack of respect for any decision made by the CNHC by not removing the claims from their web sites.

How can the CNHC still consider itself to be a regulatory body if it no longer regulates?

Scientist to take on Tredinnick MP in next election

Dr Michael Brooks, an author, journalist, broadcaster and consultant to New Scientist with a PhD in quantum physics will be taking on David Tredinnick MP in the next election. For anyone who knows anything about Tredinnick’s hopeless understanding of science and almost fanatical commitment to mumbo jumbo, the reasons will be clear.

Michael’s announcement, in his own words, are below.

But most importantly, we urgently need the signatures of 10 people who are registered to vote in the Bosworth constituency. Without this, we cannot register Michael as a candidate. If you do not live in this constituency, do you know anyone who does?

Bosworth constituency covers the towns of Ambien, Barlestone, Nailstone and Osbaston, Barwell, Burbage St Catherines, Lash Hill, Burbage Sketchley, Stretton, Cadeby, Carlton, Market Bosworth with Shackerstone, Earl Shilton, Hinckley Castle, Hinckley Clarendon, Hinckley De Montfort, Hinckley Trinity, Markfield, Stanton, Fieldhead, Newbold Verdon, Desford, Peckleton, Ratby, Bagworth, Thornton, Twycross, Witherley and Sheepy.

Please email Michael on mb@michaelbrooks.org if you are in the constituency and able to offer support.

Michael's announcement follows:

Dear All,

I’m a science writer and a consultant to New Scientist magazine. I’m looking for 10 people who would be willing to sign my nomination form to stand in the general election in the Bosworth-Hinckley constituency.

The point of standing is to highlight the fact that science is not just an indulgence for the curious, but is vital to British life, culture and economic well-being.

Science contributes more to Britain's GDP than the financial services sector. It also seeds future economic benefit. Science-based healthcare has made all of our lives immeasurably better.

And yet science does not really figure on political agendas; it is an add-on, at best. The Conservative shadow science minister has already said science funding will almost certainly be cut under a Tory government. Labour is promising more, but funding for science has actually flatlined under Labour, and is lower than it was in 1986, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.

It's not just about science and scientists. Science feeds into most aspects of modern life -- this is about what kinds of qualification we want our MPs to have. Do we want politics and economics graduates making the decisions? Or do we want MPs who are qualified to deal with scientific and technological questions, and able to analyse a problem using a skillset that has proved the most powerful tool we have: rational, scientifically-based thinking?

I will stand for Parliament in order to get people across the country talking about what they want from their MP. Hopefully that will cause them to ask difficult questions of all their candidates, such as whether their children will be able to work in science in Britain, or whether they will have to go abroad to the countries who are currently increasing their science funding: France, Germany, China and the US, for example.

Why Bosworth-Hinckley?

The sitting MP, David Tredinnick is symptomatic of the problem facing the future of Britain. Not just because he was involved in cash-for-questions and in the expenses scandal, but because he is exactly the kind of MP who undermines science. Tredinnick’s expenses included a claim for astrology software. Do we want MPs to be making decisions about the future of our country based on where Saturn happens to be in the sky on the night before a vote in the House of Commons? Tredinnick has also tabled an “Early Day Motion” suggesting that the House of Commons Select Committtee’s report into homeopathy, which recommended that the NHS no longer fund homeopathic treatments, was poorly researched and should not be taken seriously. He is a champion of pseudo-science and a hindrance to rational governance.

If we are to secure the future of science and engineering research, and thus secure the future of Britain’s economy, we need to make sure that our MPs will not ignore and undermine the scientific traditions on which this country is built.

Getting Tredinnick out of office will be a good start. Hopefully we can populate the House of Commons with people who understand what really makes the world go round – literally and metaphorically. We need a scientific government for this scientific age.

I write regularly for New Scientist and the New Statesman, and hope to highlight all these issues in various blogs, magazines and newspapers during the campaign.

But in order to get this off the ground, I need ten people who are registered to vote in the constituency. You don’t have to vote for me, but I’d be grateful for the chance to get on the ballot paper!

If you would be willing to do this, please let me know by email (mb@michaelbrooks.org) or Twitter (@DrMichaelBrooks). If you want to know more about me, please visit www.michaelbrooks.org

Thanks very much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.

With best wishes,

Michael Brooks

The CNHC won't be publishing my complaints

Following my complaints to the CNHC about 14 reflexologists claiming to treat specific diseases without any credible evidence, you may have noticed that nothing has yet appeared on the CNHC’s decisions page.

