tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59590943728368048552024-03-18T21:11:32.054-07:00Adventures in nonsenseA general record of my ongoing battle with all forms of nonsense.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-7018564393445566162013-03-22T01:12:00.000-07:002013-03-22T01:31:17.042-07:00Check you’ve got the latest version of FishBarrel ready for the Nightingale Collaboration’s next campaign<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Nightingale Collaboration will shortly be launching a
new and exciting campaign that you can help out with – but you’ll need to make
sure that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li> you’ve got the
latest version of FishBarrel.</li>
<li> you’ve added
your signature in the options</li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div>
Once you've go the latest version, you just need to drag & drop a PNG image of your signature, ideally with a transparent background, onto the right place in the FishBarrel options.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>If you haven’t installed FishBarrel before:</u></div>
<div>
Then it’s easy – using Chrome, get it from <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB" target="_blank">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB</a>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Then fill out the options page.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>If you have installed:</u></div>
<div>
If you have installed FishBarrel, then check the version. In
Chrome, go Settings > Extensions and
look for the FishBarrel extension.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>If you’ve got version 2.1.5 or later:</u></div>
<div>
Then you don’t need to do anything except upload your signature to the options page. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you’ve visited the options page in FishBarrel since 2.1.4
came out, you might not have the latest version of the templates. The header for the first template has been rewritten to be super-thorough by <a href="http://www.zenosblog.com/" target="_blank">Alan Henness</a> - you can get the latest version by deleting the header template
text and then refreshing the page.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>If you’re on an older version but it starts with a 2:</u></div>
<div>
Just click “Update extensions now” at the top of Chrome’s
Settings > Extensions page.</div>
<div>
<br />
Now upload your signature to the options page.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
If you’ve visited the options page in FishBarrel since 2.1.4
came out, you might not have the latest version of the templates. The CNHC one
has changed - you can get the latest version by deleting the header template
text and then refreshing the page.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>If you’re on a very old version that starts with a 1:</u></div>
<div>
Download version 2 from here: <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB" target="_blank">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB</a>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Manually copy any settings over from the old version to the
new one (click on the duck icon, then click “options” on each tab).<br />
<br />
Upload your signature to the options page.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Delete the older version from Chrome’s Settings > Extensions
page.</div>
Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-90582640484356198742011-06-18T01:19:00.000-07:002011-06-18T09:15:10.463-07:00Tory MP says disabled people should be forced to work in labour camps for starvation wages, then sold as meat for cattle feed<div style="text-align: left;">Yesterday, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13809620">Conservative MP Philip Davies highlighted some of the problems facing society’s most vulnerable people caused by the minimum wage</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUiN8UK1ggQ5OLcU1VtXkmh7HEgJouxpV04EKqVv7cuWx9j6pFg-nJt0q7Tw_Z4pWI-Ui3sSWT2EojoWY1MQh2Kl7MwcNwB1Lv0k5rYDE1Yv0wtNc_6aSj3XaE6kLBqsh0t5jtfoKiK88/s400/1.png" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 67px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5619472435769660946" /></div><div>No I'm afraid he didn’t. </div><div><br /></div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeXxrCLA7hp6X5xAEVjOOXZ2yuViwpgX7S1bdYoeRwlsTiyYPXNLos_F4uGdpnkMqp4SceG_vN0eKqsZdzXCqAAPj8tLIslhQj3G7zbamLqRTW-c4-nLWE-GQWtkQsH1ln8lM_6jggM4k/s400/2.png" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 81px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5619472677293015442" /></div><div>Er, no he’s not suggesting we should treat disabled people any differently to anyone else.</div><div><br /></div><div>(Edit: @josephbush has since clarified that there was an element of sarcasm in this tweet.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Davies was saying that:</div><div><ul><li>Some vulnerable people were suffering as a result of the minimum wage legislation.</li><li>Disabled people were an example of a group that was affected particularly badly.</li><li>We shouldn’t be standing in the way of people trying to find work if they consider this legislation to be a hindrance.</li></ul></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>"My view is that for some people the national minimum wage may be more of a hindrance than a help.</div><div><br /></div><div>"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."</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><div>The disabled were used as an example of a group that is harmed, nothing more.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The outrage caused some of the most preposterous tweets I’ve seen:</div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_R2mHaXEaxlWrT65LZfP-H6dLGxGIeh-cuZ2X1pB7PwGcLBGyrFan9JE7zjO5HKb99qdC5KCo1WIavcpQU9bDOhGGehKkskE-W35Z5gKr5VGTIfC19675fN2_-gxha8FtECQrhaYStAM/s1600/3.