Adventures in nonsense

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

2011-06-18T01:19:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-27T09:27:00.000-07:00

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:

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

2011-04-25T00:12:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-04-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-02-09T00:44:00.000-08:00

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

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

2011-02-03T12:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council

2010-11-25T13:52:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-11-13T12:51:00.000-08:00

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

2010-10-30T02:42:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-18T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-03T15:17:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-22T09:16:00.000-07:00

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”:

That in the absence of knowledge, the probability of being right or wrong is 50/50.
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

2010-07-20T07:53:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-13T04:39:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-09T09:45:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-29T05:13:00.000-07:00

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

2010-02-02T09:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-27T08:06:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-12T08:55:00.000-08:00

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.

Black Magic Psychic in Leicester

2009-12-29T09:08:00.000-08:00

You may have thought that black "magic" was consigned to the Dark Ages or only manifested itself in faraway places such as Haiti. But a man in Leicester who goes by the name of Pandit Harinath Mukya claims he can not only diagnose spells put on you by others, but he can also cast spells to counter them.

I'm always interested in paranormal claims, but was particularly interested in Mukya (pictured), because most self-proclaimed psychics I have previously visited have come from a British cultural background.

It would be interesting to see similar claims originating from an Asian cultural background.

Having said that, I went along expecting readings similar to those I've experienced before – someone making a small amount of money providing simple readings, deluding their clients and themselves into believing their cold reading skills are genuine psychic ability.

What I found, at least to me, appeared very, very different. The entire interaction seemed as if it was designed to separate as much money as possible from the client.

Mukya's operation is run from a terrace house on Paton Street, off Narborough Road, in Leicester's West End.

Having phoned ahead to book a £10 consultation, I arrived to find the bay window decorated with posters advertising his services, and even an A-frame sign outside.

Inside, the front room of the house had been converted into a small shrine. The fireplace was decorated with religious paraphernalia, as was the table we sat at.

Religious posters covered the walls. By contrast, Mukya seemed remarkably unceremonious. He answered the door in jeans and a T-shirt, though he did add what I can only describe as a kind of religious scarf when he sat down.

Mukya's English was poor, but I could follow what he was saying. I was initially sceptical of the professionalism of this operation after he failed to predict my age shortly after I gave him my date of birth.

But it wasn't long before he demonstrated he was serious about this business.

Mukya told me that four of my friends were out to get me, that they were conspiring against me behind my back and this was bringing me bad luck. I had the impression that he was attempting to get me to trust him as the only friend who could help.

It wasn't long before we moved on to the question of money. He could help me but this was going to cost £350. He confirmed that this would take away any bad luck and bring me good luck.

He claimed it was important to start immediately, and asked me how much money I had with me. I opened my wallet to show him that all I had was £15. He suggested that we visit a cash point.

I told him that I didn't have that kind of money – I could only get £200. He said he would help me out, he would use some of his money.

He told me he was my friend – that he was there to help. At the end, he asked me to put all the money I had with me on to the fireplace and we performed what seemed to be some sort of Hindu-style prayer together. He gave me some nice red rice to put in my pocket and keep with me all the time.

Before I left, I confirmed with him that if I returned the next day with £200 all the bad luck would go away. I was there for less than 25 minutes. I was amazed how quickly he had progressed on to such significant money.

I came back the next day and told him apologetically that I could only muster £120. I wanted to drag out this payment as long as possible to enable me to discover more about the operation without parting with much money.

He assured me not to worry, he would help me by using some of his own cash. But we soon reverted back to how much money I could find. He asked how much I could bring the next day, and when I would be able to bring more.

He asked me to come back tomorrow and see how the pooja was going. A pooja is a kind of Hindu prayer or magic spell.

The visit lasted less than seven minutes and I left him with £120.

The third visit was the strangest. After a brief introduction, he immediately guided me upstairs, whereupon a second person started chanting. So far as I could tell, this person only began chanting when he heard us start to ascend the stairs. We entered a room where a man in religious dress was sitting next to a rug covered in what I can only describe as a variety of vegetarian sacrifices. There were a couple of large opened bags of turmeric powder in the centre with some other foodstuffs and the whole rug was circled with about 25 small apples.

This set-up appeared designed to convince me that my money was being well spent on the pooja rather than going straight into his pocket.

When we came back down he told me that he'd performed the same pooja three times already with three more to go and each time the sacrifices were thrown away and replenished. I found that hard to believe.

Again he asked for more money. He tried to convince me again of the costs, saying that they were sure to bring results. In the end, we agreed that I would come back next week with more money. He started hinting at this point that he would just be giving me the names of the people that were conspiring against me rather than removing the bad luck. Once again the consultation was brief. I was there for less than seven minutes.

On my fourth and final visit, I approached with the remaining £80 and looked forward to seeing the names of my four friends who were conspiring against me.

This time inconsistencies started to creep in. Initially, he had told me that he would be able to get the names of my enemies after I had ceremoniously thrown an item into moving water. Then it seems that he had forgotten this, and it no longer seemed important. Secondly, when he revealed the names of the four friends, it turned out that there were only three – and that two of them were not my friends after all, but people who simply knew of me.

The name of the friend was simply given as "John" with no surname. I think I know about 10 Johns.

It was then that the subject turned to money. In order to reverse the pooja, more money was required. I was told that some of the rituals could not be performed in this country for legal reasons and the man I previously saw upstairs had already flown out to India to begin the next stage.

I tried to push him to give me a price for this next stage but he flatly refused.

He did, however, appear to want to prepare me for significant costs. Obviously, if someone needs to go to India, I should be expecting a large figure.

But then he started telling me that the three people conspiring against me had already spent £28,000. The implication was clear – if they'd spent £28,000 I would need to at least match it.

I've visited a few other self-proclaimed psychics in Leicestershire and although I thought none of them demonstrated any real psychic ability, I did get the impression that they believed in what they were doing. I didn't once get that impression with Mukya.

I'm not sure how many people have gone through this operation, but even one person progressing to the next stage would be deeply concerning.

The rented house on Paton Street seems to be dedicated to this purpose, and full colour leaflets are being distributed as far as Oadby, so if nobody had paid money into the scheme, it is unlikely to be financially viable over a period of time.

I brought an audio digital recorder to each of my visits and the sound quality is crystal clear. The recordings have been passed on to trading standards.

The Difficulties with Psychic Photography

2009-12-29T08:55:00.000-08:00

My recent article in the Mercury exposed a Leicester psychic attempting to scam a punter (well, me) out of a lot of money. We had a bit of an adventure trying to get a photo for the piece.

The Leicester Mercury sent along a photographer who I met at the end of the street a couple of minutes before my appointment. Our strategy was fairly basic: he'd hide behind a car across the road and I'd knock on the door. When the door was answered, I'd bend down to tie my shoelaces so he could get a clear shot of the guy over my head.

It didn't work. The guy was extremely cautious, first checking at the window before answering the door, and then staying way back in the house when he opened the door. Our photographer just couldn't get a clear shot.

I managed to get this quick shot below while inside. The psychic had asked if I could return for another appointment on Monday, and while I "checked my calendar" on my iPhone, I took this snap.

But we needed better quality for the paper. At this point, I owed him £80 for the fine "work" he'd done so far. To give our hidden photographer another chance, I told him I'd left my wallet in the car. As he opened the door so I could pop back and get it, the photographer tried again. Same problem; the guy was too far back in the house.

The photographer and I met up at the end of the street and hatched a second plan. The operation was being run from a terrace house. The street was one-way and with cars parked on both sides and there was only room for one car to drive down the gap in the middle. The plan was for me to drive back to the house and stop outside the house with the photographer following in the car behind. I'd stop to deliver the money and just when the psychic answered the door, the photographer would beep his horn to get me to move. I'd try and draw the psychic out by saying the cash was in the car. When he came out, the photographer would snap him from the car behind. Hopefully he wouldn't be noticed and our undercover photography mission would be complete.

It didn't work. As soon as I tried to draw the psychic out he got suspicious and hid back into the house, closing the door promptly.

I moved the car and pulled over at the end of the street. The photographer overtook and parked round the corner. A couple of minutes later, the photographer walked back towards my car and shrugged his shoulders to signal that he couldn't get the shot. At this point, I noticed the psychic had come out of the house and was walking towards my car. In a panic, I signalled to the photographer "that's him!". Our undercover photography mission lost some of its clandestine value when the photographer proceeded to take multiple pictures of him using a lens the size of a scuba tank from a distance of approximately two metres.

After a couple of seconds, the photographer realised that he had just been photographing a professional fraudster who most likely was not going to be particularly happy about having his picture taken. Looking around, the only clear route for escape was to jump in the passenger seat of my car. However, being equally worried myself, the doors of my car were firmly locked.

For about 5 seconds the I kept trying to unlock the doors while the photographer prevented me from doing so by franticly pulling on the handle. Eventually he got in and the psychic ran off.

We got a nice, clear shot:

(reduced quality for web publication)

Trust Boots

2009-12-10T20:45:00.000-08:00

This is a repost of my article in the Leicester Mercury. I wanted to repost it here so I could fix the messed up text. When they copied and pasted it they lost all the formatting and most importantly the scientific notation. I've fixed it below.

“Trust Boots” is the tagline that has been offered by the high street pharmacist since 2005. According to Boots’ 2006 Corporate Responsibility Strategy, “Everything we do that builds trust is good for our business; anything which could compromise it, a risk we can't afford to take.” So have Boots shown themselves to be worthy of our trust?

On the shelves of their pharmacy on Gallowtree Gate in Leicester you will find a small section devoted to homeopathy. Many people I meet are confused about exactly what homeopathy is – some thinking it is simply a type of herbal or natural medicine.

Allow me to explain.

The first principle of homeopathy is what they call the “law of similars”. Homeopaths look for a chemical that produces a similar symptom to the disease they aim to treat. For instance, caffeine causes you to stay awake, so homeopaths may decide to use this in a remedy to treat insomnia. Another example is hay fever. Hay fever causes runny eyes and so do onions – so some homeopaths will treat hay fever with a preparation of onions. I realise that all this may sound a little bit unconventional, but please bear with me – in a moment it’s going to sound even more so.

Turning a chemical such as onion juice into a homeopathic preparation involves a process of “dilution” and “succussion”. To create the centesimal or “C” remedies they sell at Boots, the homeopath takes one drop of the chemical and mixes it with 99 drops of water (dilution). In centuries past, this was then banged against a leather covered board or book, often a bible, although in modern times the shaking is often done by machine. This shaking is called "succussion". This is now a 1C homeopathic preparation. It contains 99% water and 1% “active ingredient”.

To turn this into a 2C remedy, the process is repeated. One drop of the solution is taken from the 1C remedy is mixed with 99 drops of water and then shaken. The 2C remedy now contains 99.99% water and 0.01% “active ingredient”. Repeat the process again to create a 3C remedy at 0.0001%, and so on. Homeopaths believe that the higher the level of dilution, the more powerful the remedy.

Many homeopaths will use the solution directly, but Boots and many others prefer to sell homeopathy as pills - or pillules as they call them. One pillule is meant to contain the equivalent of one drop of homeopathic solution.

We can calculate approximately how many molecules of “active ingredient” get into the one drop that makes it into the pillule. A drop of water contains about 1,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. Scientists write this as 1.7x10²¹. That’s a 17 with 20 zeros after it. Boots sell remedies at 6C and 30C. A 6C remedy will contain around 0.0000000001% “active” ingredient – which works out at about 1.7 billion molecules of active ingredient. But what about when we dilute this further? By the time you get to 10C, there are only 17 molecules of active ingredient left. And at 11C, you only have about a one chance in 6 of finding a single molecule.

The branch of Boots on Gallowtree Gate in Leicester display a guide, provided by the manufacturer, that states a Bryonia 30C remedy “Relieves the symptoms of a dry painful cough, pressure and dehydration headaches” and that a Kali Bich 30C remedy “Soothes the symptoms of sinusitis”.

30C. I already explained that at 11C, you only have about a one in 6 chance of finding a single molecule of active ingredient. At 12C, there is only about one chance in 600 that you will find a molecule and at 13C just one chance in 60,000. By the time you get to 30C, you have more chance of winning the National Lottery jackpot five weeks in a row than you do of finding a single molecule of active ingredient.

Or think about it this way: how much water would you need to contain one molecule of active ingredient at 30C dilution? According to my calculations, the body of water would weigh 5 billion times more than the planet you are standing on. If you want that in pillule form, you'd need to buy 6x10³⁸ pillules (a 6 with 38 zeros after it). At Boots' retail prices, that would cost you 35 trillion trillion trillion pounds. That's a rather expensive molecule.

These pills do not contain any active ingredient.

To my way of thinking, homeopathy is entirely implausible, but science is incredibly open-minded to seemingly implausible ideas. Ideas such as Einstein’s theory of general relativity and quantum theory are utterly bizarre, but once they were demonstrated to be true with fair tests then scientists accepted them.

Testing for a pill is essentially simple. Take a large number of people with a particular disease and randomly divide them into two groups. Give one group the pills you want to test and the other group some placebo pills that don’t contain anything. Neither the patient nor the researchers working with them can know which patients were given which pill. After an agreed period of time count how many people in each group got better.

So what do the trials show? Actually, that’s a little complicated. Some of the poor quality trials where the patients were told which drug they were getting, or had very small sample sizes showed an effect. But those effects could easily be down to the placebo effect or random variation due to the small sample sizes.

But when the experiments are done properly with larger numbers of patients, the vast majority do not show homeopathy to be any better than a placebo. A quick search of Cochrane articles leads us to reviews of homeopathy for the treatment of dementia, chronic asthma and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. They all end in similar conclusions: “No evidence that homeopathy is effective in treating dementia”, “Until stronger evidence exists for the use of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma, we are unable to make recommendations about homeopathic treatment.” and “Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.”

But what do they tell you in Boots? When I popped into their Oadby branch and asked about homeopathic treatment, the pharmacist tried to politely steer me away from the homeopathic remedies citing the lack of evidence. Fair enough.

But a pharmacist at the Gallowtree Gate branch was not so off putting. Despite a couple of points in the conversation where I felt she certainly gave the impression that she did not believe in homeopathy, she was still happy to say things that I would never expect to come out of the mouth of professional pharmacist, by explaining that homeopaths “don't just treat the condition, they look at the whole person” and “If you want absolutely spot on accurate treatment you need to see someone who is a qualified homeopath."

Boots' professional standards director Paul Bennett was asked about homeopathy at a parliamentary science and technology sub-committee on the 25th October: "Do they work beyond the placebo effect?" He replied, "I have no evidence before me that they are efficacious and we look very much for the evidence to support that."

I think it's unlikely that Boots don't know where to look for medical evidence. So what we're being told by Boots' professional standards director is that they've looked around, found evidence - but he hasn't found any that show homeopathy to work.

He was asked to clarify with the line, "You sell them, but you don't believe they are efficacious?" He replied, "It's about consumer choice for us."

If it is about consumer choice, I personally believe that Boots should be ensuring that their consumers are properly informed to make a choice. Their labels should clearly state "the best evidence shows that these products work no better than placebos." But their labels don't say that. The information on their shelves makes claims such as "Relieves the symptoms of a dry painful cough." Selling this quackery may well be about consumer choice. Making these claims of efficacy is most certainly not.

Is this likely to lead you to “Trust Boots”?

GCC extends complaints to cover all dubious claims

2009-12-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

My complaints to the BCA focussed on claims to treat colic. I chose to just complain about colic claims for reasons of simplicity. It was easy to search the pages for one word and gather the evidence. When you’re submitting 55 complaints, it makes sense to go for the easiest method possible.

The GCC has now sent me copies of the responses to my complaints. What's interesting is that it appears that the GCC’s investigating committee has gone further than asked. They have manually gone through the Chiropractor's web pages looking for other claims.

Where they existed, the chiropractor will be investigated for those claims too.

I’m not sure of the GCC’s motivation is to make life easier for themselves in the knowledge that they will soon be needing to deal with Zeno’s 500+ complaints, or if this is a genuine attempt to properly regulate the profession. Either way, this is a positive step from the GCC and should be applauded.

A copy of one of the letters is below.

Homeopathy Maths Quiz: My Answers

2009-12-02T01:44:00.000-08:00

Here are the answers to my previous maths quiz. At the end, I've added some notes including an argument showing the "memory of water" idea spouted by homeopaths to be invalid.

1. What is the probability of there being a single molecule of active ingredient in a 30C homeopathic remedy? Assume no contamination and pure water.