I contacted Maggie Dunn about this matter. It appears that because my complaints were dealt with before it got through to the conduct and competence committee, they do not intend to publish the details on the web site, nor do they intend on ever naming the offending practitioners.

I do not believe that they intend to go any further than this press release published in December 2009 congratulating themselves on a job well done.

With still no clarification from the CNHC on what practitioners are allowed to claim, it seems likely that there are many more CNHC members continuing to do exactly the same with no worry about regulation.

Maybe it’s time to submit a few more complaints.

Boots avoid admitting there's nothing in it. 10:23

If you thought I'm too old for this sort of childish moron-baiting, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. This month I've been emailing Boots to ask how much Arnica is in one of their Arnica 30C remedies. Obviously I know the answer - there is none. Boots also know the answer.

It's quite amusing however, to see them trying to avoid giving me this answer. The email trail follows.

10:23.

---

8 January 2010 21:03

Hi,

I'm used to seeing the quantity of ingredients listed in mg rather that as "6C" or "30C" as your homeopathic remedies are labelled.

Can you clarify for me how many mg of Arnica is in one of your "Arnica 30C" tablets? I tried to work it out, but I think I got confused at some point.

Thanks,

Simon

---

11 January 2010 17:39

Dear Simon

Thank you for taking the time to email me regarding Boots Arnica 30c (item code 37-71-814) with regard to converting the content of Arnica into milligrams.

I am afraid, however, that it is not possible to convert "centesimal" (c) dilutions of Homoeopathic remedies into milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg).

During the manufacturing of Homoeopathic remedies the amount of Arnica is not quantified in milligrams or micrograms. Instead one drop of Arnica (or other Homoeopathic ingredient) is added to ninety-nine drops of diluent (carrier) to produce a 1 centesimal (1c) potency, which is then further diluted to produce a 6c or 30c product.

I hope that this information is of use to you.

Regards

Paul Williams MRPharmS
Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer

---

11 January 2010 18:17

Hi,

Sorry, I'm confused by this. Surely there is a specific amount of Arnica in the pills which can be measured in mg?

If, as you suggest, that a 1C remedy is 1% Arnica then surely if it was a 100mg pill, then this would be 1mg Arnica. Why isn't this correct?

Simon

---

14 January 2010 13:27

Dear Simon

Thank you for your second e-mail regarding Boots Arnica 30c (item code 37-71-814).

Unfortunately, the amount of Arnica (or other Homoeopathic ingredient) in the drop that is then subsequently diluted with 99 drops of diluent (carrier) is not quantified in milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg).

Thus, although it is true to say that a 1 centesimal (1c) Homoeopathic remedy contains 1 part of Arnica, as the amount of Arnica is not initially quantified then it is not possible to convert this into milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg).

Therefore, with regard to Homoeopathic remedies we are not able to state the quantity of Arnica in milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg) for the reason outlined above.

The labelling of our products is in accordance with guidelines on the labelling of Homoeopathic remedies, which are derived from The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (known as the MHRA), which is the UK medicines regulator. These guidelines state that the scientific name of the "stock" (i.e. Arnica) and centesimal dilution should be declared on the labelling.

I hope that this further information is of use to you.

Kind Regards

Paul Williams MRPharmS
Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer
Medical Services

---

14 January 2010 15:39

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your reply, and I understand that without knowing the mass of the original drop of Arnica it would be impossible to determine the subsequent mass of Arnica in the final product. However, it should easily be possible to determine the percentage of Arnica in the final 30C remedy.

Am I correct that a 1C remedy is 1% active ingredient? That it is 99% water and 1% Arnica?

What is the percentage of Arnica in the final 30C product?

I've been trying to work this out myself, but I think I've gone wrong somewhere. This will allow me to make an approximate estimate of the number of mg of Arnica.

Many thanks for your help,

Simon

---

18 January 2010 16:29

Dear Simon

Thank you for you further e-mail regarding Boots Arnica 30c (item code 37-71-814).

I can confirm that a 1c Homoeopathic remedy comprises of 1% of the Homoeopathic ingredient i.e. Arnica and 99% of the diluent (carrier).

I can also confirm that to produce a 2c Homoeopathic remedy 1 drop of the 1c Homoeopathic dilution is then further diluted with 99 drops of diluent (carrier). This would equate to 0.01% of the Homoeopathic ingredient i.e. Arnica.

To produce a 3c Homoeopathic remedy this method of dilution is repeated with one drop of the 2c dilution and so on in order to produce a 30c Homoeopathic remedy.

