Tory MP says disabled people should be forced to work in labour camps for starvation wages, then sold as meat for cattle feed

Yesterday, Conservative MP Philip Davies highlighted some of the problems facing society’s most vulnerable people caused by the minimum wage.

That, in itself, wasn’t very interesting. But what is very interesting was the reaction from normally intelligent, critically thinking people who read the words “disabled” and “minimum wage” together and jumped to a huge number of crazy conclusions before actually understanding what Davies was saying.

No I'm afraid he didn’t.

Er, no he’s not suggesting we should treat disabled people any differently to anyone else.

(Edit: @josephbush has since clarified that there was an element of sarcasm in this tweet.)

Davies was saying that:

• Some vulnerable people were suffering as a result of the minimum wage legislation.
• Disabled people were an example of a group that was affected particularly badly.
• We shouldn’t be standing in the way of people trying to find work if they consider this legislation to be a hindrance.

This isn’t rocket science. The economy isn’t exactly booming right now. There are many people willing to take minimum wage work and the employer can take their pick. Employers will naturally take the person who is best able to do the job. Anyone less able than anyone else applying for a minimum wage position simply won’t be able to get a job – denied employment by law.

Davies doesn’t suggest that we should allow only disabled people the freedom to negotiate their wages. The conversation has moved on by this point. He’s clear that his argument applies to anyone who sees the minimum wage as a hindrance:

"My view is that for some people the national minimum wage may be more of a hindrance than a help.

"If those people who consider it is being a hindrance to them, and in my view that's some of the most vulnerable people in society, if they feel that for a short period of time, taking a lower rate of pay to help them get on their first rung of the jobs ladder, if they judge that that is a good thing, I don't see why we should be standing in their way."

The disabled were used as an example of a group that is harmed, nothing more.

He’s also not saying anyone “should” work for less; he’s merely defending their right to do so if they are unable to find higher paid work.

Work doesn’t just provide money, it provides self-esteem. It provides you with the pride in knowing you are sustained by your own work rather than charity. In my opinion, nobody should be denied this right simply because they are unable to sell their time for more than minimum wage.

The outrage caused some of the most preposterous tweets I’ve seen:

Davies said:

“some of those people with a learning disability clearly, by definition, cannot be as productive in their work as somebody who has not got a disability”

Now you could interpret this as saying a person with a learning disability is never as productive as someone without, but I think it’s unlikely that this is what was meant. What Davies likely means is that a learning difficulty is likely to make someone less productive rather than more.

If a job requires learning, then someone who finds it difficult to learn will be less productive at that element of their job.

If they are equally productive in the skill of learning, they haven’t got a learning difficulty. As Davies said, this is true by definition.

You might be ideologically opposed to allowing people to freely negotiate their income. You might get angry. You might have other reasons for thinking Davies is a cock (like voting against gay rights for instance).

But before criticising anything, I encourage you to read and understand what is being said.

Making misleading health claims online just got a little more problematic

I’ve developed several Google custom searches to make it easier to pick though the data and identify practitioners making misleading and potentially dangerous claims. These custom searches are like having a version of Google that limits itself to the websites of specific groups of alternative practitioners. They're not perfect - you'll get false positives as well as false negatives. But they do work very well.

Here are Google search engines limited only to websites belonging to members of:

• British Chiropractic Association
• Scottish Chiropractic Association
• McTimoney Chiropractic Association
• General Osteopathic Council
• Complementary and Natural Health Council
• Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
• Kinesiology Federation

You might find, for instance, that there are still some British Chiropractic Association members claiming to treat colic. Or you might find that some CNHC members are claiming they can treat ear infections by sticking a candle in your ear. Or maybe you’ll find a homeopath that is telling people that magic sugar pills can help with eczema.

Google's custom search system is far from perfect. It randomly seems to drop results, then pops them back in again. Text that is clearly found on many sites can't be found. But I expect this to improve over time as the indexing improves.

Despite these problems, if you're making misleading claims it’s now far more probable that you'll get caught. Fingers crossed that whoever finds them hasn't got FishBarrel installed.

FishBarrel: Keep what you highlight short & to the point

I’ve been looking through some of the complaints that have gone in via FishBarrel. While I can’t see the background information that people have entered, I can see what was highlighted.

A few of the complaints seem to include really large chunks of highlighted text, which is going to reduce the effectiveness of the complaint and may even mean it gets initially rejected.