Molar mass of water = 18.01528 grams.
1 drop of water approx = 0.05 grams.
=> 1 drop of water = 0.05/18 = 0.0027 moles
=> 1 drop of water = 6 * 10^23 (Avogadro constant) * 0.0027 = 1.66*10²¹ molecules

Number of molecules in a 30C preparation:
= 1.7x10²¹ (molecules in a drop) / 100³⁰ (level of dilution) = 1.7*10^-39

As this is less than one, it is the probability of finding a molecule.

Answer: 1.7*10^-39

2. What is the probability of winning the National Lottery 5 weeks in a row. You get one ticket per week of course.

There are 6 balls drawn out of 49 and you can pick 6 numbers.

Probability that your 1st number will match any one of the 6 drawn = 6/49
Probability that your 2nd number will match any one of the remaining 5 drawn = 5/48
Probability that your 3rd number will match any one of the remaining 4 drawn = 4/47
Probability that your 4th number will match any one of the remaining 3 drawn = 3/46
Probability that your 5th number will match any one of the remaining 2 drawn = 2/45
Probability that your 6th number will match any one of the remaining 1 drawn = 1/44

Probability that all 6 match = 6/49 * 5/48 * 4/47 * 3/46 * 2/45 * 1/44 = 7.15 x 10-8

Or, about 1 in 14 million.

Probability of winning 5 weeks in a row = (7.15x10^-8)⁵ = 1.87 x 10^-36

3. Which is more likely?

Comparing 1.7*10^-39 and 1.87 x 10^-36, you can see that winning the national lottery 5 times in a row is about 1,000 times more likely.

Unless of course, there was some contamination during the process.

4. How much would it cost to buy enough pills that you'd expect to have one molecule of active ingredient? Note: At Boots, they're about £5 for 84 pillules.

To get one molecule, you'd need 100³⁰ water molecules (10⁶⁰).

Molar mass of water = 18 grams.

10⁶⁰ molecules would therefore weigh 18x10⁶⁰/6x10²³ = 3.0 × 10³⁷ grams

One drop of water weighs approx 0.05 grams

So you'd need 3.0 × 10³⁷ / 0.05 = 6 x 10³⁸ pills

At £5 for 84, that will cost 5/84 * 6 x 10³⁸ = £3.57 * 10³⁷

A Trillion is 10¹². Trillion Trillion Trillion = 10³⁶

So that's about 35 Trillion Trillion Trillion pounds.

Other Notes

David P made a good point when he pointed out that the mother tincture may not be pure. Obviously the mathematics above assumes it is.

Another point I realised while I was doing this is that there is another argument here against the "memory of water" bollocks" spouted by homeopaths.

At 12C, there are no molecules of the mother tincture remaining. So the only molecules in the final preperation that could have been in the same mix as any of the original ingredient must come out of this mix.

So by the time you get to 24C, there are not only no molecules of original ingredient left, but there are no molecules of water that have ever been in the same mix as the original ingredient left.

Even the water has memory argument therefore breaks down at dilutions beyond 24C. At best, homeopaths would need to argue that water not only has memory, but that water is capable of passing this memory on.

Are homeopaths going to come to the conclusion that a 30C remedy works because the water contains the memory of a rumour passed on by other water molecule that remembers the mother tincture?

A quick maths quiz

2009-12-01T12:38:00.000-08:00

Here's a quick maths quiz. Post your answers, ideally with your working and I'll be able to see how well they compare to mine.

What is the probability of there being a single molecule of active ingredient in a 30C homeopathic remedy? Assume no contamination and pure water.
What is the probability of winning the National Lottery 5 weeks in a row. You get one ticket per week of course.
Which is more likely?
How much would it cost to buy enough pills that you'd expect to have one molecule of active ingredient? Note: At Boots, they're about £5 for 84 pillules.

I'll post my answers tomorrow.

The CNHC wishes to place on formal record their thanks to Simon Perry

2009-11-27T12:38:00.000-08:00

When the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) decided to start letting in reflexologists, I started sending in complaints about them on the same day that they joined for claiming to treat disease with magic foot massages.

The CNHC has now upheld my complaints, asked the reflexologists to stop making unjustifiable claims, and informed me of their intention to contact all registered members to issue advice to all registered practitioners.

Oh, and they formally placed on record their thanks to me for "bringing this matter to their attention".

The CNHC’s Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics states:

15. You must follow CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising your services
Any advertising you undertake in relation to your professional activities must be accurate. Advertisements must not be misleading, false, unfair or exaggerated. You must not claim that your personal skills, equipment or facilities are better than anyone else’s.
If you are involved in advertising or promoting any other product or service, you must make sure that you use your knowledge, healthcare skills, qualifications and experience in an accurate and professionally responsible way. You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services. Any potential financial rewards to you should be made explicit and play no part at all in your advice or recommendations of products and services that you give to patients, clients and users.

The key line in that paragraph is:

You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services.

Now have I missed something here? The whole point of Complementary health is that you can make claims of efficacy without justification. Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe justification to be extremely important. My point is simply that the regulatory body is exclusively for practitioners who don't share this view.

So I started my little project. By searching for practitioners on the CNHC web site each day I could find out who joined. I actually wrote a computer program to do this as it takes multiple searches to get all the results. I would then manually check their web sites to see what was being claimed. If they made any unjustifiable claims, I reported them via the CNHC’s complaints procedure. I knocked these complaints out in a few minutes – quick enough to get the point across but so hastily that I failed on my first complaint to correct a copied & pasted spelling error and even added my own grammar hiccup at the end.

The ad suggests that reflexology is suitable for treating babies with colic, IBS and arthritus. She also claims to have experience in treating fertility issues. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that reflexology is capable of treating this issues.

But even with the bad English, it was sufficient to make the point: if the CNHC is going to regulate healthcare then it needs to deal with the question of efficacy.

Yesterday I received a call from the Maggie Dunn, the CNHC’s Chief Executive Officer to update me on the status of my complaints.

The CNHC had received evidence from the practitioners to defend their claims. They had also been in touch with the Advertising Standards Agency. The investigative committee met on Tuesday 24th November to discuss the cases.

They decided that my complaints were indeed covered by paragraph 15 of the code of conduct. All fourteen of my complaints were upheld. The practitioners will now be told to stop making these claims.

Sadly however, the CNHC decided that fitness to practice was not impaired because the unjustifiable claims were not made deliberately. The CNHC has a number of “Profession Specific Boards”. Someone from the board relating to reflexology had advised the investigative committee that it is likely the practitioner had been trained to believe that they could treat these diseases.

Now while I do not find it at all surprising that the practitioner was trained this way, I still take issue with this decision. If a practitioner has undergone training that tells them they can treat specific diseases for which there is no evidence then the practitioner has not undergone proper training. An untrained or poorly trained practitioner is surely unfit to practice.

What’s more positive however, is what else the CNHC now plans to do. It makes no sense for the CNHC to allow new registrants to join, only to be immediately reported by me. Instead, I’m told, the CNHC will now look at the evidence and provide advice in advance.

The evidence review will go beyond reflexology; it will extend to all of the disciplines covered by the CNHC.

The CNHC will then be contacting all registrants to explain what they are allowed, and not allowed, to claim.

I confirmed with Maggie that this advice will not solely relate to advertising. I was told that the advice will make clear that practitioners are not permitted to make these claims within the day to day interactions with their clients.

I also expressed a concern to Maggie over the training received by the practitioners. There are undoubtedly many courses out there teaching that reflexology is an efficacious treatment for many diseases. Would the CNHC be doing anything about these courses?

Maggie told me that as a regulator, the CNHC sees it as their duty to get in contact with alternative health course providers and authors. Given the nature of my original complaint, I expect this will enforce the view that claims must be justifiable.

What would a course on reflexology consisting only of justifiable claims cover exactly? How to spell reflexology?

This is so important, and so surprising I feel I need summarise in bullet points:

CNHC will tell practitioners to remove claims they cannot justify.
CNHC will conduct a review of evidence base for regulated therapies.
CNHC will contact all registrants to instruct them not to make claims without justification.
CNHC will contact complementary health course providers and authors to instruct them not to make claims without justification.

It is my view that adhering to the CNHC’s guidelines will make it impossible to practice complementary medicine.

Could this the end of the CNHC? It would be hugely ironic if forcing its members to act ethically became the cause of its demise.

Finally, Maggie told me that the investigations committee had decided that they wished to “place on formal record their thanks to Simon Perry for bringing this matter to their attention.”

You’re welcome.

[Original] The CNHC wishes to place on formal record their thanks to Simon Perry

2009-11-27T01:23:00.000-08:00

Having taken some very fine advice from someone I greatly respect, I now realise that this article wasn't very good. Well, it was rubbish. I've rewritten it here without taking 14 paragraphs before I get to the point - so read that one instead.

The Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council, or CNHC, started its operation of registering practitioners at the beginning of 2009. Its stated key purpose is to:

“protect the public by means of regulating practitioners on a voluntary register for complementary and natural healthcare practitioners.”

Practising evidence-based medicine has some difficult constraints. Firstly, you need to be able to show your intervention to be effective. It’s considered unethical to just make up ideas ad-hoc and market them as an effective medical intervention. Secondly, in order to avoid a repeat of the thalidomide disaster, you need to be able to demonstrate that your intervention is safe.

But all this is very difficult. It requires a lot of training. It means you can’t get your products and services to market without checking them. But what if there was a way we could avoid the hassle of checking the evidence for efficacy? What if there was a way we could practice without checking our interventions were safe? What if instead of going through the trouble of medical training, we could take a part-time evening course at a local college and be guaranteed a pass because the course content consists of no actual knowledge?

Welcome to the world of Complementary Healthcare.

Now I don’t think I’m the first person to point out that if you are going to regulate any type of healthcare, then the fundamental points you need to cover are (i) ensuring interventions work, (ii) ensuring interventions are safe, and (iii) ensuring practitioners are adequately trained.

But this is already subject to statutory regulation. It’s what we call medicine. The whole point of Complementary health is that the practitioners can’t be bothered with all that.

What on earth does the CNHC intend to regulate?

The CNHC’s Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics states:

15. You must follow CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising your services
Any advertising you undertake in relation to your professional activities must be accurate. Advertisements must not be misleading, false, unfair or exaggerated. You must not claim that your personal skills, equipment or facilities are better than anyone else’s.
If you are involved in advertising or promoting any other product or service, you must make sure that you use your knowledge, healthcare skills, qualifications and experience in an accurate and professionally responsible way. You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services. Any potential financial rewards to you should be made explicit and play no part at all in your advice or recommendations of products and services that you give to patients, clients and users.

The key line in that paragraph is:

You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services.

Now have I missed something here? The whole point of Complementary health is that you can make claims of efficacy without justification. Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe justification to be extremely important. My point is simply that the regulatory body is exclusively for practitioners who don't share this view.

So I started a little project. The CNHC’s web site allows you to search for practitioners. Each day, I would look at which new practitioners had joined, check their web sites and report them if they made any unjustifiable claims. If they did, I reported them via the CNHC’s complaints procedure. I knocked these complaints out in a few minutes – quick enough to get the point across but so hastily that I failed on my first complaint to correct a copied & pasted spelling error and even added my own grammar hiccup at the end.

The ad suggests that reflexology is suitable for treating babies with colic, IBS and arthritus. She also claims to have experience in treating fertility issues. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that reflexology is capable of treating this issues.

But even with the bad English, it was sufficient to make the point: if the CNHC is going to regulate healthcare then it needs to deal with the question of efficacy.

I intended to send these in every day as new members joined. My persistence lasted about 5 days – it takes time and is very boring work. I drew it back to looking every week, but by that time there were so many members that the task of checking was daunting. In total, I think I only complained about 14 practitioners.

These were the first complaints that the CNHC has received. At this time of writing, I believe I am the only person ever to have complained to the CNHC.

Yesterday I received a call from the Maggie Dunn, the CNHC’s Chief Executive Officer to update me on the status of my complaints.

The CNHC had received evidence from the practitioners to defend their claims. They had also been in touch with the Advertising Standards Agency. The investigative committee met on Tuesday 24th November to discuss the cases.

They decided that my complaints were indeed covered by paragraph 15 of the code of conduct. All fourteen of my complaints were upheld. The practitioners will now be told to stop making these claims.

Sadly however, the CNHC decided that fitness to practice was not impaired because the unjustifiable claims were not made deliberately. The CNHC has a number of “Profession Specific Boards”. Someone from the board relating to reflexology had advised the investigative committee that it is likely the practitioner had been trained to believe that they could treat these diseases.

Now while I do not find it at all surprising that the practitioner was trained this way, I still take issue with this decision. If a practitioner has undergone training that tells them they can treat specific diseases for which there is no evidence then the practitioner has not undergone proper training. An untrained or poorly trained practitioner is surely unfit to practice.

What’s more positive however, is what else the CNHC now plans to do. It makes no sense for the CNHC to allow new registrants to join, only to be immediately reported by me. Instead, I’m told, the CNHC will now look at the evidence and provide advice in advance.

The evidence review will go beyond reflexology; it will extend to all of the disciplines covered by the CNHC.

The CNHC will then be contacting all registrants to explain what they are allowed, and not allowed, to claim.

I confirmed with Maggie that this advice will not solely relate to advertising. I was told that the advice will make clear that practitioners are not permitted to make these claims within the day to day interactions with their clients.

I also expressed a concern to Maggie over the training received by the practitioners. There are undoubtedly many courses out there teaching that reflexology is an efficacious treatment for many diseases. Would the CNHC be doing anything about these courses?

Maggie told me that as a regulator, the CNHC sees it as their duty to get in contact with alternative health course providers and authors. Given the nature of my original complaint, I expect this will enforce the view that claims must be justifiable.

But what would a course on reflexology consisting only of justifiable claims cover exactly? How to spell reflexology?

This is so important, and so surprising I feel I need summarise in bullet points:

CNHC will tell practitioners to remove claims they cannot justify.
CNHC will conduct a review of evidence base for regulated therapies.
CNHC will contact all registrants to instruct them not to make claims without justification.
CNHC will contact complementary health course providers and authors to instruct them not to make claims without justification.

Oooops, they've done it again

2009-11-24T09:29:00.000-08:00

As you may know from one of my previous posts, I recently reported the General Chiropractic Council to the Advertising Standards Authority for making the following claims in their patient information leaflet:

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of:
• asthma
• headaches, including migraine
and
• infant colic.

The ASA asked them to remove this claim if they don't have the evidence to back it up, and they agreed to do so.

So it's strange that the GCC considered it a good idea to continue to use the following text into their careers leaflet:

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of:
• asthma
• headaches, including migraine
and
• infant colic.

Yes, you're right; it's exactly the same.

Following a second complaint from myself, the ASA has administered an appropriate second slap and the GCC has now removed the claims.

The GCC Is Avoiding FOIA Requests

2009-11-19T13:56:00.000-08:00

On the 6th October 2009, I sent two Freedom of Information Act Inquiries to the General Chiropractic Council. At this point in time, the GCC had just finished its resolution with the Adverting Standards Agency and as a result of this it became known to me that the GCC had commissioned a review of the evidence for the use of chiropractic in the treatment of various diseases that were not related to the spine.

The first request asked them to hand over all communications between the GCC and the ASA.

My second request simply asked:

Has the GCC commissioned a review of evidence concerning the effectiveness of chiropractic in the treatment of colic or other diseases?
If so, please provide me with copies of all communications surrounding the commissioning of this review.
Please provide the final specification detailing how the review is to be performed.

The GCC’s previous behaviour, and especially their response to questions from Trading Standards officers, has clearly demonstrated that they are not interested in regulating the profession of chiropractic, but instead of protecting the interest of practitioners.

I was obviously interested in how they were planning to perform this review, for instance had they agreed the criteria for inclusion and perhaps more interestingly if there had been an attempt to sway the outcome of the trial during the commissioning phase.

I received a reply from Paul Ghuman the next day confirming receipt and asking me to confirm if my request for communications between the GCC and the ASA related to my complaint made about the GCC’s Patient Information Leaflet. I quickly clarified that this was the case.

It took until the 2nd November until I received a response. They were more than happy to respond to the first request, but the second was completely avoided. They acknowledged that they had commissioned a review, but gave no details.

2. Please note that the current request needs to be defined more clearly in the respect of the information required. For example, it could be that the request is for who approved/agreed the final specification or who made the decision on reviewers. I need more clarification in respect of what information it is that is being requested.

