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

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


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





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

What to do about Boots.

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

Important Update

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

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

In your complaint to Trading Standards you should mention:

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

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

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

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

When should I complain?

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

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

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

Complain to Trading Standards about Boots Quackery

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

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

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

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

What to mention in your complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

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

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

and within "Non-hormonal options"

"Magnetic therapy: no benefit"

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

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

How do I submit my complaint?

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

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

What about Libel?

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

Can I make my complaint more powerful?

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

You certainly don’t need to do this however.

Details of names & dates below:

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

Boots carries on promoting quackery despite the ASA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council

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

You can download the letter here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!

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

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

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

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

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

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

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

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

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

The Morality of Employment Law

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

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

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

I wanted to waive, amongst other rights:

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

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

Let’s use an analogy: TV rentals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re controlling and devaluing my life.

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Simon,

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Sam

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

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

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

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

Helpful advice and information to copy & paste:

Section 1:

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

Section 2:

Name of Trader: Boots UK Limited

Address: 1 Thane Road West

Town or City: Nottingham

County: Nottinghamshire

Postcode: NG2 3AA

Telephone Number: 0115 918 2000

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

Trader's email address: [Leave blank]

Section 3:

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

Leave rest of Section 3 blank.

Section 4:

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

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

Off skiing in Tignes.