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 68px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_R2mHaXEaxlWrT65LZfP-H6dLGxGIeh-cuZ2X1pB7PwGcLBGyrFan9JE7zjO5HKb99qdC5KCo1WIavcpQU9bDOhGGehKkskE-W35Z5gKr5VGTIfC19675fN2_-gxha8FtECQrhaYStAM/s400/3.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5619473090478550754" /></a></div><div>Davies said:</div><div><blockquote>“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”</blockquote></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>If a job requires learning, then someone who finds it difficult to learn will be less productive at that element of their job.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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 (<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/philip_davies/shipley">like voting against gay rights for instance</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div>But before criticising anything, I encourage you to read and understand what is being said.</div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-73796738246212335902011-04-27T09:27:00.000-07:002011-05-17T00:04:34.602-07:00Making misleading health claims online just got a little more problematic<p>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.</p><p>Here are Google search engines limited only to websites belonging to members of:</p><p></p><ul><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:eu5gsb9lfxu">British Chiropractic Association</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:t4gfb4qxie8">Scottish Chiropractic Association</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:fv1vxcryxf0">McTimoney Chiropractic Association</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:vttqkum6_1a">General Osteopathic Council</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:pkpcisak0cy">Complementary and Natural Health Council</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:6looxrib6mk">Alliance of Registered Homeopaths</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/cse/home?cx=005869422800619552621:larj_3egaww">Kinesiology Federation</a></li></ul><p></p><p>You might find, for instance, that there are still <a href="http://www.google.com/cse?cx=005869422800619552621%3Aeu5gsb9lfxu&ie=UTF-8&q=colic&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.co.uk%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D005869422800619552621%3Aeu5gsb9lfxu">some British Chiropractic Association members claiming to treat colic</a>. Or you might find that <a href="http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3ACNHC%2520Practitioners%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fimages%2Flogos%2Fcustom_search_logo_sm.gif%3BLH%3A30%3BLP%3A1%3BKMBOC%3A%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgXf579geiCXGz_ZnDOtMQFB5_qRBQsFPZW7E30zom908HS0VMx5rChAfETlUf5tey9v5xOIk5Nh03AyWRVJEaOFVYkD2_pIYsImZey5fW-qlX8SLRQ&boostcse=0&q=ear+candle+%22ear+infections%22&btnG=Search&cx=005869422800619552621%3Apkpcisak0cy">some CNHC members are claiming they can treat ear infections by sticking a candle in your ear</a>. Or maybe you’ll find a <a href="http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop&cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BCX:Alliance%2520of%2520Registered%2520Homeopaths%3BL:http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logos/custom_search_logo_sm.gif%3BLH:30%3BLP:1%3BKMBOC:%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgXDAVX4ak1aeSPLEg0VtCC1wX9F96UfscannbJY06_PcujS9ZKrGQRXAwQeNHq5dLIN0-s1BIMm7FPvMpKXPievaWEKAUgqK3KHDFVENWo_Wn6MYZo&boostcse=0&cx=005869422800619552621:6looxrib6mk&sa=X&ei=HkO4TdbgEpS2hAfOl8CMDw&ved=0CA0QBSgA&q=eczema&spell=1">homeopath that is telling people that magic sugar pills can help with eczema</a>.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/04/fishbarrel-easy-way-to-report.html">FishBarrel</a> installed.</p><p></p>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-59054995122616670742011-04-25T00:12:00.000-07:002011-04-25T00:20:40.590-07:00FishBarrel: Keep what you highlight short & to the point<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Here is an example of some text that was highlighted recently:</p><p><i>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’.</i></p><p>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:</p><p><i>#1 Aromatherapy massage can help to reduce stress and tension, relieve muscular pain, improve circulation and encourage the removal of toxins from the body.</i></p><p><i>#2 Aromatherapy may help with a wide range of treatments such as: Insomnia Menstruation problems Respiratory conditions Digestive disorders</i></p><p>(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.)</p><p><i>#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.</i></p><p>For #3's background info, I’d add: “The above text misleadingly implies that aromatherapy is an effective treatment for burns.”</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-47486672677805114962011-04-20T23:44:00.000-07:002012-11-06T14:06:14.285-08:00FishBarrel: The easy way to report misleading health claims online.<b>Update: FishBarrel is now available from the <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fishbarrel/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg">Chrome Web Store here</a>. If you previously downloaded the file directly, please uninstall and reinstall from the app store.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
Finally, FishBarrel can automatically revisit the websites later and check if the claims have been removed.<br />
Watch the demo (full-screen is best), then download it for free below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAR6X7UzFUs?hl=en&fs=1"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAR6X7UzFUs?hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
FishBarrel is free. To download, open a <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/landing_tv.html">Chrome</a> browser, <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fishbarrel/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg">download the plugin</a> and install the crx extension by clicking "continue" in the warning bar at the bottom of your browser window.<br />