Now they could have asked for this on the 7th October when they responded to my first FOIA request. Why did they wait until the 2nd November to ask this question? If I am not being clear enough, that should be obvious enough from the first time they tried to find the information.

I replied to clarify:

To clarify on (2), I assume the GCC has outsourced the evidence review to a scientist, group of scientists, research group or elsewhere. I also assume that in order to find a supplier for the research you may have contacted several organisations/people.

I am looking for copies of all communications to and from those organisations/people that are relevant to the review - both those that were commissioned and those that were considered.

Is that clear? Any questions just ask.

Since I replied, now 2½ weeks ago, I have emailed Paul Ghuman to chase up, phoned him twice and left a message and emailed Margaret Coats.

No response.

The GCC is acting very much like they’ve got something to hide.

Edzard Ernst shows Society of Homoeopaths break their own code of conduct

2009-11-13T03:58:00.000-08:00

In this excellent article in the BMJ, Zosia Kmietowicz interviews Edzard Ernst on the Society of Homoeopaths breaking their own code of conduct. Similar observations were made on Gimpyblog back in 2007. Apparently they didn't learn too much from that then.

Homoeopath society breaks own ethics code by making speculative claims on website, says expert Zosia Kmietowicz

The Society of Homeopaths is in breach of its own code of ethics by posting "speculative," "misleading," and "deceptive" statements on its website, claims a leading UK expert in complementary medicine.

Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, identified numerous statements on the society’s website that he claimed could be seen as contravening the code. He was writing in the International Journal of Clinical Practice (doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02249.x).

The code of ethics, which runs to 23 pages, sets out the rules that the society expects its members to abide by. These state that advertising should not make claims to "cure named diseases" or be "false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, extravagant or sensational." It adds that "all speculative theories will be stated as such and clearly distinguished."

However, a review of some members’ websites showed a series of violations of the code that led Professor Ernst to scrutinise the society’s own website.

Despite there being no good clinical evidence to substantiate such claims, says Professor Ernst, the society’s website carried statements claiming that homoeopathy can help with various symptoms and illnesses, including fever, sore throat, toothache, arthritis, eczema, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, chicken pox, erectile dysfunction, and prostate problems.

"In my view, they [the statements] do ‘expressly or implicitly’ claim ‘to cure named diseases,’" writes Professor Ernst. "If this is so, they violate the SoH’s [Society of Homeopath’s] own Code of Ethics."

He concludes, "If the SoH wants its members to behave ethically it should evaluate its own website carefully and deliberate whether it is responsible for a professional organisation to make health claims which are not supported by the current best evidence."

Professor Ernst told the BMJ that advertising by members of the Society of Homeopaths "should be more than lip service to evidence based medicine, otherwise it is confusing and potentially harmful."

Paula Ross, the society’s chief executive, said she was grateful to Professor Ernst for highlighting his concerns and that the society would be investigating the concerns and making amendments "where appropriate."

BMJ 2009;339:b4605

Why making large numbers of complaints about chiropractors was the right thing to do

2009-10-23T05:46:00.000-07:00

I've been criticised recently for making large numbers of complaints against chiropractors for making unsubstantiated claims to treat colic. Criticism has come from comments on my blog, from posts and comments on Lanigan's blog, and from the Shadow Minister for Mumbo-Jumbo David Tredinnick MP.

The justification for my complaints is simply that there is no evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for infant colic. For the purpose of clarity, I'd like to add that there is also no evidence that chiropractic can help alleviate the symptoms of infant colic.

But some criticism has pointed out that I'm not suggesting an alternative treatment, and while no evidence-based treatment for infant colic exists, it makes sense to use a treatment with no evidence for its effectiveness.

I will now explain why this position is wrong.

What do we mean by "no evidence"? We mean, simply, that there is no sensible reason to believe that a given intervention is effective. There is no evidence that bathing your child in tomato juice is an effective treatment for infant colic. There is no evidence that hanging your child upside down for two hours a day is effective in alleviating the symptoms of infant colic. These might sound like strange things to suggest, but that's my point: there is no evidence base for these being effective. Chiropractic, as an intervention for treating colic, is no different in this respect.

I am aware that chiropractors do use chiropractic as a treatment for colic, but this isn't a reason to suspect it may work.

Some chiropractic colleges teach that chiropractic is effective in treating colic, but this isn't a reason to suspect it may work.

Some chiropractors notice that symptoms of colic appear to subside after chiropractic treatment. But this is equally consistent with the hypothesis that it is ineffective: we know that symptoms subside over time without treatment anyway.

Until there is a valid reason to suspect that chiropractic may be effective in treating colic, chiropractic as a treatment stands equal beside bathing your child in tomato juice and hanging your child upside down.

But chiropractic takes it one stage further. Because despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that bathing your child in tomato juice is effective, nobody has ever tried to look for the evidence. With chiropractic, the evidence has been searched for. Double blind trials have been performed. And they have failed to show it is effective.

If there are three hypotheses, all without evidence for them and one where evidence has been looked for but not found, then that one is clearly the least plausible hypothesis.

There are billions and billions of possible things you could do to a small child that might be effective in alleviating the symptoms of infant colic. Only a tiny fraction of them will work. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that any one of those billions of possible treatments may work without some sort of evidence. If you've looked for evidence that one of those billions of treatments works and failed to find it, then it is completely irresponsible to promote it as a treatment - especially, when like most interventions, it is not 100% safe.

With my complaints, I am not trying to deny patients the right to try whatever they want as a treatment. What I am trying to prevent is a group of people profiting by telling their patients that their treatment is effective when there is not only no evidence - but there is actually evidence to the contrary.

Form letter to your MP

2009-10-20T07:21:00.001-07:00

OK, sorry - I've hashed this out in 10 minutes. It's rough, but it needs to go out now so tough.

Go to http://www.writetothem.com/, fill out your postcode to find your MP. Copy and paste this letter in. Send it.

Quick, do it NOW.

Thanks.

Dear ???????,

Tomorrow there is a debate in parliament on the subject of libel reform.

English libel laws are being used to stifle scientific debate in the UK, to the point where many scientists are not bothering to make their opinions heard. Those that do criticise others are being heavily punished for doing so.

Medical doctor and journalist Ben Goldacre was recently involved in a libel battle following his criticism of a vitamin salesman who claimed that anti-retroviral drugs were ineffective in treating AIDS and offered his vitamins as an alternative. Despite the fact that Goldacre won, they still came out of it £150,000 poorer. The science author Simon Singh is going through a similar situation right now.

In 1961, the German paediatrician Widukind Lenz criticised the drug Thalidomide. By this time, at least 10,000 children had been born with birth defects. If he, and all other scientists since, had refused to make their criticism known for fear of legal action, the deformities may still be continuing today.

If we put a stop to criticism, we not only put an end to our ability to know which of our current treatments are effective and safe, but we also make it impossible to evaluate the treatments of the future.

We must do everything we can to reform our uniquely repressive English libel system.

The future health of everyone in this country and the world depends on it.

Yours,

The General Chiropractic Council is knowingly and deliberately violating its own code of practice

2009-10-10T01:31:00.000-07:00

The General Chiropractic Council is knowingly and deliberately violating its own code of practice and continuing to mislead the very patients it is meant to protect.

My previous post detailed how the General Chiropractic Council resolved my Advertising Standards Authority complaint against them informally. I also noted that as yet, the GCC has not removed their Patient Information Leaflet from their web site.

About a week after the informal resolution was made (but before it was published), I spoke to the ASA on the telephone about the fact that they were continuing to make these unsubstantiated claims. A concerned ASA voice told me:

"We would have hoped they would have taken this down by now."

So on the 6th October I emailed the GCC to ask their intentions:

"I notice that despite your informal resolution with the ASA, that the text still appears on your patient information leaflet here: http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/WhatCanI_142_5(Web-Version).pdf

Are you intending to take down or change this leaflet?"

And on the 8th, I received a reply in the post:

I emailed the ASA by email to get their take on this:

"I contacted the GCC following my finding that they had not removed the Patient Information Leaflet from their web site. I had a rather surprising reply from them this morning. They said that they will take it down in reasonable time - and suggested that this would happen once they had taken the time to re-write the document and translate it into several languages.

This is shocking. Surely it makes sense for them to take it down now if it breaches ASA standards - or not at all if it doesn't. Surely while they are re-printing they should not be continuing to distribute the material?

Can you clarify the ASA's position on this?"

And the ASA's reply was fairly clear:

"We’d normally expect an advertiser to implement the changes as soon as is 'reasonably practicable' (bearing in mind the time involved in printing new leaflets).

However, if it’s a leaflet on a website then it should be taken down as soon as possible."

So the ASA (rather unsurprisingly) agrees with me that it is unreasonable to continue to make unsubstantiated claims solely on the grounds that you haven't got around to writing and translating anything honest yet.

Based on the informal resolution and the above text from letters and emails, I can't draw any conclusion other than:

The Chief Executive of the GCC is fully aware that its Patient Information Leaflet violates ASA guidelines.
The Chief Executive of the GCC is aware that this leaflet is continuing to be made available on their web site.
The Chief Executive of the GCC is in no rush to do anything about it.

How can the GCC be expected to regulate the chiropractic profession when it knowingly and deliberately violates the very guidelines it is meant to be enforcing?

I think it's time for a complaint against the GCC itself.

Hopefully they'll take my complaint seriously, clean up the regulatory body, start properly regulating the chiropractors and move towards a future of evidence-based chiropractic.

Then I can get back to my game of World of Warcraft.

General Chiropractic Council to Change Patient Information Leaflet

2009-10-06T08:14:00.001-07:00

My complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about the General Chiropractic Council’s Patient Information Leaflet has now gone through the ASA’s process.

The ASA has managed to deal with my complaint as an “Informally Resolved Complaint” rather than pushing it through to a formal adjudication.

This is a very interesting outcome.

What this means is that the General Chiropractic Council has withdrawn the claims as soon as they were approached and asked the ASA’s guidance in how they can make their advertising comply. There is an important point to note here: if the General Chiropractic Council believed they had the evidence to back up the efficacy of using chiropractic as a treatment for asthma, headaches, migraine and infant colic – then they simply could have produced it.

The ASA would have assessed this for them free of charge and either upheld the complaint asking them to remove the advertising, or not upheld the complaint. There is only one reason for backing off from the complaints: the GCC must have appreciated that that they simply do not currently have the evidence.

This is a significant change, and has huge implications for the circa 600 complaints currently being handled by the GCC.

By backing off and removing their claims before the ASA investigates, the GCC is acknowledging that even their loosely worded, slightly ambiguous leaflet (text below) is in breach of ASA guidelines.

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of:
• asthma
• headaches, including migraine
and
• infant colic.

If the GCC believes this loosely worded text to be in breach of ASA guidelines, then they must also believe that every complaint made to the GCC surrounding this subject is valid.

Am I being too optimistic in anticipating a vast number of guilty verdicts against chiropractors in the forthcoming months?

It also brings up a second potentially interesting outcome. If you’ve been following this blog, you will be aware of the letter that the GCC sent to Trading Standards in defence of their members. The advice given in that letter includes the exact text within the patient information leaflet that I complained about.

Will the GCC now follow that letter up with another saying that they are now withdrawing that claim? I will be putting that question to them.

Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic – especially considering that more than a week after agreeing to informally resolve the complaint, the patient information leaflet remains on their website in its original form.

I am now beginning work on my second ASA complaint about the same Patient Information Leaflet.

While you're in the mood for chiro woo, I highly recommend Zeno's post on his recent ASA complaint - published at the same time.

The dodgy posters in Leicester Highcross TCM shop

2009-09-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

I went into the Traditional Chinese Medicine place in Leicester's Highcross centre today and took photos of all the posters on display. In total there are 20 photos of 31 posters or signs.

See if you can count how many of these 31 posters are not breaking the Consumer Protection Regulations.

If you can't read the text, click on the image for higher resolution.

The public isn't interested in why the GCC is trying to mislead Trading Standards

2009-09-11T10:06:00.000-07:00

I received the GCC's response to my Freedom of Information Act Inquiry yesterday evening. The GCC avoided responding to almost every point. You can read the full text of their response here and here.

Two points stand out. Firstly, I was very clear in asking for all previous versions of the document, yet they only returned the final version without specifically stating that it was the only version.

Secondly, and more interesting is their response to my request for copies of internal communications discussing the content of the letter.

The emails are considered to be exempt under S36 of the FOIA because the disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. The GCC considers it is important that an exchange of views can take place between relevant parties to allow for proper space for deliberation without the exchange being made public. Additionally, the GCC needs to be able to think through the implications of particular options and consider how to properly approach the trading standards offices. Consequently, the public interest test has been applied by the "qualified person" at the GCC and the decision was that the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosure and therefore it was considered appropriate to rely on FOIA s36 in this case.

Now the only way I can see this inhibiting the free exchange of ideas is if those ideas are not in the public interest. If those ideas included strategies for deliberately misleading trading standards by misrepresenting evidence, then you'd expect that the free exchange of those ideas may be inhibited. But then I'd have thought that inhibiting those ideas was very strongly in the public interest.

But if the ideas exchanged were how best to represent the evidence and how important it is to be honest with trading standards, then it is important that these ideas are not inhibited. But then honest ideas that are genuinely intended to help the public are not likely to inhibited by the prospect of them being made public.

Now I am willing to accept that some of the GCC's staff may have been less than complimentary when referring to me in their internal communications. And I don't have a problem with that.

Paul Ghuman of the GCC, I make you an offer to protect your staff from embarrassment. Pop those communications over to your lawyers at Capsticks and let them know what you want to remove. Then ask them to send the censored copy to me, declaring that nothing material to the decision making process was removed.

If you'd prefer not to do this, I'll ask my MP to send the next request for information. He has been very helpful before when I have been campaigning against quackery.

His next open bureaux is at 5pm on the 18th September.

Quick Update on the Chiropractic Stuff

2009-09-02T10:55:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to keep you up to date. Firstly, thank you to everyone who signed the letter to Trading Standards. Once I got to 500 signatories I sent it off, reporting 56 chiropractor practices. The sites have started to change. 12 have completely removed the claims, and another 5 have diluted what they are claiming - not ideal, but I'm not sure we can do much better right now.

So we're looking at 39 remaining. Not bad when we started with 160.

I'm still keeping an eye on these complaints, but for now my focus has changed the GCC. The organisation has done nothing to make sure its members are not practicing quackery. It promotes chiropractic for babies with colic and asthma in its patient information leaflet, and it has been actively defending its members from the Trading Standards complaints I've been making.

Having received a copy of their leaflet, I have now reported the GCC to the Advertising Standards Authority. The complaint has been slightly stalled when they questioned if I should be submitting the complaint as coming from Skeptics in the Pub. I'm not sure why that is relevant - and Skeptics in the Pub doesn't even exist as a legal entity, but I'm sure we'll work out the details soon. The ASA have made some very good decisions recently so I'm looking forward to seeing them deal with this.

My letter is below.

New Complaints

Advertising Standards Authority

Mid City Place

71 High Holborn

London

WC1V 6QT

To Whom It May Concern:

I have attached a copy of a leaflet entitled “What can I expect when I see a chiropractor?”. This leaflet is published by the General Chiropractic Council and used to promote the chiropractic profession. The GGC’s address is:

General Chiropractic Council

44 Wicklow Street

London

WC1X 9HL

020 7713 5155

My complaint is that this leaflet breaches the following ASA standards:

3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation. Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication. The full name and geographical business address of marketers should be provided without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP.

The claims I would like to focus on in this leaflet are as follows:

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of:
• asthma
• headaches, including migraine and
• infant colic

First I would like to focus on asthma. The statement “There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement” is misleading. The evidence from trials quoted by the GCC themselves in a letter they recently wrote to trading standards (available at http://www.dcscience.net/gcc-response-to-TS-050609.pdf), they cited the following:

Brønfort concluded in 1997 that there is moderate evidence (Level B) that SMT is a non-efficacious therapy for chronic to moderately severe asthma in adults. There was insufficient data (Level D) to draw conclusions about the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for other respiratory diseases (including childhood asthma)

I was not actually able to find this paper. However, you can see from the above that the GCC acknowledge that the conclusion of this paper is that the treatment was ineffective.

In 2001, Brønfort et al ( see c. below) concluded that after three months of combining chiropractic SMT with optimal medical management for childhood asthma, the children rated their quality of life substantially higher and their asthma severity substantially lower. The observed improvements were thought unlikely to be as a result of the specific effects of chiropractic SMT alone, but other aspects of the clinical encounter that should not be dismissed readily.

