Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council

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

You can download the letter here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GCC extends complaints to cover all dubious claims

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.

Oooops, they've done it again

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

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.