There is more information available in the help section of the extension.<br />
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. <br />
I'd like to say thank you to all of the people who helped me test this, but especially <a href="http://twitter.com/scepticletters">@scepticletters</a>, whose feedback helped improve FishBarrel enormously.<br />
All development was done with the support and collaboration of my <a href="http://www.xibis.com/">web software development company Xibis</a>. 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.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-47991131734687957642011-02-09T00:44:00.000-08:002011-03-27T02:47:54.050-07:00What to do about Boots.<div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><b>Important Update</b></div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's continue the pressure until Boots stop making these claims.</div><div><br /></div><div>In your complaint to Trading Standards you should mention:</div><div><ul><li>Boots have removed the claims from their website after a complaint to the ASA (not sure if it was <u>because</u> of this complaint)</li><li>Boots have edited the product photo so that the claims stated on the packaging are taken outside the ASA's remit</li><li>However, the claims are still being made on the packaging itself when seen in store.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>If you've signed up to <a href="http://www.pledgebank.com/EndBootsQuackery">the pledge</a> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The initial complaints will be for <a href="http://www.boots.com/en/Ladycare-menopause-relief-magnet_122270/">Boots’ “Menopause relief magnet”</a>. 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.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>When should I complain?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Please put a reminder in your calendar for that day. You can copy this text to make it easy:</div><div><br /></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><i>Complain to Trading Standards about Boots Quackery </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>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.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Full information is available at </i><a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-to-do-about-boots.html">http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-to-do-about-boots.html</a></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Don't forget to leave a comment on Simon's blog to say you've done it.</i></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><b>What to mention in your complaint</b></div><div><br /></div><div>You can make a complaint to Trading Standards with one paragraph (please don’t use this exact text):</div><div><blockquote>“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.”</blockquote></div><div>However, there are a number of things you can mention to strengthen your complaint:</div><div><ul><li>You are complaining under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/27/made">Under these regulations, it is up to the seller to provide evidence</a> for any claims they make, rather than up to the Trading Standards body to prove the claims wrong. </li><li>As a Trading Standards body it is their duty to enforce the Consumer Protection Regulations.</li><li>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.</li><li>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.</li><li>Reference the evidence for/against efficacy.</li><li>Why are you doing this? If it’s to protect the public from misleading medical claims then say so.</li></ul></div><div><b>What evidence is there for using magnets to reduce the symptoms of menopause?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There are only two relevant articles I could find on PubMed, neither were trials.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14716179">Treatment of menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms: position statement of The North American Menopause Society.</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>They recommend "Single clinical trials have found no benefit for dong quai, evening primrose oil, ginseng, a Chinese herbal mixture, acupuncture, or magnet therapy."</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/whe.09.31">Advances in the treatment of menopausal symptoms.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>In a box labelled "Approach to management of menopausal symptoms" states:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>"Homeopathy, magnetic therapy, reflexology, dong quai, ginsing, evening primrose oil and vitamin E have not been demonstrated to be clinically significant compared with placebo."</div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>and within "Non-hormonal options"</div><div><blockquote>"Magnetic therapy: no benefit"</blockquote></div><div>Within a section titled "Homeopathy, magnet therapy & foot reflexology" it states </div><div><blockquote>"In RCTs, neither homeopathic remedies, magnet therapy, nor foot reflexology out-performed placebo in relieving menopausal symptoms."</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><b>How do I submit my complaint?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There are several ways to complain. Firstly, the easy way is to <a href="https://ssl.datamotion.com/(S(fo2fsdjch4oun0qwvxuw2v55))/form.aspx?co=594&frm=complainform&ri=YH&to=enquiries">use the online form here</a>. The submission will go via Consumer Direct, but that’s fine. There is a limit on the amount of text you can enter.</div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, you can contact your local trading standards direct with either an email or a letter. <a href="http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/approved-traders.cfm">Their contact details can be found by entering your postcode on the form at the bottom of this page</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>What about Libel?