This is a misrepresentation of the study’s findings to make it appear that the outcome was positive (study is attached with this letter - Bronfort2001 asthma.pdf). In fact, the study also concludes that there were “no important changes in lung function or hyperresponsiveness at any time.” In addition, the patient rated outcomes were not even compared between the control and treatment groups. Even the GCC admits in their abstract above “The observed improvements were thought unlikely to be as a result of the specific effects of chiropractic SMT alone”. My conclusion from this evidence is that if you go for a chiropractor for asthma then you might think you’ve got better, but (a) if you had received the sham treatment you may have thought that too, and (b) objective measures will show you wouldn’t have got any better.

In their letter, they also list the following studies:

a. Nielsen NH, Brønfort G, Bendix T. et al 1995. Chronic asthma and

chiropractic spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp

Allergy Jan;25(1):80-8

(see Nielsen1995.pdf)

b. Balon J, Aker PD et al 1998. A comparison of active and simulated

chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood

asthma. NEJM 339 (15): 1013-1020

(see Balon1998.pdf)

c. Brønfort G , Evans RL, Kubic P, Filkin P 2001. Chronic pediatric

asthma and chiropractic spinal manipulation: a prospective clinical

series and randomized pilot study. JMPT 24(6):369-77

(Bronfort2001 asthma.pdf)

These studies all come to the conclusion that this treatment does not work.

Study (a) concludes:

The results do not support the hypothesis that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is superior to sham spinal manipulation in the management of pharmaceutically controlled chronic asthma in adults when administered twice weekly for 4 weeks.

And study (b):

In children with mild or moderate asthma, the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit.

I have already described study (c).

I have also attached “Spinal manipulation for asthma: A systematic review

of randomised clinical trials, E. Ersnt, 2009.” (09-000 SM4Asthma.pdf). Which states within its conclusion:

Systematic reviews often conclude that ‘‘more evidence is needed’’. In this particular instance, however, I am not convinced that more studies of spinal manipulation should be funded with public money. The current evidence is clearly not positive, not even encouraging. If clinicians or organisations nevertheless imply (as they do) that spinal manipulation is an effective therapy for asthma, the onus is on them to fund, conduct and publish rigorous trials that demonstrate this claim to be true.

By making the statement “There is some evidence, though more research is needed” I believe that the GCC is being misleading. This statement implies that there is a mixture of positive and negative findings and we don’t really if it works or not. In reality, the evidence from RCTs overwhelmingly suggests that this treatment is ineffective.

I have also attached “Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials, E. Ernst, 2009” (09-000 SM4InfantColic.pdf). As you can see from the text, the best evidence studying the use of chiropractic in the treatment of colic is also negative.

I would like to confirm that I have no commercial interest in the outcome of this investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Perry.

Sara Stevens and the Ultra-Woo Allergy Test

2009-08-31T10:14:00.000-07:00

I visited Sara Stevens of "The Complementary Health Team" in Blaby back in May. I've been incredibly slow to blog this, but just realised that blogging my letter of complaint in full would be much better than writing anything new.

Enjoy!

Dear Ms Stevens,

I visited your premises in Blaby on the 7th May 2009 around 5pm for what was sold to me as an “allergy test”.

Having thought about the tests I received, I have got quite suspicious of the methods used and am not convinced that they could work.

To summarise your methods:

You took a homeopathic preparation of an allergen and put it into my left hand.
I held it close to my stomach and outstretched my arm.
You pushed my arm down.
If my arm moved easily you deduced that I was allergic or sensitive to the preparation from which the homeopathic remedy was made. If not, you deduced that I was not allergic or sensitive.

The problems I am having difficulty overcoming are as follows:

Homeopathic solutions are typically dissolved to the point where there is none of the original substance remaining. With no substance remaining, I see no difference whatsoever between the 35 preparations you presented me with. How could this work without a chemical difference between the solutions?
With the preparations contained within glass phials, my body did not even come into contact with the pills. How could my body produce a reaction against a chemical it did not come into contact with?
I can find no reliable evidence to suggest that coming into contact with an allergen near your stomach reduces your strength in a different part of your body.
You merely pushed my arm down to subjectively measure the force. This is obviously a completely inaccurate way of measuring resistive force.

To summarise, you attempted to test me for an allergy by pushing my arm down while I didn’t touch a preparation that probably contained no trace whatsoever of an allergen. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that this test actually works?

Following the allergy test, you then gave me two further “tests”. The first, you claimed, was to assess the proportion of “bad bacteria” to “good bacteria” in my body. You did this by counting in tens (0, 10, 20 etc) up to 100 while repeatedly pushing down my arm. After assessing it was weakest between the times when you said “10” and “20”; you then pushed down my arm while counting between 10 and 20. From this, you deduced that my “Candia Level” as you called it, was 14%.

What evidence do you have to demonstrate that this second test actually works?

You then carried out a further “test” to find out what “good bacteria” I needed to buy to restore the balance. You did this by repeatedly pushing down my arm whilst pointing at descriptions of bacteria in a book. You then recommended I take “acidobifidus”.

What evidence do you have to demonstrate that this third test actually works?

I’ve read a fair bit about these tests online and opinion seems to be split. Practitioners of Applied Kinesiology appear to endorse the test, while the common consensus, including all reputable scientific studies, dismiss the practice as pseudo-science with no evidence that it produces accurate repeatable results.

If you do have good evidence that this test works, could you send it to me please? If you do not, I believe that you are operating an unfair commercial practice under the 2008 consumer protection regulations and would like a full refund.

If you do not have reliable evidence for this test, I assume you will from now on comply with the 2008 consumer protection legislation and discontinue your applied kinesiology service. Can you clarify if this is the case?

Regards,

Simon Perry

Skeptics with a "K"

2009-08-16T10:24:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note to say I was on the Skeptics with a K podcast talking about the Chiropractic/colic campaign. This was the first time I've listened to the podcast. With the exception of my rambling, those Merseyside skeptics have done very well. Very funny discussion of Genesis at the beginning. I will now become a regular listener.

You can download the episodes here: http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/category/podcast/. My interview is on #2.

Will Trading Standards now take on the General Chiropractic Council?

2009-08-12T03:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the Trading Standards bodies I’ve written to get in touch with the GCC for more information. And, thanks to a trading standards officer in the Highlands, the GCC’s response is on the trading standard internal database. An officer in London who had received one of my complaints got in touch to ask about the evidence in their response.

I am extremely grateful that he did.

The GCC has been issuing a letter to Trading Standards officers considering action against Chiropractor practices. The letter appears to be deliberately designed to confuse trading standards officers and misrepresent the evidence – and it has managed to do that to great effect.

The text of this letter is available on DC Science blog.

Firstly, they include the text from their patient information leaflet:

Chiropractors mainly treat
back, neck and shoulder problems
joint, posture and muscle problems
leg pain and sciatica
sports injuries

You may also see an improvement in some types of
asthma
headaches, including migraine; and
infant colic

So firstly there is some confusion here. If an improvement can be the result of chiropractic care, then why don’t they use it as a treatment?

“It is important to emphasise that the GCC doesn’t claim that chiropractors 'treat' asthma, headaches (including migraine) and infant colic. It is possible that chiropractic care may help to alleviate the symptoms of some of these conditions.”

What are they talking about? If chiropractic care can help to alleviate the symptoms, then it can be used as a treatment. The evidence throughout the asthma trials that they quote is clear: wherever the trials are properly blinded, it shows the treatment to be useless. I’ve been through the trials they’ve referenced for asthma: Brønfort in 1997 (note: I have not managed to find this paper – but the GCC’s letter acknowledges that this paper concludes that the treatment is ineffective), Brønfort et al 2001, Nielsen NH, Brønfort G, Bendix T. et al 1995 and Balon J, Aker PD et al 1998.

All these papers reach the same conclusion: the SMT (Spinal Manipulation Therapy) is ineffective in the treatment of asthma.

So what are they talking about when they say “You may also see an improvement”? Well the key word, I think, is “see”. While the trials they listed all reached the unanimous conclusion that SMT is ineffective in the treatment of asthma, Brønfort et al, 2001 (a pilot RCT) also found that the patients reported that their life had got better. But the paper did not compare this patient-rated outcome measure between SMT and control group. And the paper even states that “observed improvements are unlikely as a result of the specific effects of chiropractic SMT alone”.

So perhaps what they mean is that if you get chiropractic treatment for asthma, then you might think it did some good, however:

Objective measures will show that you haven’t been helped, and
You would have thought you’d been helped if you’d undergone a sham procedure too, and
This information came from a pilot study and is therefore not particularly reliable.

When the GCC lists this paper as evidence, they only mention that “the children rated their quality of life substantially higher and their asthma severity substantially lower.” The GCC completely neglected to mention that this study concluded that SMT is ineffective in the treatment of asthma.

They then go on to list 3 more papers that they say “appear to echo the evidence levels outlined in the paragraphs above”:

a. Nielsen NH, Brønfort G, Bendix T. et al 1995. Chronic asthma and chiropractic spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Allergy Jan;25(1):80-8
b. Balon J, Aker PD et al 1998. A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. NEJM 339 (15): 1013-1020
c. Brønfort G , Evans RL, Kubic P, Filkin P 2001. Chronic pediatric asthma and chiropractic spinal manipulation: a prospective clinical series and randomized pilot study. JMPT 24(6):369-77

But they fail to give any further information about these trials. Why? Why have they not quoted the conclusions, or sent the trial papers on along with their letter?

Why has the GCC not clearly stated that all of these papers conclude SMT to be ineffective in the treatment of asthma?

Why did the GCC list 4 papers that all concluded that SMT is ineffective in the treatment of asthma – but still state “although some clinical trials had positive results there is insufficient data to make strong statements about efficacy”?

Why has the GCC failed to reference the largest and best reported study of the use of SMT in treating infant colic?

How would the General Medical Council react if our GPs started advertising that they were willing to provide ineffective treatments for asthma?

Would they jump to the defence of those GPs?

Would they write letters deliberately designed to confuse Trading Standards?

Would they wait for a member of the public to issue a specific complaint about a specific practitioner before taking any action?

Would they publicise on their web site that “you may also see an improvement” if this ineffective treatment is used?

I think not.

The GCC is meant to be the body designed to regulate the chiropractic profession. With its actions, it has proven itself not only utterly incompetent, but it is actually protecting the very actions it should be regulating against.

The Trading Standards officer I spoke to yesterday was very much of the opinion that Trading Standards should be tackling the General Chiropractic Council directly. I am not sure if this is within their remit, but personally I am now shifting my focus in this direction.

The Quest for “Dr” Paul Homoky’s Secret Evidence

2009-08-07T00:30:00.000-07:00

Following my previous post about how Edinburgh City Council now has secret evidence that Chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic, I have been pursuing two different routes to try and get at it. The importance of this evidence – like any evidence of clinical efficacy - cannot be overestimated.

Firstly, I sent the following FoI request to Edinburgh city council:

Hi Lynsey,

I am really quite confused about what has happened over my complaint, and really want to get to the bottom of it. Hence this FoI.

1. What are City of Edinburgh Council Trading Standards' criteria for sufficient evidence when assessing a claim to be able to treat disease?

2. Would City of Edinburgh Council Trading Standards accept simple case histories as adequate evidence when assessing the efficacy of a treatment to treat a self-limiting disease?

3. Would City of Edinburgh Council Trading Standards accept unpublished studies as adequate evidence when assessing the efficacy of a treatment?

4. What training do City of Edinburgh Council Trading Standards' Enforcement Officers receive to ensure they can adequately assess the validity of studies testing the efficacy of a medical treatment?

5. What is City of Edinburgh Council Trading Standards' policy for dealing with trading standards complaints where an assessment of the evidence falls outside the expertise of the enforcement officers?

Many thanks,

Simon Perry

I also contacted “Dr” Paul Homoky, asking for this evidence (see last post). I have now received his reply:

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your email. I’m afraid I won’t be sending you any information. I am far too busy helping patients to improve their health through natural, safe techniques and to help educate the public regarding prevention and lifestyle management. You and your colleagues have already sent an unreasonable complaint to the Edinburgh council and General Chiropractic Council without having even met or talked with me and discussed our approach. If you had done so, or even examined my website properly, you would have learned that we do not treat colic, nor do we claim to treat it on our website or in the clinic. We deal with spine and nervous system complaints, the treatment of which sometimes has a positive effect on other conditions too.

We are a reputable clinic with great success and happy clients. I do not have anything to prove to your sceptics society. Our mode of therapy is chosen specifically because it is safe and effective. I wonder if you have applied the same rigorous analysis to a wide range of medical treatments which are provided by medical doctors on a daily basis—many of which are proven to be ineffective, unnecessary and/or carry a high risk of negative outcome.

My new wife and I have had our first baby, and we would like to enjoy his beautiful entry into the world. Please do not send any further emails to me. I was happy to provide details to the Edinburgh Council as they requested, but this is, quite frankly, our business and not yours. I have taken the time to write this email to you because I believe you deserve a response. If you have any further questions regarding chiropractic care of the spine and any of its researched effects, please direct them to the British Chiropractic Association.

I wish you and your sceptics society well. I am a sceptic too—we have much in common.

Best wishes,

Paul Homoky, B.Sc., D.C.

Chiropractor

I don't think it is correct to say that he does not claim to treat colic. From what I can make out of the wording, he seems to say they don't treat colic, but colic is caused by misalignment of the spine and they treat misalignment of the spine. That would seem to imply that they treat colic, even if indirectly. The text on his site is as follows:

But chiropractic isn’t a treatment for colic! If vertebral subluxation is present, interfering with the proper function of any part of the body, restoring proper nervous system control allows the body to heal. This can happen regardless of age and regardless of what the symptoms are called.

So “Dr” Paul Homoky has decided to keep the evidence secret. All UK chiropractors are bound by the GCC’s code of conduct, which includes:

E1.4 must avoid conduct which may undermine public confidence in the
chiropractic profession or bring the profession into disrepute, whether
or not such conduct is directly concerned with professional practice.32

Now publicising irrelevant evidence, or evidence that has already been publicly debunked, is likely undermine public confidence in the chiropractic profession so it may be that this is his reason for not providing it. However, should the evidence be strong, it would of course undermine public confidence in the profession if he refused to provide it.

I will take up “Dr” Paul Homoky’s suggestion and ask the BCA if they are aware of this new evidence.

After my last post, Felix_the_Mac commented on why I had not asked Edinburgh City Council to provide the evidence for a second time within my FoI request. In reality, this might work. But I don’t think that’s the best approach. Once I finally get hold of the evidence, it’s likely to make for one amusing blog post and die away.

But in all likelihood I’ll get refusal after refusal. And that means I can drag this out for months.

STOP THE CAMPAIGN - Edinburgh City Council has got evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic

2009-08-04T10:06:00.000-07:00

But they won't tell me what it is.

The result of my original burst of 80 odd trading standards complaints has been hugely positive. Most offices have responded with business advice that the trader should remove the claims and for the large part they have done so.

But interestingly, my complaint to Edinburgh City Council about Health for Life has so far resulted in a dead end.

Since your last e-mail I have contacted Health for Life regarding the treatment of colic. They have provided me with sufficient evidence to support their claims regarding the use of chiropractic for those with colic. In light of this, Trading Standards will not be taking any further action in this matter.

So, quite reasonably, I asked if I could see this evidence.

I regret that I am unable to provide details of the evidence and substantiation provided as this information has been obtained using powers provided for the discharge of my duties.

But this evidence is clearly important, so I wrote to Health for Life themselves:

Dr. Paul Homoky,

I recently made a complaint against you to Edinburgh Trading Standards regarding claims to treat colic using chiropractic on your web site.

I have been told by Edinburgh trading standards that you have provided evidence and substantiation to back up your claims. However, they are unable to pass this evidence onto me.

The importance of this evidence cannot be underestimated. I have made a large number of similar complaints to both trading standards and the GCC and have more ready to send out. Over 100 practices have already changed their advertising material. If there is good evidence in favour of this treatment that I previously missed, it is critical that I withdraw these complaints with immediate effect and apologise to those affected - therefore allowing children access to an efficacious treatment that is currently being denied to them.

If this evidence does not exist, it is important that I continue my campaign to ensure more children are not subjected to a pointless and potentially risky intervention.