Here is an example of some text that was highlighted recently:

Aromatherapy combines massage with the use of therapeutic essential oils which are found naturally in plants. Tricia Swensson The essential oils are applied to the skin and are absorbed into the blood stream which can have a therapeutic effect on the body systems. Aromatherapy massage can help to reduce stress and tension, relieve muscular pain, improve circulation and encourage the removal of toxins from the body. Aromatherapy may help with a wide range of treatments such as: Insomnia Menstruation problems Respiratory conditions Digestive disorders The use of plant extracts for health have been documented for thousands of years, the ancient Egyptians used essential oils for health and beauty and also during embalming. Aromatherapy as we know it was revived when a French chemist Rene-Maurice Gattefosse burnt his hand during an accident; he placed his hand in a bowl which he believed contained water but in fact contained lavender oil he was amazed at how quickly the wound healed leaving no scarring. It is Gattefosse who first coined the phrase `aromatherapie’.

Much of this information is true. The complaint would be far stronger if the specific misleading claims were highlighted individually. Even if there are two sentences with misleading claims next to each other, it’s worth separating them out by highlighting them individually. Here’s how I’d deal with the above text:

#1 Aromatherapy massage can help to reduce stress and tension, relieve muscular pain, improve circulation and encourage the removal of toxins from the body.

#2 Aromatherapy may help with a wide range of treatments such as: Insomnia Menstruation problems Respiratory conditions Digestive disorders

(Note: If the header of your complaint states you’re listing misleading claims, you probably wouldn’t need to enter any background info about the above.)

#3 French chemist Rene-Maurice Gattefosse burnt his hand during an accident; he placed his hand in a bowl which he believed contained water but in fact contained lavender oil he was amazed at how quickly the wound healed leaving no scarring.

For #3's background info, I’d add: “The above text misleadingly implies that aromatherapy is an effective treatment for burns.”

This way it’s clear what you’re complaining about and you’re not asking the ASA to do all of the work for you.

There is one exception I can think of where you might highlight a lot of text and that where the practitioner just lists a large number of diseases that their therapy treats. In this case, highlight the full list.

FishBarrel: The easy way to report misleading health claims online.

Update: FishBarrel is now available from the Chrome Web Store here. If you previously downloaded the file directly, please uninstall and reinstall from the app store.


With thousands of misleading health claims on the web and a report to the ASA taking around ten minutes, I'd regularly come across misleading claims but do nothing about them.
So I built FishBarrel. FishBarrel is a plugin for Google Chrome that manages the process of making an ASA or Trading Standards complaint so that it takes just a few seconds.
FishBarrel also tracks all text complained about in a central database. When you turn on FishBarrel, any text complained about by other users is automatically highlighted. This prevents you from submitting duplicate complaints to the ASA.
Finally, FishBarrel can automatically revisit the websites later and check if the claims have been removed.
Watch the demo (full-screen is best), then download it for free below.





FishBarrel is free. To download, open a Chrome browser, download the plugin and install the crx extension by clicking "continue" in the warning bar at the bottom of your browser window.
There is more information available in the help section of the extension.
Next time you're on a website containing misleading health claims, it will just take a few seconds to send them over to the ASA. I hope FishBarrel makes the difference between ignoring the misleading information and getting the claim removed.
I'd like to say thank you to all of the people who helped me test this, but especially @scepticletters, whose feedback helped improve FishBarrel enormously.
All development was done with the support and collaboration of my web software development company Xibis. The team have helped enormously with the technical development and have provided the server infrastructure. Xibis are specialists in building these sorts of web based productivity systems.

What to do about Boots.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important Update

Boots have now removed all claims regarding menopause treatment from the website after a complaint was made to the ASA. However, the product is still for sale online and almost certainly in store. The claims are still being made on the product packaging.

Let's continue the pressure until Boots stop making these claims.

In your complaint to Trading Standards you should mention:

• Boots have removed the claims from their website after a complaint to the ASA (not sure if it was because of this complaint)
• Boots have edited the product photo so that the claims stated on the packaging are taken outside the ASA's remit
• However, the claims are still being made on the packaging itself when seen in store.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've signed up to the pledge to complain to Trading Standards about Boots selling quack medical products, thank you. Boots has an agreement with Nottingham Trading Standards so all complaints about Boots are processed there. However, you should complain to your local Trading Standards body rather than the Nottingham one and allow them to forward it.

The initial complaints will be for Boots’ “Menopause relief magnet”. This was chosen because we believe it should be easy for Trading Standards to do something about it. If we are successful we can send them a claim that’s a little more difficult to understand.

When should I complain?

At the bottom of this post, I’ve copied and pasted a list of names and dates. Please look up your name to find your date. If you’re not on the list (some people subscribed anonymously, or after I copied the list) then please complain immediately.

Please put a reminder in your calendar for that day. You can copy this text to make it easy:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Complain to Trading Standards about Boots Quackery

Before you complain, please check that Boots is still selling the product. If not, let Simon know immediately and we’ll see if they are making other misleading claims.