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Can I make my complaint more powerful?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>You certainly don’t need to do this however.</div><div><br /></div><div>Details of names & dates below:</div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table> <tbody><tr><td> Simon Perry </td><td> 08 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Michael A Ward </td><td> 09 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Danny Strickland </td><td> 10 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Tom Williamson </td><td> 11 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Richard Stelling </td><td> 12 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Johnnie Shannon </td><td> 13 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Chris Sexton </td><td> 14 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Ian Scott </td><td> 15 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Chris Richardson </td><td> 16 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Mike Conradi </td><td> 17 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Martin Poulter </td><td> 18 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Steve Page </td><td> 19 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Stephen Southward </td><td> 20 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Mandeep Smith </td><td> 21 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Stuart Nicholl </td><td> 22 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Steve Haigh </td><td> 23 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Simon Stanford </td><td> 24 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Richard Tomsett </td><td> 25 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Marianne Baker </td><td> 26 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Jo Hockey </td><td> 27 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Rhys Morgan </td><td> 28 February 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dale Williams </td><td> 01 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Jon Pearson </td><td> 02 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Giles Wendes </td><td> 03 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Conor Pendergrast </td><td> 04 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Steve leigh </td><td> 05 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Wendy Cousins </td><td> 06 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Alan Henness </td><td> 07 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Mike Hall </td><td> 08 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Nicola Woolhouse </td><td> 09 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Gordon Wilson </td><td> 10 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Darren Starck </td><td> 11 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Martijn ter Borg </td><td> 12 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Darren Griffin </td><td> 13 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Rebecca O'Neill </td><td> 14 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Paul Buckland-White </td><td> 15 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> B Corcoran </td><td> 16 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dan-Raoul Miranda </td><td> 17 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Michael Marshall </td><td> 18 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Ralf Neugebauer </td><td> 19 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Jo Brodie </td><td> 20 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> L Pedley </td><td> 21 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Ashley Frieze </td><td> 22 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sharon Smiles </td><td> 23 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> James Thomas </td><td> 24 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Wesley perry </td><td> 25 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Simon Danaher </td><td> 26 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Doogie Brodie </td><td> 27 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sah Winstone </td><td> 28 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr Cara Laney </td><td> 29 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Stew Wilson </td><td> 30 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Kash Farooq </td><td> 31 March 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sid Rodrigues </td><td> 01 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> David Hughes </td><td> 02 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Peter Harrison </td><td> 03 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Trish Hann </td><td> 04 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Patrick Redmond </td><td> 05 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Adam Timberley </td><td> 06 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Paul Berry </td><td> 07 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> caroline panico </td><td> 08 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> James Lipscombe </td><td> 09 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Emma Smith </td><td> 10 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Tulpesh Patel </td><td> 11 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> RobertPettifer </td><td> 12 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Tim Reid </td><td> 13 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Jane Symons </td><td> 14 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Alexandra Beuchert </td><td> 15 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Tom Marinan </td><td> 16 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Kevin Rose </td><td> 17 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Prof Stephen Curry </td><td> 18 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Hannah Haines </td><td> 