But without seeing the evidence, I can only presume that Edinburgh Trading Standards has made a mistake in evaluating the quality of evidence on offer.

I hope you appreciate the importance and will be able to send me details of the relevant studies.

Many thanks,

Simon Perry.

I look forward to their response.

The chiropractor's web pages on colic are here and here. And if you're interested, City of Edinburgh Trading Standards can be found here:

City of Edinburgh Council
Services for Communities
Trading Standards
Chesser House
500 Gorgie Road
Edinburgh
EH11 3YJ

T 0131 469 5643
F 0131 469 5411

Chinese Medicine Allergy Tests in the Leicester HighCross Centre

2009-08-03T12:22:00.000-07:00

Claims to be able to test for allergies using nothing but a lock of your hair should always be treated with suspicion, but especially so when the claims are made by a shop advertising Traditional Chinese Medicine.

But it’s always worth trying these things out, so a couple of us went along for a test. After a couple of weeks we both got our results with some added advice on which supplements we should be taking.

My results:

Low reaction to wheat, "pepper/spicy", nuts. Moderate reaction to dairy, caffeine, yeast. I could benefit from more chromium and valerian.

My friend's results:

Low reaction to Nightshade family, citrus fruits, salt, sweet, beet/cane sugar, house & dust mite. Medium reaction to dairy, orange and grass pollen. He could benefit from more Omega-3, Milk thistle herb and co-enzyme q10.

With the exception of dairy, our results were completely different.

Which is quite strange, since we both took in a sample of my hair.

I’ve written to the company to request an explanation and have not yet received one. Nor have they offered to refund the fee.

Please sign the letter to Trading Standards

2009-07-31T00:36:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: We've now got 500 signatories and I'm preparing the letter to send off. Thank you for all your support.

You can sign the letter by filling out this form.

If you've visited this blog for the first time, here's a lightning-speed explanation: the evidence suggests that Chiropractic doesn't work as a treatment for colic, I made several complaints to trading standards about Chiropractors who were making this claim. Most trading standards offices have taken action, a few chiropractors are holding out. This last letter is to get those last few businesses to stop making unscientific claims about important issues of health. It will be mail-merged the details and claims made by approx 50 chiropractors.

While the names of signatories will of course need to be printed on the letters to Trading Standards, they will otherwise be kept private.

Please sign the letter.

The full text is below.

To Whom it May Concern,

We are writing to complain about [company name]. While it is up to you to establish whether this company is breaking the law, we wish to bring a possible infringement of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to your attention.

This company makes the following claims on their web site [web site url to be inserted here]:

[copied & pasted claim]

This text clearly implies that the company in question is willing to use chiropractic to treat infant colic. There is no reliable evidence to support the belief that colic is caused by a problem with the spine, nor that chiropractic is effective in treating it. In addition, there is reliable evidence from a controlled trial that clearly shows chiropractic to be no more effective than placebo.

Below are listed the studies typically cited by chiropractors to show that chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic. We have included an explanation of the trial and the conclusion that can be drawn from it. The final study in the list is generally ignored by chiropractors making this claim; however, it clearly shows the treatment to be ineffective.

Study	Summary	Conclusion
1. Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J (1989) Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases, J Manip Physiol Ther,12:281-288.	This study tracked 316 children with symptoms of colic during chiropractic treatment and showed that there was improvement in 94% of cases. However, this study failed to provide any evidence for or against the efficacy of chiropractic in the treatment of colic for the following reason: all children with colic improve over time. If all children improve from colic anyway, then showing that they improve after a certain treatment is unhelpful unless there is a control group not receiving treatment with which to compare them. This study contained no such group.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it cannot demonstrate that treatment improves recovery from the condition.
2. Mercer, C. and Nook, B. in the Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Congress of the World Federation of Chiropractic (1999)	This doesn't seem to have been published, so was not peer reviewed. As it seems to be almost impossible to get hold of the paper, there is very little that can be said. From the summary provided by the BCA, however, it appears that this was a simple observational study like the one above with no control group.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it cannot demonstrate that treatment improves recovery from the condition.
3. Wiberg J, Nordsteen J, Nilsson N. The short term effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of infantile colic. A randomised controlled trial with a blinded observer. J Manipulative Physiol Ther (1999) 22:517-522.	This study was a randomised controlled trial comparing chiropractic with dimethicone in the treatment of colic. Without blinding between the two groups, it is likely that the placebo effect could play a major part in the outcome. The placebo effect is likely to be more pronounced with the chiropractic treatment as it is a more dramatic intervention. In addition, the system of measurement (asking parents to record crying hours) adds another potential bias. The parents who were keeping the diaries were were not blinded. Wiberg and Nilsson appear to concede this point themselves here: http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/84/2/138#124	This is inconclusive at best due to the lack of blinding, with the effects shown likely to be due to placebo and bias in record keeping.
4. Hayden & Mullinger (2006) Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice (2006) 12, 83–90.	This study did not investigate chiropractic, but cranial osteopathy. Even so, this was a preliminary trial. Preliminary trials are of too small a scale to reach a conclusion. They are used only to see if it might be worth performing a proper trial.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it does not study chiropractic.
5. Hipperson AJ (2004) Clinical Chiropractic 11, 122 – 129.	This was merely a report of two case studies. This is irrelevant for the same reason as Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J, but with only two subjects.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
6. Browning M. Miller, J. Clinical Chiropractic (2008) 11, 122—129	This study compared two different forms of chiropractic in the treatment of colic. Maybe they both work, maybe neither work. This study did not attempt to answer that question.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it did not test if the treatment worked. It merely compared two different types of chiropractic treatment. This outcome would be expected if neither method worked.
7. Leach RA (2002) J Manip Physiol Ther, 25, 58 -62.	Simply another two case studies as Hipperson AJ (2004) above.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
8. Miller J (2007) Clinical Chiropractic 10, 139—146 Cry babies: A framework for chiropractic care.	This is not a study at all, we are not sure why it has been quoted by the BCA.	This is irrelevant, as it is not a study of any kind.
9. Nilsson N. 1985 Eur J Chiropr 33, 264 – 255 Infantile colic and chiropractic.	This is merely a survey of parents who have had their child gone through chiropractic treatment for colic. No parents who did not take their children to chiropractors were questioned, making this study even more poorly designed than Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
10. Olafsdottir E, Forshei S, Fluge G, Markestad T (2001) Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation.	AIMS: To investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulation in the management of infantile colic. METHODS: One hundred infants with typical colicky pain were recruited to a randomised, blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: Nine infants were excluded because inclusion criteria were not met, and five dropped out, leaving 86 who completed the study. There was no significant effect of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement. CONCLUSION: Chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. This study emphasises the need for placebo controlled and blinded studies when investigating alternative methods to treat unpredictable conditions such as infantile colic. This is the only properly conducted trial comparing chiropractic against placebo for the treatment of colic. The conclusion is that it simply does not work.	This is highly relevant, and clearly shows that chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic.

Part 2, Section 5 of the regulations list misleading actions as below. You can see from the text below that a trader is in breach if they present information in a way that is misleading even if it is factually accurate. For instance, a trader presenting a testimonial from a client promoting efficacy or even just stating "some parents have found chiropractic useful in treating colic" or a trader citing a poorly conducted trial as evidence without informing the potential customer of a well conducted trial showing the opposite outcome is therefore performing a misleading action under the regulations.

Misleading actions
5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).
(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

According to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the onus of evidence relating to any factual claim is on the company making the claim. So it is not a requirement that a prosecutor proves that the claims are factually incorrect, rather it is a requirement that the company must be able to show that their claims are backed by adequate evidence. Section 27 of the regulations state:

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.
(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—
(a) fails to provide such evidence, or
(b) provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate,
the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate

As an enforcement authority, you also have the right to demand any documentation, such as their evidence for the claim, from the company. Section 21 (b) states "if he has reasonable cause to suspect that a breach of these Regulations has been committed, he may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has been committed, require any trader to produce any documents relating to his business and may take copies of, or of any entry in, any such document;"

So, to summarise the points above:

The consumer protection regulations cover the overall impression given by the trader and the trader may be in breech even if the actual claims are factually accurate.
The consumer protection regulations require the trader to provide evidence for any claims they make, rather than the prosecutor needing to prove those claims to be false.
The evidence we have found from chiropractic organisations so far appears not to be relevant to the question of efficacy in all but one study. In the one study where it is relevant it appears to be inconclusive, with a complete lack of blinding.
The only properly conducted trial of the use of chiropractic in treating colic shows this treatment to be no more effective than placebo.
While prosecution can proceed solely on the grounds that the company provides no evidence, or inadequate evidence; your position is much stronger: the best evidence available clearly shows this treatment to be ineffective.

We have only checked the claims on this company's web site. They may also be making similar claims in leaflets within their practice, or their advice to their customers. We hope you will be able to visit the practice to ensure compliance with the law.

While we have focused on colic for the purposes of this letter, we have also found some practices also claiming to treat children for sleeping and feeding problems, ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. The evidence for chiropractic's efficacy for these treatments is similar to that for colic above. We sincerely hope you will take similar action against any such claims.

Yours faithfully,

[list of names, titles etc]

You can sign the letter by filling out this form.

56 Chiropractor Practices Still Holding Out With Colic Claims

2009-07-24T04:55:00.000-07:00

The vast majority of BCA chiropractors have now removed their claims to treat colic as a result of my previous letters and the campaign by Zeno.

But still 56 practices still hold out, with the claims still available on their web site. I have listed the text of these claims below. It's a bit of a risk to actually list the practice names online. I will be putting the final revision of the letter online soon, once it's been checked by the legal folk.

In the meantime, please join the Facebook group so I will alert you when the letter is ready and we can begin accepting signatories.