The labelling of our products is in accordance with guidelines on the labelling of Homoeopathic remedies, which are derived from The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (known as the MHRA), which is the UK medicines regulator. These guidelines state that the scientific name of the "stock" (i.e. Arnica) and centesimal dilution should be declared on the labelling.

I hope that this information is of use to you and is sufficient to allow you to calculate the percentage of Arnica.

If you require further support in understanding Homoeopathic remedies then you may wish to contact the supplier for this product, Nelsons, via enquiries@nelsons.net.

Regards


Paul Williams MRPharmS
Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer

---

18 January 2010 18:02

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply, however I'm still having problems with my calculation. While the figures seem to make sense from a mathematical point of view, the percentage of Arnica seems to reduce fairly rapidly to seemingly absurd quantities.

As you said in your email, these products are licensed by the MHRA and of course they are sold by Boots, so I've no doubt as to their effectiveness.

So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that I've made a mess of the mathematics.

Can you confirm the answer you get for a 30C remedy?

Many thanks,

Simon

---

22 January 2010 15:37

Dear Simon

Thank you for your further e-mail regarding Boots Arnica 30 c (item code 37-71-814) with regard to calculating the percentage of Arnica.

Whilst the information about the dilutions of Homoeopathic remedies is freely available from validated reference sources, the actual percentage in a 30 c Homoeopathic remedy is not stated and, therefore, I am afraid I am unable to provide this information.

At Boots we take our responsibilities as the leading Pharmacy-led Health & Beauty retailer in the UK very seriously and as part of this we pride ourselves on being able to offer all of our customers a choice of products that support them in their day-to-day lives. We know that many people believe in the benefits of complementary medicines and we aim to offer the products we know our customers want.

I can confirm that Boots Arnica 30 c are a licensed Homoeopathic product without approved therapeutic indications. The pack is labelled in accordance with the requirements placed upon the Marketing Authorisation holder, Nelsons, by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. If you would like to contact the Marketing Authorisation holder to discuss the formulation of this product and the manufacturing process in more detail they are contactable at enquiries@nelsons.net.

Our Pharmacists are trained Healthcare Professionals and are on hand to offer advice on the safe use of complementary medicines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain issues guidance to Pharmacists on the correct selling of Homoeopathy, which our Pharmacists adhere to.

I would like to conclude by confirming that Boots support the call for scientific research and evidence gathering on the efficacy of Homoeopathic medicines as this would help our patients and customers make better informed choices about using Homoeopathic medicines.

I hope that this information is of use to you.

Regards
Paul Williams MRPharmS
Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer
Medical Services

---

23 January 2010 08:52

Hi Paul,

I get the impression that you are trying hard to avoid answering my question.

In an earlier email you say that it is possible to calculate the percentage of Arnica in a 1C and 2C remedy but then without reason you say you cannot do it for a 30C remedy. Yet in a previous email you state that the information you gave me should be sufficient for the calculation.

The problems I was having when calculating the amount of Arnica is that every time I did the maths, the result came out that there was no Arnica remaining in the 30C remedy.

This is a perfectly simple and clear question: is there any Arnica remaining in an Arnica 30C remedy?

Many thanks,

Simon

---

As yet - no response.

David Tredinnick MP Promotes Dangerous Ideas

The ability to use reason, weigh evidence and make rational decisions is an essential skill. Strongly held beliefs unsupported by evidence can cause significant damage to the deluded individual and those who surround them.

An individual approaching a homeopath for a cold remedy will probably do no more self harm than to waste their money and feed their own delusion, but the homeopath who convinces their client that they're safe to go to West Africa with nothing more than a sugar pill for malaria protection may well kill them.

But mumbo-jumbo becomes most dangerous when it is believed by those with power.

In the late 1980s, the Government launched an Aids awareness campaign warning people not to "die of ignorance". But 13 years later in South Africa, the Mbeki government was infected with the very ignorance we Brits were warned against.

Mbeki started to doubt HIV was the cause of Aids and the regime started promoting the eating of potatoes and garlic as Aids treatment while warning of the dangers of anti-retro viral drugs.

The South African government's stance is estimated by scientists to have caused the premature deaths of between 300,000 and 350,000 people, the equivalent of a 9/11-sized catastrophe once a week for two years.

Under Chairman Mao, the People's Republic of China embarked on its Great Leap Forward, combining a set of absurd pseudo-scientific farming practices with a socialist economic doctrine so daft that its flaws could have been spotted by a teenager half way through their economics GCSE.

The farming practices were devised by Trofim Lysenko, who denied many basic tenets of biology, even genetic theory.