19 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Andy Stoker </td><td> 20 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> David Noble </td><td> 21 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sven Rudloff </td><td> 22 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dr J J Grattage </td><td> 23 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Olivia Vinden </td><td> 24 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Tony Mansfield </td><td> 25 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Julia Matheson </td><td> 26 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Bethan Jade McIlroy </td><td> 27 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Michelle Goodger </td><td> 28 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dan Sutton </td><td> 29 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sandra hoare </td><td> 30 April 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> steven lindsay </td><td> 01 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dawn Mason </td><td> 02 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Leo Donnelly </td><td> 03 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> James Cole </td><td> 04 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Sean Ellis </td><td> 05 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Stephen Griffin </td><td> 06 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Elaine Pickering </td><td> 07 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Alastair Grant </td><td> 08 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Kevin Lowis </td><td> 09 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Dominic Brown </td><td> 10 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Jo Thornely </td><td> 11 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Julie Williams </td><td> 12 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Ms Jane Robinson </td><td> 13 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Alan Wellstead </td><td> 14 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td> Karelle Menochet </td><td> 15 May 2011 </td></tr><tr><td>Jere Koskela</td><td>16 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>stephen hughes</td><td>17 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Audrey Johnson</td><td>18 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Jamie Woolley</td><td>19 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Dr Richard Morley</td><td>20 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Vikki Hurst</td><td>21 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Donald MacCormick</td><td>22 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Matthew Hardy</td><td>23 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Alan Bird</td><td>24 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Ben Harris</td><td>25 May 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Tim Bennett</td><td>26 May 2011</td></tr></tbody></table> </div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-927372800730560502011-02-03T12:53:00.000-08:002011-02-03T12:55:17.286-08:00Boots carries on promoting quackery despite the ASA<div>It’s now been almost seven months since <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2010/07/at-boots-its-3-for-price-of-2-on.html">Boots was the target of 240 Advertising Standards Authority complaints</a> by myself and others. </div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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".</div><div><br /></div><div>Overall, Boots has improved since the last complaint. A lot of claims have been removed.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-39180866625976093522010-11-25T13:52:00.000-08:002010-11-25T13:55:34.092-08:00Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council<div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/docsforblog/VNC_LETTER_TO_GCC.doc">You can download the letter here</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>They correctly point out that the GCC’s patient information leaflet was making similar claims to those <a href="http://www.zenosblog.com/">Alan Henness</a> and myself complained about. The GCC withdrew this leaflet <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/09/quick-update-on-chiropractic-stuff.html">after I reported them to the ASA in September last year</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>They also point out that the GCC was well aware that these claims were being made for some time, from their <a href="http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/ConsultTheProfession.pdf">2004 survey of the profession</a>, with over 57% of the profession claiming to treat asthma with a back rub, yet the GCC issued no guidance to the profession.</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-62581010958580430902010-11-13T12:51:00.000-08:002010-11-13T12:53:15.328-08:00The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!<div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>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</div><div><a href="http://www.libelreform.org/sign">http://www.libelreform.org/sign</a></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at</div><div><a href="http://www.libelreform.org/sign">http://www.libelreform.org/sign</a></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-32830518828619578992010-10-30T02:42:00.000-07:002010-10-30T02:46:18.534-07:00The Morality of Employment Law<div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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”?</div><div><br /></div><div>I wanted to waive, amongst other rights:</div><div><ul><li>My “right” to 20 days paid leave (it’s 28 now).</li><li>My “right” to sick pay, and protection of my job while I’m sick.</li><li>My “right” to a long drawn out disciplinary procedure if my employer no longer wants to employ me.</li><li>My “right” to paternity leave and pay.</li></ul></div><div>So why did I want to waive these “rights”? </div><div><br /></div><div>Let’s use an analogy: TV rentals.