			Summary of Web Site
			There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see improvements in some types of: Asthma Headaches, including migraine Infant colic
			The use of these Specialist Techniques allows us to diagnose and treat a diverse spectrum of conditions. These range from headaches, sciatica and back pain to those conditions that people many not realise Chiropractic could help such as feeding and sleeping difficulties in babies, colic and dyspraxia. We are also able to treat conditions that affect women in pregnancy.
			Here are some conditions and injuries we regularly treat: Neck-, shoulder-, arm pain, Back-, hip-, thigh-, knee and lower leg pain, Sciatica, Pain in the wrists, hands and fingers, Pain in the ankles, feet and toes, Headache and Migraine, Face and Jaw pain (TMJ), Ear ache (Otitis media), Dizziness and Vertigo, Disc herniation (slipped discs), Joint sprains, Muscle strains, RSI, Tendinitis, Tenosynovitis, Bursitis, Coccydynia, Colic, Bedwetting (Nocturnal enuresis), Scoliosis, Tennis and Golfers Elbow, Sports injuries, Posture, Postural problems, Muscle Imbalances, Torticollis, Facet joint sprains, Sacroiliac joint sprains, Pelvic Dysfunction, Frozen Shoulder, Rotator Cuff Tendonitis, Achilles Tendon Problems, Hamstring Problems, Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, Rib Pain, Lumbago, Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), Rheumatism, Spondylosis, Fibrositis, Osteoarthrits, Joint and Muscle pain
			Many chiropractors regularly report success in treating babies with colic, cases of asthma and high blood pressure, digestive complaints, period pain and many other conditions which are not directly related to the spine and joints. As a result, researchers all over the world, including the Anglo European College of Chiropractic and the British College of Chiropractic are also investigating the effect chiropractic has on pain and disease in the organs of the body.
			Although a natural process, birth is sometimes traumatic for both mother and baby, Chiropractic may help you and your baby recover from any birth trauma. Treatment aims to relieve the stress that can affect your baby's neck and head, especially if forceps or other medical assistance was involved, or if it was a breech birth. There is evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped children with the following symptoms: Asthma Bedwetting Breathing difficulties Colic Frequent infections, especially in the ears Hyperactivity Prolonged crying Sleep and feeding problems
			Chiropractic care can help children with asthma colic prolonged crying sleeping and feeding problems breathing difficulties hyperactivity bedwetting frequent infections especially in the ears
			Who should I consider recommending to a chiropractor? There is strong research evidence in the literature for the benefit of chiropractic for: Lower back pain Neck pain Whiplash type trauma in the absence of frank tissue damage. Tension headaches There is weaker evidence of benefit in: Asthma Digestive disorders Migraine Infantile colic Menstrual pains
			There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of: asthma infant colic
			Other Conditions also treated Asthma Digestive disorders Migraine Infant Colic Menstrual Pains Glue-ear
			Because the aim of chiropractic treatment is to help your nervous system (that controls everything in your body including your immune system) to function properly, chiropractic treatment results in many positive effects througout your body. Chiropractic is certainly not a cure-all: instead it assists your body's own healing systems to do their job of keeping you healthy. So as well as being great for back pain, chiropractic treatment has been shown to be effective at improving many problems including: Back pain Neck pain Headaches and migraines Pain in hips, buttocks & legs (sciatica pain) Tennis elbow Whiplash Degenerative arthritis pain Disc degeneration Herniated disc Poor posture Foot pain Curvature of the spine (scoliosis) Carpal tunnel syndrome Sports injuries Tendonitis Golfers elbow Shoulder pain Elbow, wrist, hand and finger pain Fibromyalgia Breathing problems Ear infections Colic Back ache during pregnancy Menstrual cramps Workplace injuries Breathing problems Spondylosis
			Many chiropractors regularly report success in treating babies with colic, cases of asthma and high blood pressure, digestive complaints, period pain and many other conditions which are not directly related to the spine and joints.
			Many chiropractors regularly report success in treating cases of asthma, high blood pressure, digestive complaints, period pain, babies with colic and many other conditions, which may not be directly related to the spine and joints.
			All ages can benefit from Chiropractic care - from infants just a couple of weeks old - suffering from colic - to people well into their nineties.
			If your baby suffers from colic, there are a few things that you can do to help: Seek regular chiropractic care, especially during the first four months.
			There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see improvements in some types of: Asthma Headaches, including migraine Infant colic
			...chiropractic adjustments. Even so-called "natural" birthing methods can stress a still-developing spine. The resulting irritation to the nervous system can be the cause of many newborn health complaints. Colic, unexplained crying, poor appetite, breathing problems, and allergic reactions can often be traced to nervous system dysfunction caused by a malfunctioning spine. Head support, followed by crawling, and a baby's first few steps should be followed by chiropractic checkups. If neglected, the bumps and falls during this period of rapid growth may lead to serious spinal deformities later in life. This can set the stage for scoliosis, "growing pains," and a weakened immune system response. Chiropractic adjusting techniques are modified to fit a child's size, weight, and unique spinal problem. Parents often report that their children seem healthier than other kids their age. Many spinal problems seen in adults begin in childhood. Proper spinal hygiene is an important key to better health. Do you know a child who could benefit from chiropractic care?
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved.
			' Patients commonly present to chiropractors with conditions such as back and neck pain, sciatica, 'slipped discs', headaches and migraine, whiplash associated disorders, repetitive strain injuries (RSI), leg, arm or general joint pain etc. Other conditions that patients seek treatment for include asthma, digestive disorders (including infant colic), menstrual pains, sleeping problems etc. If in doubt about your particular condition, give me a call for a no obligation chat.'
			What can chiropractic treat ? There seems to be some confusion about exactly what chiropractic is and what it can do. Basically the aim is to balance and rectify the loss of normal function that has occurred to the spine or any other joint as a result of some form of trauma or prolonged bad posture. Many complaints can be linked to working at the computer, driving a car or even spending all day on the telephone not to mention bad lifting technique and back injuries brought on by lifting and twisting type actions. Many symptoms can occur as a result: Headache - Shoulder Pain - Arm Pain - Tightness across the top of the Shoulders Reduced Neck Motion - Low Back Pain - Leg Pain - Reduced Trunk Flexibility - Infantile Colic – Cystitis. If the spine cannot function properly it will start to cause pain and then the body has to adapt to function as best as it can.
			Chiropractic care is suitable for all ages. Babies as young as a few days old can benefit from very gentle adjustments to help with colic and many other child related conditions. As we get older we need to retain our mobility and chiropractic care can help with this.
			Is Chiropractic helpful and safe for the newborn baby? Chiropractic is very safe and effective in treating the newborn baby. Conditions successfully treated are: colic, restlessness, enuresis, difficulty passing stool, and sleeping problems.
			Many research projects show chiropractic care to be helpful for colic, ear infections, erratic sleeping habits, bedwetting, growing pains and many other common childhood health complaints.
			Nina is completing her Post Graduate Master in Advanced Chiropractic Pediatrics and has successfully treated many common conditions from infantile colic to sleep disorders. She employs a 'utilization' approach to the uniqueness of each individual.
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved.
			If your baby suffers from colic, there are a few things that you can do to help: Seek regular chiropractic care, especially during the first four months.
			Chiropractic treatment can help patients suffering from back pain, neck pain, headaches, disc injuries, trapped nerves, hip pain, shoulder pain, arm pain, sciatica, infantile colic, pregnancy related back pain, arthritis, scoliosis, sports injuries and many other painful conditions.
			There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see improvements in some types of: Asthma Headaches, including migraine Infant colic
			hiropractic is well known for the treatment of back, pelvic and leg complaints. It is less well known for the treatment of problems that arise in the shoulder and arms, like rotator cuff injuries, tennis elbow or carpal tunnel syndrome. Chiropractors also often treat childhood conditions like colic, and those that are colloquially called 'growing pains' by some other medical clinicians.
			We specialise in the diagnosis and treatment of nerve, muscle and joint problems particularly relating to the spine and its effect on the nervous system. Which means that the symptoms can be very varied. The most common symptoms include back pain, sciatica, neck pain, headache and infantile colic, to mention a few.
			Initially, I visited the Islington Chiropractic Clinic to have treatment for lower back pain which I suffered with during pregnancy. Since then, my children have also received treatment for various problems such as colic and sports injury. I can highly recommend the clinic as the reception staff are always polite, friendly and helpful. Also the Chiropractors have consistently provided us with a high level of care.
			ITRM Chiropractic Clinic also likes to emphasize the importance of family care. Pregnant women, new born babies, and children will find great benefits from chiropractic care. In some cases chiropractic care has been shown to allow for an easier birth, lessen infantile colic and reduce bed wetting. Come along and enjoy our “Kids Zone” and convenient Baby Changing facilities.
			Many chiropractors regularly report success in treating cases of asthma, high blood pressure, digestive complaints, period pain, babies with colic and many other conditions which may not be directly related to the spine and joints.
			As an infant Marcus showed signs of what is often termed ‘colic’. He would cry and scream for hours, sometimes arching his back and neck and clenching his fists. Then during childhood Marcus suffered from severe headaches and neck pain. “I can still remember suffering with headaches and neck pain, I must have only been about seven years old. I would often be told off for constantly pushing on my head, trying to relieve my pain by myself!” His father sought the advice and care of his own chiropractor, Dr Sidney Hudson-Cook, who explained that much of the damage to Marcus’ spine and head had been a result of his forceps delivery at birth. The chiropractic treatment was extremely effective, giving him continual relief. This left a lasting impression on Marcus inspiring him to pursue his studies.
			Moulded Baby' due to intra-uterine constraint by Tone Tellefsen Hughes DC, BSc, FCC (paeds). October 2006 Some babies appear to be born distressed. These babies are often brought into the Chiropractic office by worried and tired parents who, suspects a diagnosis of infantile colic and are looking for a magical cure.
			What Can Chiropractic Help? Millions have been helped with chiropractic. Chiropractors have always had great results with muscle, joint and nerve problems throughout the body, including serious injuries like whiplash type pain, slipped discs, trapped nerves and arthritis. However, chiropractic is more than just a great painkiller. As well as pain relief, many patients enjoy a greater sense of wellbeing with this common sense approach to healthcare. This long established approach of working with the body can have widespread benefits ranging from easing colic in babies to period pains and irritable bowel symptoms in adults.
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved.
			Colic is a very disturbing and frustrating problem for many young babies (and their parents!). It is often linked to a neck and upper back problem and seems more common in babies where delivery was long or difficult or involved forceps. Colic babies often tend to turn their head to one side whenever they lie or sit in the car seat, and may only seem to feed well from one side. Research suggest a better than 90% success rate with chiropractic treatment, which usually occurs within 3-4 treatments. The babies often enjoy being treated and having their neck massaged - and the parents enjoy getting a good night's sleep.
			All kinds of problems can be helped by correcting spinal subluxations; back and leg pain, neck and arm pain, headaches and migraines, during pregnancy, babies with colic, children with ear infections, asthma, the list is long.
			Rachel graduated for the AECC with a First class honours degree in chiropractic medicine. She has attended many soft tissue courses and her area of interest is in treating babies and children as well as pregnant women for back pain. Colic, ADHD and a whole host of childhood related conditions have been successfully dealt with by this exemplary practitioner. Rachel spent 7 years in practice in Greater London before joining the team here.
			chiropractic adjustments. Even so-called "natural" birthing methods can stress a still-developing spine. The resulting irritation to the nervous system can be the cause of many newborn health complaints. Colic, unexplained crying, poor appetite, breathing problems, and allergic reactions can often be traced to nervous system dysfunction caused by a malfunctioning spine. Head support, followed by crawling, and a baby's first few steps should be followed by chiropractic checkups. If neglected, the bumps and falls during this period of rapid growth may lead to serious spinal deformities later in life. This can set the stage for scoliosis, "growing pains," and a weakened immune system response. Chiropractic adjusting techniques are modified to fit a child's size, weight, and unique spinal problem. Parents often report that their children seem healthier than other kids their age. Many spinal problems seen in adults begin in childhood. Proper spinal hygiene is an important key to better health. Do you know a child who could benefit from chiropractic care?
			Many Chiropractors regularly report success in treating babies with colic, cases of asthma and high blood pressure, digestive complaints, period pains and many other conditions which are not directly related to the spine and joints.
			We specialise in the diagnosis and treatment of nerve, muscle and joint problems particularly relating to the spine and its effect on the nervous system. Which means that the symptoms can be very varied. The most common symptoms include back pain, sciatica, neck pain, headache and infantile colic, to mention a few.
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved.
			If your baby suffers from colic, there are a few things that you can do to help: Seek regular chiropractic care, especially during the first four months.
			A great deal of problems can be corrected (and prevented) at an early age!! Unfortunately, what many family health workers don't know is that many problems can be dealt with by a chiropractor early on in a child's life to help prevent complications developing in the future. If all babies and older children had their spines checked while they were still growing, there would be so many problems which would just never arise in later life. Chiropractors have a great deal of success with babies who suffer from colic and persistent crying.
			If your baby suffers from colic, there are a few things that you can do to help: Seek regular chiropractic care, especially during the first four months.
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved
			Is chiropractic suitable for children and infants? Yes. We use gentle techniques on our younger patients to treat conditions such as colic, sleep and feeding problems, hyperactivity disorders and asthma.
			Many of our patients arrive at the clinic with back pain, but you might be surprised to know that we can also help with many other conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, menstrual pain, asthma, migraine, arthritis, and even colic in babies.
			Chiropractic care can help solve a host of childhood problems such as; asthma sleep and feeding problems breathing difficulties hyperacticty bedwetting frequent infections Infantile colic
			Chiropractic is a non-invasive profession that looks to encourage the bodys natural ability to heal. It does not involve the use of medication or surgery while acknowledging there are situations where this may be ultimately necessary. In this way it is appropriate care for aches and pains in pregnancy, for infantile problems such as colic and problems sleeping, and those stubborn niggles that have become constant pain with advancing age.
			Chiropractors treat many conditions which at first may not appear to relate to the spine. These include: Headaches Dizziness Shoulder/arm pain Hand/wrist pain Carpal tunnel syndrome Repetitive strain injury (R.S.I.) Hip pain Knee pain Foot/ankle pain Sciatica Slipped disc Pins and needles and numbness Sports injuries Whiplash Colic/unexplained crying/poor sleep patterns in babies
			There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see improvements in some types of: Asthma Headaches, including migraine Infant colic
			Dear Paul, We would like to thank you for the treatment you gave our baby daughter, Rebekah. We brought her to your Clinic when she was just six weeks old. She had suffered form terrible colic since birth and would cry constantly each night for at least three hours and there was absolutely nothing we could do to help her. We tried medicines recommended by the doctor and we tried lying her in certain positions but nothing worked. When a friend suggested that we take Rebekah to a Chiropractic Clinic we were unsure what to do. However, after six weeks of torture (for Rebekah and us!) we thought that anything was worth a try. After the first treatment we saw favourable results almost immediately. After just three treatments the colic had gone. Our only regret is that we didn't bring our son to you when he was a baby as he also suffered badly with colic. We will definitely recommend your Clinic to any parents who are going through the same difficulties we faced a few weeks ago.
			Why would a newborn get adjusted? Even today’s “natural” childbirth methods can affect an infant’s spine. Colic, unusual crying, poor appetite or erratic sleeping habits can be signs of spinal distress. Adjustments are gentle. Knowing exactly where to adjust, no more pressure than you’d use to test the ripeness of a tomato is involved.
			New research now also suggests that other seemingly unrelated ailments can respond well to Chiropractic treatment including headaches, migraine, infantile colic, heartburn and dyspepsia.

Complaint to Trading Standards over unsubstantiated claims made by Chiropractors

2009-07-07T11:01:00.000-07:00

I figure it probably makes more sense to post the letter text here than to link to the Google Document. If you wish to be one of the signatories, please join the Facebook Group.

The letter is quite lengthy, but I think all the points are necessary. They are designed to combat the excuses that various Trading Standards offices have used for inaction.

To Whom it May Concern,

We are writing to complain about [company name].

This company makes the following claims on their web site [web site domain name]:

[copied & pasted claim]

We believe this text clearly implies that the company in question is willing to use chiropractic to treat infant colic. We believe there to be no reliable evidence to support the belief that colic is caused by a problem with the spine, nor that chiropractic is effective in treating it. In addition, results from the only controlled trial to date indicate that it is no more effective than placebo treatment.

Study	Summary	Conclusion
1. Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J (1989) Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases, J Manip Physiol Ther,12:281-288.	This study tracked 316 children with symptoms of colic during chiropractic treatment and showed that there was improvement in 94% of cases. However, this study failed to provide any evidence for or against the efficacy of chiropractic in the treatment of colic for the following reason: all children with colic improve over time. If all children improve from colic anyway, then showing that they improve after a certain treatment is unhelpful unless there is a control group not receiving treatment with which to compare them. This study contained no such group.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it cannot demonstrate that treatment improves recovery from the condition.
2. Mercer, C. and Nook, B. in the Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Congress of the World Federation of Chiropractic (1999)	This doesn't seem to have been published, so was not peer reviewed. As it seems to be almost impossible to get hold of the paper, there is very little that can be said. From the summary provided by the BCA, however, it appears that this was a simple observational study like the one above with no control group.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it cannot demonstrate that treatment improves recovery from the condition.
3. Wilbery J, Nordsteen J, Nilsson N. The short term effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of infantile colic. A randomised controlled trial with a blinded observer. J Manipulative Physiol Ther (1999) 22:517-522.	This study showed that chiropractic was equally as effective as dimethicone in treating colic. That could mean that both dimethicone and chiropractic are effective, or it could mean that neither are effective. There is very little evidence demonstrating dimethicone is an effective treatment. The only evidence we could find was a single, small scale trial involving less than 50 children. Showing something to be equal in effectiveness to something with unproven effectiveness is unhelpful. Also, without proper blinding between the two groups, it is likely that the placebo effect could play a major part in the outcome. The placebo effect is likely to be more pronounced with the chiropractic treatment as it is a more dramatic intervention.	This is inconclusive at best, with the conclusion drawn by the chiropractors being dependent on two trials both being properly carried out, both with relatively small sample sizes, neither having been repeated and one lacking adequate controls against placebo effect.
4. Hayden & Mullinger (2006) Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice (2006) 12, 83–90.	This study did not investigate chiropractic, but cranial osteopathy. Even so, this was a preliminary trial. Preliminary trials are of too small a scale to reach a conclusion. They are used only to see if it might be worth performing a proper trial.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it does not study chiropractic.
5. Hipperson AJ (2004) Clinical Chiropractic 11, 122 – 129.	This was merely a report of two case studies. This is irrelevant for the same reason as Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J, but with only two subjects.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
6. Browning M. Miller, J. Clinical Chiropractic (2008) 11, 122—129	This study compared two different forms of chiropractic in the treatment of colic. Maybe they both work, maybe neither work. This study did not attempt to answer that question.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it did not test if the treatment worked. It merely compared two different types of chiropractic treatment that may or may not have worked.
7. Leach RA (2002) J Manip Physiol Ther, 25, 58 -62.	Simply another two case studies as Hipperson AJ (2004) above.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
8. Miller J (2007) Clinical Chiropractic 10, 139—146 Cry babies: A framework for chiropractic care.	This is not a study at all, we are not sure why it is quoted.	This is irrelevant.
9. Nilsson N. 1985 Eur J Chiropr 33, 264 – 255 Infantile colic and chiropractic.	This is merely a survey of parents who have had their child gone through chiropractic treatment for colic. No parents who did not take their children to chiropractors were questioned, making this study even more irrelevant than Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J.	This is irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the same reason as the first study.
10. Olafsdottir E, Forshei S, Fluge G, Markestad T (2001) Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation.	AIMS: To investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulation in the management of infantile colic. METHODS: One hundred infants with typical colicky pain were recruited to a randomised, blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: Nine infants were excluded because inclusion criteria were not met, and five dropped out, leaving 86 who completed the study. There was no significant effect of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement. CONCLUSION: Chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. This study emphasises the need for placebo controlled and blinded studies when investigating alternative methods to treat unpredictable conditions such as infantile colic. This is the only properly conducted trial comparing chiropractic against placebo for the treatment of colic. The conclusion is that it simply does not work.	Chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic.

We believe that this trader is operating an unfair commercial practice under the consumer protection regulations. It is Trading Standards' legal responsibility to enforce these regulations. 19.—(1) of the act stated "It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations."

Part 2, Section 5 of the regulations list misleading actions as below. You can see from the text below that a trader is in breech if they present information in a way that is misleading even if it is factually accurate. We believe that a trader presenting a testimonial from a client promoting efficacy or even just stating "some parents have found chiropractic useful in treating colic" is therefore performing a misleading action under the regulations.

Misleading actions
5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).
(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.
(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—
(a) fails to provide such evidence, or
(b) provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate,
the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate

So, to summarise the points above:

The consumer protection regulations cover the overall impression given by the trader and the trader may be in breech even if the actual claims are factually accurate.
The consumer protection regulations require the trader to provide evidence for any claims they make, rather than the prosecutor needing to prove those claims to be false.
The evidence we have found from chiropractic organisations so far appears not to be relevant to the question of efficacy, and where it is relevant it appears to be inconclusive.
The only properly conducted trial of the use of chiropractic in treating colic shows this treatment to be no more effective than placebo.
While prosecution can proceed solely on the grounds that the company provides no evidence, or inadequate evidence; your position is much stronger: the best evidence available clearly shows this treatment to be ineffective.

Yours faithfully,

[list of names, titles etc]

Over half of chiropractor colic web pages slashed & burnt

2009-07-06T11:48:00.000-07:00

The chiropractor web site slash and burn reached a milestone today. Over half of the web pages I originally found containing the word "colic" have either been deleted, or have had the word removed.

When I originally ran the search, I found 619 pages on the web sites of BCA members. We're now down to just 273. That means a whopping 57% of pages have been changed or removed.

This shows just how much of a difference just a few people can make. This disorganised campaign has involved only 5 people. One person (I'm not sure who) submitted the original ASA complaint. Then myself and Zeno both checked chiropractor web sites for unsubstantiated claims (without each of us knowing what the other was up to). Prof Chris French, myself and another chap wrote a trading standards complaint and mail-merged it, and finally both Zeno and I submitted mass complaints to the GCC.

I've got another letter ready to go to Trading Standards about the remaining web sites. But while the slash & burn continues I think I'll hold off for another week or so. I'm hoping to get a large number of signatories.

If you wish to sign the letter, please join this Facebook group. I'll message all members once the letter is ready to go, of course allowing you to read it before getting final confirmation for your name to be added.

If just 5 people signing letters can make this much difference, think how much difference hundreds can make. Please join the Facebook group.

The current version of the letter is available to view here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df7dstxw_13h5mxjwcf&invite=1199211655

"Colic" vanishes from 245 web pages

2009-06-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

I wrote in my last post how I wrote a program to look for the word colic on chiropractor web sites. Well the great thing about a computer program is that once it's written, it can easily be run again.

Last night, I asked it to re-download all of the same web pages as before (in total, 6149 pages). When I first ran the program on the 23rd May, it found 664 pages containing the word colic. When I ran it last night (14th June) it only found 419.