His farming advice included ploughing to a depth of two metres, storing wet seed in snow and planting rows of seeds extremely close together under the belief they would not compete with each other.

With the expected productivity gains, they reasoned there was little need to farm much of the land. But then these expectations were not based on any kind of rational thought or evidence.

This lethal combination of nonsense-biology, nonsense-agronomy and nonsense-economics caused the greatest famine in history, with estimates of the number of deaths ranging from 15-30 million.

But you think you're probably safe, right? Our MPs place their trust in independent scientific advisers who are at the top of their profession, right? Well, no.

Should you wish to find the MP who I believe promotes some of the most scientifically illiterate and dangerous ideas in Parliament, then look no further than the Leicestershire constituency of Bosworth.

On October 14 last year, David Tredinnick, MP for Bosworth, voiced controversial ideas during a Parliamentary question. His speech included: "There are now people who teach, such as Jane Ridder-Patrick, who published A Handbook of Medical Astrology. They look at aspects of the subject and how it affects people's health. Whatever one believes personally, the issue is one that we should look into and consider."

I find it unbelievable that a democratically-elected MP seems to be suggesting we should be looking into using astrology within our system of health care.

His question also included the lines: "A number of disciplines were mentioned and I could have referred to radionics, for example, for which a double-blind trial is almost impossible, yet it is very popular because people believe that it gives them the ability to get remote healing.

"We need to think out of the box here. As with healers who can do remote healing, it is no good people saying that just because we cannot prove something, it does not work. The anecdotal evidence that it does is enormous."

Radionics is a system of healing where you take a sample of hair or blood, or even a signature and use it in what I can only describe as a kind of remote psychic healing machine.

It's the friendly but equally wacky equivalent of sticking pins into a voodoo doll. Yet it seems Mr Tredinnick is suggesting we should consider it within the NHS.

But, in my view, the most dangerous of Mr Tredinnick's suggestions concerns his promotion of homeopathy: "Attacks have also been made on the efficacy of homeopathy. A letter was sent to the World Health Organisation warning against the use of homeopathy, but it ignored the very clear randomised, double-blind trials that proved it is effective in the particular area of childhood diarrhoea on which it was criticised.

"Will the Government therefore be robust in their support for homeopathy and consider what can be done so that it is used more effectively in the health service?"

Let's put this into context. Homeopathy is best described as a magical belief system that uses chemicals at such ludicrously huge dilution levels the majority of remedies contain little but water. The implausibility of homeopathy has been already covered in my column on December 10 and I will not bore you by repeating it.

Mr Tredinnick is technically right when he says there have been double-blind trials that have come out positive. However, that is not the whole story.

The trials he refers to were all conducted by the same person. In science, repeatability is key: if other people repeat your trial and get the same results then your results are likely to be trusted. If all the trials are performed by the same person they should be treated with more skepticism. The first name on all the papers Tredinnick refers to is Jacobs J. I'm not confident in the open-minded nature of this person's experiments.

For a start, writing an article entitled "Homeopathy, not evidence-based, but now?!" seems to me to be implying a motivation to create evidence in favour, rather than simply conducting research and be led by the outcome.

What's more interesting is in 2003, Jacobs did a meta-analysis of his previous three trials. In a meta-analysis, a researcher will combine the results of several trials into one to produce more statistical power.

Of course, if you combine the results of three positive trials all done by the same person the outcome will be positive. But in total, the three trials only involved 242 children.

In the conclusion, Jacobs noted the results "suggest larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power".

In 2006, Jacobs did just that. This time, six other researchers were involved in the trial and the number of subjects in the test was larger even than the total of the previous trials – 292 children.

The latest trial, which had the largest number of subjects, concluded: "There was no significant difference in the likelihood of resolution of diarrhoeal symptoms between the treatment and placebo groups".

Or, in other words: homeopathy does not seem to work for childhood diarrhoea.

But all Mr Tredinnick is suggesting is that we use this form of quackery to treat a bit of Delhi Belly.

Diarrhoea, according to the World Health Organisation, kills about 2.2 million people each year – most of them children.

Internationally, it is responsible for 4% of all deaths.

And by specifically mentioning the advice given out by the Worldwide Health Organisation his agenda appears to take a global perspective.

Yes, one in every 25 people worldwide will die of diarrhoea. They need the best that medical science has to offer them – which is usually simple and pretty cheap really: just a basic mix of water, salt and sugar.

But if you live in the Bosworth constituency, it seems your MP may prefer to treat these poor children with something even simpler: quackery.