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, I hear you say. This isn’t about TVs, it’s way more important than that: these are people’s lives.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>They’re controlling and devaluing my life.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-80030979051445303182010-10-18T12:30:00.000-07:002011-01-01T10:46:07.922-08:00It's a real shame nobody will help stop Boots making false claimsSadly, the <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2010/07/at-boots-its-3-for-price-of-2-on.html">240 ASA complaints about quack medicine products being sold at Boots</a> 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. <div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/09/quick-update-on-chiropractic-stuff.html">I complained about the GCC's patient information leaflet</a> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I asked about this apparent double standard, the ASA replied as below (I'd skip reading it, it's quite dull):<br /><blockquote>Dear Simon,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Again, I realise this will disappoint, but thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact us with your concerns.<br /><br />Kind regards<br /><br />Sam</blockquote>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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:</div><div><ul><li>Choose one product to complain about. You might like to complain about the <a href="http://www.boots.com/en/Ladycare-menopause-relief-magnet_122270/">Fanny Magnet</a> that apparently "helps to reduce or completely eliminate the symptoms of menopause". Or maybe about the <a href="http://www.boots.com/en/BioFirm-Danish-Detox-Plan-90-Tablets_10643/">BioFirm Danish Detox Plan</a>, which they claim "naturally supports the body’s own internal processes of elimination and detoxification." Or maybe you're really angry that they sell "<a href="http://www.boots.com/en/Boots-Teething-Pain-Relief-24-sachets_845797/">Boots Teething Pain Relief</a>" which claims, in the title, that it is for teething pain relief yet can't possibly work as it's homeopathic.</li><li>Go the <a href="https://ssl.datamotion.com/(S(fo2fsdjch4oun0qwvxuw2v55))/form.aspx?co=594&frm=complainform&ri=YH&to=enquiries">Consumer Direct Complaints Form</a>. </li><li>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.</li><li>Submit the form.</li><li>Put a comment below so I can see who did what.</li></ul><div>Sadly, I doubt anyone will do this. What a shame.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Helpful advice and information to copy & paste:</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Section 1:</u></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Section 2:</u></div><div>Name of Trader: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Boots UK Limited </div><div>Address: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1 Thane Road West</div><div>Town or City: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nottingham</div><div>County:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nottinghamshire</div><div>Postcode:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> NG2 3AA</span></div><div>Telephone Number:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> 0115 918 2000</span></div><div>Trader's website address:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://www.boots-uk.com</div><div>Trader's email address:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>[Leave blank]</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Section 3:</u></div><div>Have you paid for goods or services from this trader?: NO</div><div>Leave rest of Section 3 blank.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Section 4:</u></div><div>Please let us know how you heard of Consumer Direct: Website/Internet search.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.love-tignes.com">Off skiing in Tignes</a>.</div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-80115261878280987622010-08-03T15:17:00.000-07:002010-08-03T15:34:37.165-07:001023I wasn’t able to make Frank Swain’s talk at Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday night, but I did catch up with <a href="http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/08/03/westminster-skeptics-frank-swain-the-science-punk/">the uncensored parts on The Pod Delusion Podcast</a> later.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />As an example of a campaign that was not effective, Frank cited <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">1023</a>.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR93MjVBZctUV8KzEkpZfJBOGsVuqfjUr2zJViuA6tnWq1DYFT6vtYj46Qjs-8guUCJFA_hk2CHybvLbAoDLn5bA0W7nbJ08CCl3hRCZ3GF1vn1MQCBm7I96vxV3tkVfA-vrmt8f4J-vg/s1600/1023logo.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 220px; height: 124px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR93MjVBZctUV8KzEkpZfJBOGsVuqfjUr2zJViuA6tnWq1DYFT6vtYj46Qjs-8guUCJFA_hk2CHybvLbAoDLn5bA0W7nbJ08CCl3hRCZ3GF1vn1MQCBm7I96vxV3tkVfA-vrmt8f4J-vg/s400/1023logo.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501311853181638434" border="0" /></a><br />On the point of 1023 being ineffective, I disagree.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />A tiny percentage of the population shares our skeptical viewpoint. A larger, yet still small percentage; practice homeopathy.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">what homeopathy is</a>. 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.<br /><br />It is these people who will be convinced by 1023.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Grow this simple understanding throughout the population and you create an environment where homeopathy will struggle to survive. 1023 did that beautifully.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />Before I was convinced by facts, I once suggested to someone that they might try visiting a homeopath.