The word colic appears to have been removed from 245 separate web pages. These 245 web pages were on the web sites of 35 different BCA members.

I should note that this isn't intelligent data, it's simply a word count. Chiropractors who change their web site to say "we don't treat colic" won't effect the data. Chiropractors who simply moved the pages to somewhere else will look as if they've removed the word.

Out of the 84 chiropractors I reported to Trading Standards with individual letters, 14 (17%) have now removed the word from all the web pages I found.

Out of the 55 chiropractors I reported to the GCC with individual letters, 13 (24%) have removed the word from all the web pages I found.

Even Chiropractic Life has removed their page about treating swine flu.

It is only 3 weeks after I sent the first round of complaints to Trading Standards. I'll give it a bit longer so we can see which Trading Standards offices did not respond, then target those offices with another campaign.

Perhaps with more than just 3 people writing letters this time.

500 Chiropractors reported to Trading Standards and GCC

2009-06-13T00:48:00.000-07:00

Now it all seems to be out in the open, I think it's high time I openly confess to what I've been up to for the past few weeks.
For some time, chiropractic has managed to get away with being the acceptable face of alternative medicine. With some evidence to show that it helps with lower back pain, and many chiropractors only using the therapy for this purpose, it was seen by many as a legitimate therapy and largely escaped criticism from sceptics.

That all changed when the BCA decided to sue Simon Singh for libel. In a fine example of the Streisand effect, all the energy usually reserved for criticising homeopaths and reiki healers was redirected straight at those chiropractors making wild and outlandish claims to treat colic, asthma and a host of other problems unrelated to the spine.

With the BCA attempting to stifle debate over the bogus* claims pointed out by Simon Singh, I was determined to do something.

The BCA web site lists all it's 1029 members online, including for many of them, about 400 web site URLs. I wrote a quick computer program to download the member details, record them in a database and then download the individual web sites. I then searched the data for the word "colic" and then manually checked each site to verify that the chiropractors were either claiming to treat colic, or implying that chiropractic was an efficacious treatment for it. I found 160 practices in total, with around 500 individual chiropractors.

Using their postcodes, I then found their local Trading Standards office using the Trading Standards web site.

The final piece in the puzzle was a simple mail-merge. Not wanting to simultaneously report several quacks to the same Trading Standards office, I limited the mail-merge to one per authority and sent out 84 letters. I told a couple of friends about what I was doing and they asked to write letters too. In total, we sent out around 240 complaints. The first batch went out on the 25th May. I don't think there could be a better use of £75 worth of stamps.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to complain about the unfair commercial practices of [practice name].

[practice name] makes express reference to the treatment of colic on this web site:
[practice web site URL].

This appears to be in breach of the unfair commercial practice regulations and other consumer protection legislation. In particular, consumers will, or will be likely to, enter into transactions they would not do so if they were aware of the correct situation in respect of the treatment of colic by chiropractic treatments.

The Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled against a chiropractor making similar claims, including on the bases of truthfulness and substantiation - about using Chiropractic as a treatment for colic, with the assessment concluding:

“We considered that, whilst some of the studies indicated that further research was worth pursuing, in particular in relation to the chiropractic relief of colic, we had not seen robust clinical evidence to support the claim that chiropractic could treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties.”

Unless this trader can show such evidence, it should not be appropriate for it to continue to refer to colic on its website.

The trader in question is operating at the following address:

[address]

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Replies were mixed. Some authorities were extremely helpful, going straight to the chiropractor and advising them to remove the claims. Here is an example from the Borough of Poole's Trading Standards department.

"I have checked the adjudication on the ASA web site and seen the claims made by Amethyst Chiropractic Clinic on their website. I agree the adjudication can be applied to Amethyst and the company should not claim to treat colic and irritable bowel syndrome. I will contact the company and ask them to amend their website and I anticipate you will be able to see the changes in the near future".

Some of the replies I have received so far.

Perhaps the most helpful was the London Borough of Hounslow. I spoke on the telephone to an extremely enthusiastic officer who was genuinely concerned about the claims made. During the conversation, I admitted to making a number of complaints and she asked for the full list of 174 practices and with around 500 chiropractors, which I happily sent her to put on the Trading Standards national database. Two other boroughs have since received the same list.

Some of the Trading Standards offices wasted time and money by writing to inform me that they'd forwarded the complaint to my local Trading Standards office, who promptly checked the claims and wrote to me informing me that they'd referred it back. I suppose they managed to avoid doing any work for a full week while this went on.

Next step was the GCC (General Chiropractic Council). On the 30th May, I reported approximately 500 chiropractors at 174 practices. The GCC responded informing me that I could not submit a list, but needed to complain individually. The GCC will only accept complaints about chiropractors, not practices. I therefore trimmed down the database to those practices who only listed one chiropractor and submitted 56** individual complaints, including archives of the offending web pages.

I wish to make a complaint about «quackNames». This chiropractor is operating at the following address:
«companyName»
«tblQuacksaddress»
I believe this to be the only chiropractor operating at this practice. I also believe this chiropractor to be making unsubstantiated claims on their web site «web» regarding the treatment of colic.
I wish to emphasise that I do not believe this to be fraudulent behaviour. The chiropractor may simply be mistaken about the quality of evidence.
I copied and pasted the following text from their web site «web» on the 30^th May 2009:
«summary»
To my knowledge, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic. The most quoted research I could find was Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J (1989) Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases, J Manip Physiol Ther, 12:281-288. This study simply found 316 babies who were being treated for colic using chiropractic and watched if they got better over a number of weeks.
As colic is not a condition that lasts very long, it is entirely expected that the patients would improve over a number of weeks in the vast majority of cases whether they were receiving chiropractic or not. Without a control group, this study was simply incapable of establish any kind of a link whatsoever between chiropractic treatment and improvement in the symptoms of colic.
I believe this chiropractor to be breaking the GCC codes of practice in the following ways:
B2.2 should always assume adults to be competent unless demonstrated otherwise. If a chiropractor has doubts about the adult’s competence, s/he should ask him/herself the question “can this patient understand and weigh up the information needed to make this decision?” Unexpected decisions do not prove the patient is incompetent, but may
indicate a need for further information or explanation.
B2.7 must offer enough information to patients for them to take the decision to consent or not.17 If the patient is not offered as much information as they reasonably need to make their decision, and in a form they can understand, their consent may not be valid.
By claiming to treat colic, the chiropractor is abusing the customer’s inability to weigh up the evidence to make the decision whether to use chiropractic to treat colic. If the patient had (a) an understanding of the methods of clinical trials, and (b) an understanding of the current evidence for treatment of colic, they are significantly less likely to make the decision to treat colic with chiropractic.
C2.4 must act in the patient’s best interests when making or receiving referrals, providing or arranging assessment or care, or offering products to patients.
In order to act in the patient’s best interests, the chiropractor must advise based upon a fair assessment of the evidence for a particular procedure’s efficacy. By claiming to treat colic with chiropractic, the chiropractor is not giving a fair assessment of the evidence and therefore is not acting in their patients best interests.
C3 Chiropractors must recommend the use of particular products or services only on the basis of clinical judgment and not commercial gain.
By claiming to treat colic, I believe the chiropractor to be demonstrating poor clinical judgement. The chiropractor is making commercial gain by recommending their service for the treatment of colic.
D1 Chiropractors must recognise and work within the limits of their knowledge, skills and experience.
By treating a condition for which chiropractic has not been shown to be effective, this chiropractor is operating outside the limits of their knowledge, skills and experience.
A1.7 Clinical decision making
A1.7b b) the benefits and risks of providing care for the patient, including any contra-indications
By advertising to treat colic with chiropractic, the practitioner failed to properly assess the benefits of treatment.
A2.2 Selecting appropriate care
Chiropractors must select care that is safe and appropriate for the patient concerned, their health and their health needs.
A treatment for which there is no credible evidence for efficacy is inappropriate for the health of the patient.
C1.1 Information on assessment and care
* the outcomes of assessments and care
The communications on the web site of the practitioner clearly indicate chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic. This clearly communicates a positive outcome for which there is no evidence.
C1.6 may publicise their practices or permit another person to do so consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority. If chiropractors, or others on their behalf, do publicise, the information used must be factual and verifiable. The information must not be misleading or inaccurate in any way. It must not, in any way, abuse the trust of members of the public nor exploit their lack of experience or knowledge about either health or chiropractic matters. It must not put pressure on people to use chiropractic.
The Advertising Standards Authority has recently ruled against Dr Carl Irwin & Associates for making similar claims:
We considered that, whilst some of the studies indicated that further research was worth pursuing, in particular in relation to the chiropractic relief of colic, we had not seen robust clinical evidence to support the claim that chiropractic could treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties.
On these points the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).
Although the Advertising Standards Authority does not cover claims made on the web, the claims themselves are obviously of the exact same type ruled against by the ASA.
In addition, advertising chiropractic as a treatment for colic is a clear abuse of the trust of members of the public, exploiting the fact that the public is unlikely to independently verify these claims and also exploiting the public’s lack of experience and knowledge in dealing with health based evidence.
I look forward to your response.

Finally, I also sent the entire list to the Office of Fair Trading.

On the 8th June, I was surprised to find out that someone else was doing almost exactly the same thing - allthough they hadn't got as far as the submission yet.

And on the 10th, the science blogs went wild when Le Canard Noir published a very amusing email from the McTimoney Chiropractic Association, advising their members to take down their web site.

It didn't matter, I had copies of all the web sites.

* Not intended to mean deliberately misleading.
** I later withdrew one complaint as there was a problem with the web page archive and I could not be sure if an offence had been committed.

Oh, PS. Don't forget Homeopathy Awareness Week.

Arguments with a chiropractic quack

2009-05-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how I could offer any better example of sloppy thinking by alternative therapists. This email trail of an exchange between myself and a chiropractic quack clearly demonstrates how, when faced with a winning argument, the quack tactic is to back off and ignore the point rather than be forced to change your mind.

When she ends the discussion, it's not because I've made a specific point. It's because I've just asked her to clarify her position. Clarifying her position would almost certainly mean admitting that chiropractic is quackery.

It started with me posting something on their site, I can't remember quite what I put but I think I was accusing them of abusing public gullibility by claiming to use chiropractic to treat swine flu. The post I was commenting on is here: http://www.chiropracticlifeblog.com/chiropractic-and-swine-flu/.

You'll notice from following the link that she did not allow my comments to be posted. @Karen: I will never censor your posts on my blog.

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Thankyou for your comments.

Once in a lifetime a shift in thinking that challenges the status quo comes into being. These new revelations require us to either resist the change or adapt (most of us tend to resist).

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer did a good job of summarizing the life cycle of a new philosophy, when he said (describing the revelation of “new” truth):

“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

New ideas, philosophies and revelations come in all shapes and sizes. The talented ones among us are quick to spot the truth, embrace it and adapt and take advantage of it - others stay stuck in thinking that the world is still flat!!

Our own five children were born at home, all have had chiropractic adjustments since a few hours after birth and they have never been to a medical doctor for anything as they have regular (every week) chiropractic care to remove any nerve interference so that the brain and the body can communicate effectively and heal itself naturally.

The ages of our children add up to over 120 years - obviously that is a lot older than you and our philosophy is stronger than ever. People have been trying to get rid of Chiropractors for ages, ever since 1895 but it is now the third largest healing profession in the world.

Do yourself a favour and get that intellectual subluxation checked by a chiropractor...............

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

So to summarise your argument...

Every so often someone comes up with an idea that everyone thinks is nonsense, but in the end turns out to be true.

I've come up with something that sounds like nonsense, therefore it will turn out to be true.

And I'm so confident that it will turn out to be true that I'm experimenting with it on my children.

Correct?

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Maybe you like to call it an experiment - the ancient Egyptians were doing it too - how long do you need the experiment to last?

Our patients seem to be delighted as they refer their friends and family to our clinic and write testimonials as well.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

A test doesn't have to last long, it just has to be properly

conducted. To date, well conducted trials of chiropractic for anything

other than lower back pain have clearly shown it to be utter nonsense.

All you have is anecdotes.

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

What we have is a healthy family and healthy patients that love to come for their regular adjustments to keep their spine free from interference so that the brain can communicate with the rest of the body effectively and heal itself naturally, as it was designed to do.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

Yes, but what evidence do you have that your family and patients are healthy because of your quackery? There is absolutely no credible evidence even for the existence of a sublaxation, let alone that it is a source of ill health.

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Morning Simon,

I'm glad you are enjoying our continuing conversation and learning about the things you do not understand.

I am up early to get ready to go and serve more people who want what we do, who come back and pay for our services and who write testimonials for us to share with others because they want people to know about true health too. That is all the evidence that we require to know we are doing a great job - as for our family, they do the same wherever they live in the world because they understand the power of the nervous system and how that when it is free from interference the body can heal itself naturally and you can reach your fullest potential!

We trust the wisdom of the ancients and have proved for ourselves - we require no further proof and nor do our patients.

After five years of study chiropractors are well placed to understand things that escape many but we are grateful that governments acknowledge our contribution to society.

Chiropractic is the third largest healing profession in the world. Medicine, dentistry and chiropractic.

Because of the growing number of chiropractors (the new Barcelone College of Chiropractic is opening in October) I can only assume that the number of chiropractic patients will increase.

Just this last week another one of our patients has decided to quit his job as a lecturer and study chiropractic at 49 years of age. Personal experience is a wonderful testimony.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

"Personal experience is a wonderful testimony."

That's really the whole point of what you've been saying all along. However, personal testimony is problematic for several reasons:

-Regression to the mean (people tend to seek treatment when they are at their worse point, it is likely they will improve afterwards).

-Placebo effect.

-Availability error (patients who don't get better don't generally go back - so most of the people you see are those who did get better, so positive evidence is more "available" to you than negative.)

-The way the brain is known to pick up patterns that don't exist.

What have you done to ensure you haven't made any of these mistakes?

The only way I know is to run a proper trial with proper stats. But if you have another way, I'd be interested to hear it.

Simon.

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Hi Simon,

Our clinic is open from 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday and Saturdays as well, and I and our chiropractic assistants have a full-time job seeing to all our patients and everything that needs to be done.

We are happy to leave trials and stats for those who want or need them.

We are too busy taking care of people who want what we have to offer - interestingly many of those came to see us as skeptics!

I truly hope one day you give yourself the opportunity to feel what it is like to live a life with a nervous system free of interference.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

Hi Karen,

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been extremely busy.

I think it makes good sense when engaging in a discussion such as this to take stock and look at the points we agree on. I think we agree on the following - can you confirm or deny?

1. You have many happy clients (Of course I can't say this is true as I haven't met them, but I think this is likely).

2. Based on testimony, anecdote & experience, you believe that your treatment is effective.

3. It is theoretically possible that reliance on anecdote or experience could lead any practitioner into believing that something works when it does not. I assume you agree with this in principle because you did not argue against it. Also, it's fairly obvious - bloodletting and trepanning used to be quite commonplace before we started testing properly. Can you confirm you agree?

4. Chiropractic has not been accepted by mainstream scientist for anything other than lower backpain, because of an absence of evidence proving its efficacy.

There isn't much point in arguing what we agree on, so I want to make sure these points are covered. Can you confirm before we continue?

Thanks,

Simon

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Hi Simon,

Being busy is a good thing!

Chiropractic is a science, art and philosophy which continues to grow and support those who want to live a vital life.

Vitalistic chiropractic has no reliance on being accepted by mainstream anyone...........................

Deep within the body dwells innate intelligence that needs no acceptance, only Truth.

Our patients come seeking Truth and find what they have been looking for all their lives.

The sole purpose of a Chiropractor is to remove subluxations (nerve interference) to allow the body to heal itself naturally.

We ask nothing more, nothing less and embrace each challenge that comes our way.

I am glad you have an enquiring mind.

I hope it serves you well.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

But you didn't answer my question

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Morning Simon,

Very observant! I'm a peace loving person.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

Hi Karen,

Yes - peace loving indeed. But I feel the conflict you are trying to avoid is an internal one.

From reading the points so far, it would be very difficult for you not to agree with them. Indeed, you've implied you do within your other emails.

And yet, you are aware if you do agree to them you will be forced to acknowledge to yourself that:

(a) You may have unknowingly been operating a practice that sells treatments that don't work.

(b) Now you are aware of this, you have a duty to your customers to check your facts.