Full information is available at http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-to-do-about-boots.html

Don't forget to leave a comment on Simon's blog to say you've done it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

What to mention in your complaint

You can make a complaint to Trading Standards with one paragraph (please don’t use this exact text):

“I saw this product in Boots saying it relieves the symptoms of the menopause. I think this isn't right and I want to complain about it.”

However, there are a number of things you can mention to strengthen your complaint:

• You are complaining under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Under these regulations, it is up to the seller to provide evidence for any claims they make, rather than up to the Trading Standards body to prove the claims wrong.
• As a Trading Standards body it is their duty to enforce the Consumer Protection Regulations.
• Where you saw the claims being made. This may be online, but if you happen to be near a Boots, pop in and see if they’ve got one in store and complain about that.
• Precisely quote any dodgy claims that you find on adverts, websites, packaging or photos of packaging and state that you do not believe they are backed up by robust evidence.
• Reference the evidence for/against efficacy.
• Why are you doing this? If it’s to protect the public from misleading medical claims then say so.

What evidence is there for using magnets to reduce the symptoms of menopause?

There are only two relevant articles I could find on PubMed, neither were trials.

Treatment of menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms: position statement of The North American Menopause Society.

They recommend "Single clinical trials have found no benefit for dong quai, evening primrose oil, ginseng, a Chinese herbal mixture, acupuncture, or magnet therapy."

Advances in the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

In a box labelled "Approach to management of menopausal symptoms" states:

"Homeopathy, magnetic therapy, reflexology, dong quai, ginsing, evening primrose oil and vitamin E have not been demonstrated to be clinically significant compared with placebo."

and within "Non-hormonal options"

"Magnetic therapy: no benefit"

Within a section titled "Homeopathy, magnet therapy & foot reflexology" it states

"In RCTs, neither homeopathic remedies, magnet therapy, nor foot reflexology out-performed placebo in relieving menopausal symptoms."

How do I submit my complaint?

There are several ways to complain. Firstly, the easy way is to use the online form here. The submission will go via Consumer Direct, but that’s fine. There is a limit on the amount of text you can enter.

Secondly, you can contact your local trading standards direct with either an email or a letter. Their contact details can be found by entering your postcode on the form at the bottom of this page.

What about Libel?

Complaints to Trading Standards are protected from libel action, so you can make clear accusations without risk. Avoid saying anything in public and you should be risk free. Boots would be incredibly foolish to proceed with libel action.

Can I make my complaint more powerful?

Most Trading Standards offices prioritise complaints based upon two factors: how many complaints have they received, and how many people have actually lost money. If you buy a magnet, you’d have a more effective complaint.

You certainly don’t need to do this however.

Details of names & dates below:

Simon Perry	08 February 2011
Dr Michael A Ward	09 February 2011
Danny Strickland	10 February 2011
Dr Tom Williamson	11 February 2011
Richard Stelling	12 February 2011
Johnnie Shannon	13 February 2011
Chris Sexton	14 February 2011
Ian Scott	15 February 2011
Chris Richardson	16 February 2011
Mike Conradi	17 February 2011
Dr Martin Poulter	18 February 2011
Steve Page	19 February 2011
Dr Stephen Southward	20 February 2011
Mandeep Smith	21 February 2011
Dr Stuart Nicholl	22 February 2011
Steve Haigh	23 February 2011
Simon Stanford	24 February 2011
Richard Tomsett	25 February 2011
Marianne Baker	26 February 2011
Jo Hockey	27 February 2011
Rhys Morgan	28 February 2011
Dale Williams	01 March 2011
Jon Pearson	02 March 2011
Giles Wendes	03 March 2011
Conor Pendergrast	04 March 2011
Steve leigh	05 March 2011
Dr Wendy Cousins	06 March 2011
Alan Henness	07 March 2011
Mike Hall	08 March 2011
Nicola Woolhouse	09 March 2011
Gordon Wilson	10 March 2011
Darren Starck	11 March 2011
Martijn ter Borg	12 March 2011
Darren Griffin	13 March 2011
Rebecca O'Neill	14 March 2011
Paul Buckland-White	15 March 2011
B Corcoran	16 March 2011
Dan-Raoul Miranda	17 March 2011
Michael Marshall	18 March 2011
Ralf Neugebauer	19 March 2011
Jo Brodie	20 March 2011
L Pedley	21 March 2011
Ashley Frieze	22 March 2011
Sharon Smiles	23 March 2011
James Thomas	24 March 2011
Wesley perry	25 March 2011
Simon Danaher	26 March 2011
Doogie Brodie	27 March 2011
Sah Winstone	28 March 2011
Dr Cara Laney	29 March 2011
Stew Wilson	30 March 2011
Kash Farooq	31 March 2011
Sid Rodrigues	01 April 2011
David Hughes	02 April 2011
Peter Harrison	03 April 2011
Trish Hann	04 April 2011
Patrick Redmond	05 April 2011
Adam Timberley	06 April 2011
Paul Berry	07 April 2011
caroline panico	08 April 2011
James Lipscombe	09 April 2011
Emma Smith	10 April 2011
Tulpesh Patel	11 April 2011
RobertPettifer	12 April 2011
Tim Reid	13 April 2011
Jane Symons	14 April 2011
Alexandra Beuchert	15 April 2011
Tom Marinan	16 April 2011
Kevin Rose	17 April 2011
Prof Stephen Curry	18 April 2011
Hannah Haines	19 April 2011
Andy Stoker	20 April 2011
David Noble	21 April 2011
Sven Rudloff	22 April 2011
Dr J J Grattage	23 April 2011
Olivia Vinden	24 April 2011
Tony Mansfield	25 April 2011
Julia Matheson	26 April 2011
Bethan Jade McIlroy	27 April 2011
Michelle Goodger	28 April 2011
Dan Sutton	29 April 2011
Sandra hoare	30 April 2011
steven lindsay	01 May 2011
Dawn Mason	02 May 2011
Leo Donnelly	03 May 2011
James Cole	04 May 2011
Sean Ellis	05 May 2011
Stephen Griffin	06 May 2011
Elaine Pickering	07 May 2011
Alastair Grant	08 May 2011
Kevin Lowis	09 May 2011
Dominic Brown	10 May 2011
Jo Thornely	11 May 2011
Julie Williams	12 May 2011
Ms Jane Robinson	13 May 2011
Alan Wellstead	14 May 2011
Karelle Menochet	15 May 2011
Jere Koskela	16 May 2011
stephen hughes	17 May 2011
Audrey Johnson	18 May 2011
Jamie Woolley	19 May 2011
Dr Richard Morley	20 May 2011
Vikki Hurst	21 May 2011
Donald MacCormick	22 May 2011
Matthew Hardy	23 May 2011
Alan Bird	24 May 2011
Ben Harris	25 May 2011
Tim Bennett	26 May 2011

Boots carries on promoting quackery despite the ASA

It’s now been almost seven months since Boots was the target of 240 Advertising Standards Authority complaints by myself and others.

I didn’t blog on the outcome at the time; so, here’s a quick catch-up. Once approached by the ASA and asked for evidence, Boots decided to avoid an embarrassing ASA adjudication against them by agreeing to remove the claims.

I checked the Boots web site shortly after this and found the situation hadn’t seemed to improve. In many cases, Boots had not removed the claims, but simply taken away the 3 for the price of 2 offer.

If you remember, the ASA will not adjudicate against claims made upon websites (not until March 1st). But, they will adjudicate against claims made as a part of a promotion wherever they appear. By removing quack products from the 3 for 2 offer, Boots simply side-stepped the claims outside the ASA’s remit.

So what’s the situation now? Well in many cases, Boots has removed the claims completely. In other cases though, they’ve reduced the misleading text but carried on making essentially the same point, or at least carried on implying it. Surprisingly, some of the claims are still sitting there in full with the 3 for the price of 2 offer displayed prominently on the page.

My favourite quack product was what can only be referred to as a “fanny magnet”, what sadly what Boots refers to as a “Ladycare menopause relief magnet”. By simply clipping it to your panties, Boots originally claimed it can help to “reduce or completely eliminate symptoms of menopause”. They’ve now removed this precise claim but are still making essentially the same point. They still call it a “menopause relief magnet”, there’s still a photo of it claiming it’s “the most exciting discovery for menopause”, and there’s a list on the photo of symptoms claiming it’s all you may need for everything from hot flushes to vaginal dryness. They’ve side-stepped the ASA by simply taking it out of the 3 for 2 offer.

Shockingly, Boots is still making implying effectiveness for two forms of homeopathic teething relief. Boots’ own brand “Teething Pain Relief - 24 sachets” makes its claims in the title. And their “Nelsons Teetha” product is apparently “a homeopathic remedy specially designed for the soothing and calming relief of the symptoms of teething”. The product photo contains the phrases "Teething Granules", "Teething and pain relief" and "Soothes and calms".

Overall, Boots has improved since the last complaint. A lot of claims have been removed.

Today, I reported Boots to ASA a second time for 5 separate products. I’m hoping this time the ASA will adjudicate and Boots will finally clean up their act.