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-8260009419407554992010-08-01T17:19:00.000-07:002010-08-01T17:32:31.998-07:00A Step-by-Step ASA complaint<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWoAy0_pQn6UZla39v3cQ6oNpmquPj-MuIH387DoqYkdO9C5prTzUZ_NUOyXewy3M1S7O1D7-lAtJ8Erledwd_GkK0votiHdjhB7Jyu0By627IEqQGXjmL1hd-gxxtjepNfX0ie5AAj1E/s1600/ref.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 310px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWoAy0_pQn6UZla39v3cQ6oNpmquPj-MuIH387DoqYkdO9C5prTzUZ_NUOyXewy3M1S7O1D7-lAtJ8Erledwd_GkK0votiHdjhB7Jyu0By627IEqQGXjmL1hd-gxxtjepNfX0ie5AAj1E/s400/ref.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5500602976825388610" border="0" /></a><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Sometimes the advertiser won’t make their claims clearly, they will imply them. The ASA can still adjudicate against misleading implications.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Easy.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />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!”.<br /><br />I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:<br />a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.<br />b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.<br />c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.<br /><br />Again; easy. The ad continues:<br /><br /><blockquote>“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.”</blockquote><blockquote>“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.”</blockquote>I’ll quote this text to the ASA, and then make the following observations:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There is also a testimonial:<br /><blockquote>“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”</blockquote>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.<br /><br />Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.<br /><br />9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.<br /><br />There is also the picture with the magic blue bullshit field around the legs of the lady on the chair.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Here’s the final product.<br /><br /><div style="margin: 10px; border: 2px dashed black; padding: 5px;"><br />To: new.complaint@asa.org.uk<br />Subject: Complaint about Circulation Enhancer advert in The Sunday Telegraph.<br /><br />To whom it may concern:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have attached a copy of the advert.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!”<br /><br />I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:<br />a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.<br />b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.<br />c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.<br /><br />The advert also states:<br />“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.”<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There is also a testimonial:<br /><br />“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”<br />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.<br /><br />Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.<br /><br />9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I am complaining as a concerned member of the public and wish to confirm I have no commercial interest.<br /><br />[full name, address and phone number]<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />Simon Perry<br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-73239087901344237832010-07-22T09:16:00.000-07:002010-07-22T09:36:33.275-07:00There is little evidence that it doesn’t workWhen 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There are two points that are implicitly made when someone points out that there is “no evidence that it doesn’t work either”:<br /><ol><li>That in the absence of knowledge, the probability of being right or wrong is 50/50.</li><li>That in the absence of knowledge, it is ethical to take a position and communicate it authoritatively.</li></ol>Both of these points are incorrect.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Would it then be ethical to make claims of efficacy for an untested intervention?<br /><br />I think not.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-70642354979914005152010-07-20T07:53:00.000-07:002010-07-20T16:13:30.764-07:00At Boots, it's 3 for the price of 2 on quackery<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_CHtQGIRRAAYtWeVCpjcqIHiEP4G7PhyphenhyphenX8KGX-3Utu_QAc4UGkrfJBMsjKF8K9bx_ITh3rhqOBfM3u2IboO-2zS1FE_90XMULIcGKc7IapeczKxKJCHFEGHkMLAnlnd3hyoBLpSt4-6s/s1600/Fanny+Magnet.png"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 211px; height: 261px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_CHtQGIRRAAYtWeVCpjcqIHiEP4G7PhyphenhyphenX8KGX-3Utu_QAc4UGkrfJBMsjKF8K9bx_ITh3rhqOBfM3u2IboO-2zS1FE_90XMULIcGKc7IapeczKxKJCHFEGHkMLAnlnd3hyoBLpSt4-6s/s400/Fanny+Magnet.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496004626196819026" border="0" /></a>At 2pm on the 14th July, Skeptic <a href="http://thethoughtstash.wordpress.com/">Kash Farooq</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Whether this is a deliberate strategy by Boots, or just through chance alone I cannot be sure. But yesterday, they slipped up.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><blockquote>“We regulate sales promotions, such as special offers, prize draws and competitions wherever they appear.”<br /></blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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, <a href="http://twitter.com/the_beacon">@the_beacon</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/richardtomsett">@richardtomsett</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/HelenaThomas">@HelenaThomas</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/dellybean">@dellybean</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/kashfarooq">@kashfarooq</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/nwoolhouseuk">@nwoolhouseuk</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/cherryblack">@cherryblack</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/RoisinThomas">@RoisinThomas</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/kingmuskar ">@kingmuskar</a> had pretty much copied and pasted all of the claims and were now waiting on me.