So your tactic is to bury your head in the sand, avoid thinking about it. It's much better to carry on selling quack treatments to your patients in ignorance than to suddenly come to the realisation you have been accidentally exploiting the sick for years.

Many thanks,

Simon

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Dear Simon,

Thankyou for your concerns.

Kind regards,

Karen

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

FROM: Me.

TO: Chiropractic Life

Karen,

It is a great pity that you do not also share concern for your customer's welfare.

Simon.

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

FROM: Chiropractic Life

TO: Me.

Dear Simon,

Thankyou for your continued interest.

Kind regards,

Karen

Skeptics in the Pub – Unfair Trade with Dr Madsen Pirie

2009-03-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

One way to judge a Skeptics in the Pub event is to count up the number of people sending emails praising the talk and multiply it by the number of people complaining about it. By this measure, February’s talk on the Fair Trade movement with Dr Madsen Pirie was the top talk so far.

Pirie opened by talking about the “causes of poverty”, arguing that there are none – poverty is the default state. Our ancestors for millions of years have endured almost nothing but poverty. The question we should be asking in a time where so many people in the world are wealthy is “what are the causes of wealth?” His answer was free trade.

Pirie talked as much about the benefits of free trade as he did about the problems caused by the Fair Trade movement, giving us all an overview of the basics of economic theory. A quick summary of his points follows:

By supporting farmers in countries such as Mexico where other opportunities are available, the Mexican farmers continue to compete with Ethiopians. If the Mexicans changed work, the price of coffee would rise – supporting the world’s poorest farmers who can’t afford to change job.
By giving a fixed price for coffee, there is no incentive for farmers to produce a higher quality product. Producing quality goods is the most effective way of achieving a higher price.
No country has ever escaped poverty through charity. It has only been done through trade. Pirie pointed to places like Hong Kong, Japan & Taiwan where they started off with poor sweatshop labour (a small step up from manual agricultural work) and steadily worked their way to wealth.
That to fight poverty, we should buy as much as possible from poor countries – and campaign to remove the import taxes, quotas, and subsidies such as the CAP which have been so disastrous for the world’s poor.

I think Pirie could have done slightly better if he had also touched on the cost of joining the Fair Trade movement. By charging manufacturers a €1,900 annual certification fee, they pretty much guarantee that the poorest Ethiopians (where the per capita GDP is US$316) cannot join in on the price-fixing cartel. This explains why so many of the producers are in richer countries like Mexico. With a per capita GDP of over US$10,000 the Mexicans are rich enough to afford it.

Want to help the world’s poor? Me too. That’s why I try to buy goods from producers that are so poor that they can’t afford to join the Fair Trade movement.

With a huge number of Fair Trade supporters in attendance a lively debate was guaranteed – and there was much misinterpretation of what Pirie was saying. Many present seemed to be under the impression that Pirie was against helping the world’s poor. It didn’t seem that way to me. He was simply arguing that the Fair Trade movement was doing more harm than good – and that to really bring the world’s poor away from poverty, we need a method based on sound economic principles. With Pirie tirelessly campaigning against import taxation, quotas and the Common Agricultural Policy - he’s shown he’s willing to put in the effort, not just talk the talk.

What was very interesting to see is the way some normally critical thinkers who are great fans of the scientific method abandon those critical faculties when it comes to the softer science of economics. Sure, it seems unintuitive to think that paying more for a good or service will be detrimental to the world’s poor. But its unintuitive nature is what makes economics, for me, such a fascinating subject.

In Defence of Allowing Sharia Courts

2009-01-21T15:00:00.000-08:00

Arbitration can be used under UK law to resolve civil legal disputes. Rather than go through the time and expense of taking your dispute through the courts, the parties can instead agree to go to an arbitrator.

To begin arbitration, both parties have to agree to it. Both parties sign a contract where they agree to abide by the decision of the chosen arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator may be a fair one; it may be an unfair one. That risk is a cost you accept when choosing to enter into arbitration. But there is also benefit - arbitration is often quicker, easier and cheaper than a lengthy court battle.

Sharia Courts operate in Britain as arbitration services.

Deciding to enter into arbitration is a voluntary process – as is the method of arbitration. If you and your neighbour wish to resolve your boundary dispute based upon a game of “who can fart the loudest” then I will consider you both to be fools.

However, the fact that I consider you fools is irrelevant: your decision to enter into this strange form of arbitration is none of my business. I therefore have no reason to legislate against it.

And if you choose of your own free will to divide the wealth left over from your marriage based upon the teachings of an illiterate medieval paedophile, then I will also think you a fool. But like before; this is none of my business. I therefore have no reason to legislate against it.

You can’t have freedom without the freedom to make daft decisions.

A Rather Weak Reply from Leicestershire CC Library Services

2008-11-26T11:17:00.000-08:00

I received this rather weak reply from Library Services. It was quite impressive that she actually spent the time to visit the libraries and look at the book, chat to collegues and then completely ignore the points I was trying to make.

Thank you for your letter of 20^th November, and your comments on the new Oadby Library. I am pleased that you think it is fantastic – we are very proud of it.

You make some very clear points about the stock there, and thank you for these. I have spoken to the buying team, a customer service librarian at Oadby and visited the library to look at the stock myself before replying to you.

We do attempt to avoid bias in all areas of our stock and to represent all viewpoints, within the law of the land. We have to be selective in what we buy as we have a limited budget and there are many thousands of books published in any one year. In the case of Alternative Medicine there is certainly no deliberate “anti-science basis”. In the Health and Well-being section, there are titles on lots of areas, including mainstream medicine. Not every title we stock is on the shelf at any one time, as they will have been borrowed. We do stock material that is popular with our library users and is reflected in the number of times they have been borrowed. Books which are not in stock in Oadby Library may be available in other libraries across the network, and can be requested. We will also borrow titles from across the country through the Inter-Library Loan services to enable borrowers to have access to any title they wish, if it is available.

We do try to satisfy our users requirements, if we can. I hope this is helpful.

Thank you for your interest,

And my response:

I thank you for your reply of 24th November 2008, however I wish to point out that none of the issues I raised were responded to.

My issues are as follows:

There is huge bias against the current scientific consensus in areas such as alternative medicine and the paranormal, to the point that there appear to be a total of zero books supporting the scientific consensus on the subjects.
That some of the information in some of these books is potentially dangerous to the reader, to the point where making the claims would be illegal if made by a practitioner.
That by promoting books in exact opposition to the scientific consensus, the library is spreading ignorance on extremely important matters such as health.

You mentioned that the library has lots of books on mainstream medicine. However, this was irrelevant to my point – I was discussing alternative medicine. The books on alternative medicine are ones with incredible bias – thankfully most of the books on mainstream medicine support the scientific consensus otherwise I’d be complaining about those too.

Though you have said there is no deliberate bias, having seen my letter and visited the library you are no doubt now aware of significant bias – even if it is not deliberate. However, you have failed to say what, if anything, the library service plans to do about it. I’d like a response on the following:

Does the library even acknowledge that the bias exists?
Does the library plan to do anything about this problem?
If so, what?

I look forward to your reply.

The Woo Promoters of Leicestershire County Council

2008-11-20T10:43:00.000-08:00

I've always been slightly annoyed by the mumbo-jumbo department in the local library. While I can understand it in a bookshop (their only job is to sell books), a library should be a centre for spreading knowledge - not superstition.

All the books I could find on psychic ability promote it as something that exists. All the books on alternative medicine are extremely positive about it's efficacy. There is no critical thought whatsoever.

Finally I got round to (trying to) get something done about it. With, so far, the predictable lack of success. Of course that won't stop me trying. To be honest, I love the argument.

Below are my series of letters to Leicestershire County Council Libraries. I'll carry on adding to this post as they continue to go back and forth.

Reader Development Team

929-931 Loughborough Road

Rothley

Leicestershire

LE7 7NH

Dear ,

The new Oadby Library premises look fantastic, and the longer opening hours will mean I will be using the library much more often. I have a few comments, however, on the book selection.

The Oadby Library has an excellent selection of non-fiction books on the subject of the Holocaust.

In the photo below there are 2 piles of books from the Oadby Library. On the right are all the books I found relating to the Holocaust that support the view taken by historical experts. On the left is the pile of books promoting the pseudo-history that the Holocaust did not happen. There are zero books in this pile.

I completely agree with this approach, but why doesn’t the library provide books showing both viewpoints? There are many Holocaust-deniers out there, so why is the library not providing for their views too? I’d hope that the answer to this question is that it is the library’s responsibility to help educate. Providing books promoting Holocaust denial would be mis-education, and therefore not only a wilful neglect of the library’s responsibility, but a deliberate attempt to spread ignorance.

Why doesn’t the library take this same approach throughout its non-fiction section?

Unlike your excellent Holocaust section, the Oadby Library has some sections where:

The selection of books relating to specific subjects is extremely biased.
The bias is drastically in opposition to the scientific consensus.
Some books provide false information that is potentially harmful to the reader, in some cases to the point where it would be illegal to provide the same information in an advertisement.
That in health, the science-based information is mixed up with the information proven to be false by science.

From a brief browse around the library, I have found significant bias against the scientific consensus exists within the following subjects:

Alternative Medicine
Nutrition
Psychic Ability
Ghosts

However, to keep this letter to a (semi)readable length I’m going to tackle Alternative Medicine and Psychic Ability only.

Alternative Medicine

The pile of books on the left goes against the scientific consensus. The pile on the right is in favour of the scientific consensus. There are zero books in this pile.

Within the health section, there are books on both “conventional” and “alternative” medicine. Science is extremely important in being able to determine which medicine (alternative or otherwise) works and which does not. While the “conventional” medicine books are generally good and based upon science, why is there so much anti-science bias on the subject of “alternative” medicine?

There are many excellent books available on this subject:

Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial, by Simon Singh & Edzard Ernst
Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre
Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All, by Rose Shapiro
Placebo, by Dylan Evans
Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations, by John Diamond
Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine, by R. Barker Bausell

Some of the alternative health books on the library shelves make specific claims about alternative health products that:

Have no evidence for their efficacy whatsoever.
Have been conclusively shown to be false by scientific experiment.
Would be illegal for an alternative health practitioner to advertise or claim.
Are potentially dangerous to the reader if they believe them.

The book “Family Guide to Complementary and Conventional Medicine” is particularly dangerous. Not only does it give advice that would be illegal to be given by a practitioner under consumer protection law, but it also makes claims that would be illegal under The Cancer Act 1939:

Psychic Ability

The pile of books on the left goes against the scientific consensus. The pile on the right is in favour of the scientific consensus. There are no books on the right.

There are many fantastic books on the subject of psychics supporting the scientific consensus. Why is there such extreme bias? There are many excellent books available that cover the subject:

The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, by Ian Rowland
The Truth about Uri Geller, by James Randi
The Naked Quack: Exposing the Many Ways Phony Psychics and Mediums Cheat You! by The Psychics
"Psychic" Wendy
The Psychic Mafia, by M.Lamar Keene & Allen Spragg
Deception and Self-deception: Investigating Psychics, by Richard Wiseman
Flim-Flam, by James Randi
Confessions of a Medium, Anonymous
Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants, by Richard Wiseman
Tricks of the Mind, by Derren Brown
Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer

People have different opinions on what is true and what is not. For this reason, we have science. Science has no interest in people’s opinion - it is only interested in the dispassionate search for what is true.

The library does not have books denying the Holocaust in its history section for good reason - it would be against the library’s function if it was to help spread such ignorance.

I’d like to ask why, in sections on psychic ability and alternative medicine, does the library take the exact opposite approach?

I look forward to your reply.

Aromatheutics get slap on the wrist from the ASA.

2008-10-10T11:03:00.000-07:00

Just a quick update on the quacks at Aromatheutics Ltd. They got the well deserved slap on the wrist by the ASA for their nonsense "PainSolv" device following my complaint.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_45102.htm

Another success, but I can't help thinking we need a better method of policing. After making lots of money selling nonsense to the sick and vulnerable, they deserve a proper fine - not just a warning not to place the ad again. At the very least, any profits gained from the venture should be taken away.

If you can profit from this sort of thing even when you get caught, where is the incentive not to deceive?

Pamella - Deluded Clairvoyant?

2008-09-07T05:13:00.000-07:00

With the current British weather being as it is, there isn't too much to do outside. Might as well get another reading.

Blaby was holding a Mind, Body & Soul fair. These fairs are usually jam-packed with psychics/mediums/clairvoyants, so I thought I'd pop along.

Now I wish to make an important point about my visits to these mystics. While I find it highly unlikely that they possess any sort of supernatural powers, I always go along with an open (albeit informed) mind and give them the opportunity to demonstrate their powers.

They don't normally get the opportunity to do this. Their usual punters, by giving information, do not allow them to show what information can be found by methods other than cold reading. The fact that to date, those I've visited have failed to demonstrate any other way of retrieving information is in no way due to lack of opportunity.

Happily, Pamella, a "medium" from Nottingham allowed me to record the entire session. She told me she doesn't normally record readings as the recorder doesn't pick her voice up very well. She put this down to the fact that she was partly "on a different plane".

Luckily, my Canon Digital Ixus 70 (a digital camera with built-in sound recorder) was able to pick up her voice quite well. I'd recommend this model to anyone wishing to pick up sound travelling "on a different plane". Those guys at Canon are geniuses.

As you'll hear from the MP3, most of it is ambiguous - but she does make the following verifiable/falsifiable claims:

My mother's grandmother (didn't say which) was brought up on a farm, or within a rural type of environment and used to read tea leaves or playing cards and was "in spirit" before I was born. She used potions (1:48). I've no idea if this is true, but its not unreasonable in 1885, especially with my mother having 2 grandmothers.
She suggested that I listen to "my boss" (06:59) This implies that I have a boss. MISS, I own my own business.
I've got a promotion coming at work within 16 months (14:02). MISS, I'm at the top already.

I may have missed one - if you notice any more claims that are verifiable/falsifiable please add a comment and I'll review it.

It gets funny at 15:35:
Mystic:"So does all that make sense?"
Me: "Not really"
Mystic: "Well it does, and you see, erm, it does and this is will happen whatever is going on in your life. This is what will happen and you can't argue with cards."

At about 19:57, she starts to get annoyed and accuses me of not coming with the "right intention". I'm asked to leave.

It seems clear: If you don't give Pamella any information, she can't get it from anywhere else.

I don't think that Pamella is a fraud, I do think she genuinely believes that she has these powers. But if she is going to charge people for a service, she should first verify her ability to fulfil that service.

Download the MP3 here: http://www.mediafire.com/?jh0b5oi4mat

Joanne Jordan, Fraudulent Psychic Medium or just Deluded?

2008-09-05T12:43:00.000-07:00

This morning, I made a telephone call to Star Crystals & Healing in Oadby, Leicester, who were hosting a psychic for the day to do "readings". Cold?

Thanks to the recent Consumer Protections from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007, "psychics" need to advertise their services as for "scientific experiments" unless they have evidence to back them up. As Joanne Jordan did not do this, I assumed she must be a genuine psychic with proven powers - so I phoned to check. The lady on the phone insisted that this "psychic" was for real. So I booked a session. And recorded it.

Rather unsurprisingly, if you don't tell Joanne Jordan, Psychic Medium everything, apparently she can't get it from either the cards or the dead.

After about 15 minutes (12:36 on the MP3 linked below) of Joanne not producing anything relevant and insisting that it works better if the communication was two-way, I got a bit bored and decided to see what happened if I fed her some false information. "Psychic baiting" is the term used for this by Ian Rowland, author of the excellent Full Facts Book Of Cold Reading.

Joanne Jordan was soon making contact with my father who died of cancer (he's currently on holiday in France and to my knowledge, cancer free and alive).

What was most worrying however, was when Joanne Jordan was telling me that the cards were showing that someone very close to me was lying to me, and implying that it was my wife. For a typical gullible punter, this could have destroyed their relationship. They'd be living in a state of permanent suspicion to their partner simply because this woman is able to get away with charging £35 to make stuff up.

So - is Joanne Jordan a Fraudulent Psychic Medium or is she just self-deluded? I'm not really sure. But even if it's the later, she's certainly guilty of charging for her "powers" before properly checking she's got them. As I've shown, it's not difficult to do a simple test.

You can hear the MP3 here: http://www.mediafire.com/?tg1mcmgwwa0

I'll try to do more similar recordings, though it will be difficult while I'm in Tignes.

Bioflow: Looks like some success with the ASA

2008-06-18T08:56:00.001-07:00

(You can click on the image to see it full size)