<br /><br />By the end of the evening, we’d sent off complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about 107 Boots products.<br /><br />The claims they were making varied from shocking – claiming that a homeopathi<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0B1qcwZa1U0oNDVLQ2Xob3VlG1Ndctyg7IHSfYYB7J53nJmXETqIypapxC0L4XRKNHPmiYCpr3CYZ1-nUDG7vQRGGSjFVfTBNc5WY2qh5ijLnc77Qc1O-oUG0z12XdhkPPNOrDPOZDPM/s1600/Teething+claim.png"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 284px; height: 152px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0B1qcwZa1U0oNDVLQ2Xob3VlG1Ndctyg7IHSfYYB7J53nJmXETqIypapxC0L4XRKNHPmiYCpr3CYZ1-nUDG7vQRGGSjFVfTBNc5WY2qh5ijLnc77Qc1O-oUG0z12XdhkPPNOrDPOZDPM/s400/Teething+claim.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496004795326995202" border="0" /></a>c 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).<br /><br />But my helpers continued after I finished. <a href="http://twitter.com/nwoolhouseuk">@nwoolhouseuk</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/ScepticLetters">@ScepticLetters</a>,<br /><a href="http://twitter.com/GDLockUK">@GDLockUK</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/kashfarooq">@kashfarooq</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/the_beacon">@the_beacon</a> together sent in a second complaint with another 133 products listed. @nwoolhouseuk was still going at 1:30 in the morning, and <a href="http://twitter.com/ScepticLetters">@ScepticLetters</a> finally finished it off at 4am.<br /><br />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.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-30254990749642491392010-07-13T04:39:00.000-07:002010-07-13T04:53:03.375-07:00Letters to the GideonsI 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.<br /><br />Several years ago I was inspired by the hilarious <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Timewaster-Letters-Robin-Cooper/dp/1843171082">Timewaster letters</a> 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.<br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC-Ld0wLUxQayfmYoF_SbxPX5d0jnvQEmi7rFRvT6cv0k6KIagIWSuCb1P_ndmeCAZdGvIl2PhyIiT5UGDoIfeJieRktCvKqCygL2urzN5k-1slGFmGgqwXAISlJIP6BS0Jcgc6SwacUo/s1600/gid1.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTS6_aFkJFB7u4uhzYlglSZ1JXqntV1VAg-dHG5Ez5uSrvp68CLLcxjFSMJHbFF_Rq9Vezydwuz-FrhYbmQFAyB2pgtV2vm_skvQcoVL9DbYC9KKPXDkZ1X_FSW45hmVjguRrAEXgmxHg/s1600/gid2.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGQHYCZKaGPBEKSdE0H-SAjh57tQCa4hJcGc61hDXFzhwEDhbKpS5WOAeyBVGrezeaTv6H6boyB-fI71ofZbwOgcUj0XWfSq_VQYSYfoz7CdzQaK1zwLszhpwghi08pfLNniGOKDuuugc/s1600/gid3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUpHVBhiuRCjXC_U7RSf04gKt7n8Hi1Qqlfzt04qANwNkmzRm7dLmM6cWNNmPMn_Zpavl7eXlPlltkDpL94P1mDM2i5oealAchFVwCzCMXsH9B7irY7XvLP3U5Me2aP41TAQT7IhWkkSU/s1600/gid4.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGKp9yMYdwhGo3eBeaN6wmOYchobon7m0LblDrdvZ8z8wJ-bCrnrmXNh8Q88WVcJNpkvE39jvRFeibEvG5TXdowHkqv5C96_rPXmMKIXNEUsqtOw7audUGRL3Vwx7e6NQI5NA6dmG6B_M/s1600/gid5.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYKRgeavrOvxysZy3qnmehgeSNYtVTr2V0bKXfljs4xPrWCSH9_CqD2gZIt2rzMbN25sxBnOxYfyEOrvdkrlbiVMWsNKadDB5xaj2QTOPvDe4UZTMW-kG49nvc5OsoPtIpXbgLzoNbv_M/s1600/gid6.jpg" />Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-75012960284302755602010-06-09T09:45:00.000-07:002010-06-09T10:02:01.555-07:00GCC investigations committee refers 36 Chiropractors to Professional Conduct CommitteeThe GCC has now updated me on the status of 50 of my complaints.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In eight cases, the GCC is awaiting further information.<br /><br />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". <br /><br />Looks like the BCA does sometimes give good advice after all.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-66420710841277524272010-04-02T10:00:00.000-07:002010-04-08T08:39:45.328-07:00OfQuack launches six-month bullshit amnesty: the regulator that doesn’t regulateRegular readers of this blog will know that some time ago <a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/11/cnhc-wishes-to-place-on-formal-record_27.html">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</a>.<br /><br />The CNHC <a href="http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/docsforblog/cnhcletter.jpg">has now informed me</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/11/cnhc-wishes-to-place-on-formal-record_27.html">The CNHC ruled in my favour of my original complaints, and told the members to stop making the claims</a>, 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.<br /><br />Of the 13, two of the websites no longer exist which left 11 I could check.<br /><br />Three of reflexologists seem to have toned down the claims, though continue to make them:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.renaissancetherapies.co.uk/page10.htm">Linda Pate</a> seems to have prefixed her claims with the statement “there is a view that”.</li><li><a href="http://www.lightwaves-therapies.com">Lina Ramchand</a> 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.</li><li><a href="http://www.eghamreflexology.co.uk/">Siobhan Elliot</a> 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 <a href="http://www.aor.org.uk/index.php?page=what-is-reflexology">another site</a> that makes the claim that reflexology has anecdotally been shown effective for migraines, fertility, sleep disorders and hormonal imbalances. </li></ul>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:<br /><br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.essentialtherapies.org.uk/Therapies%202.htm">Carole Armstrong</a> 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".</li><li><a href="http://www.lindawalker-reflexology.co.uk/">Linda Walker</a> still makes claims for hay fever & arthritis</li><li><a href="http://caranuala.com/index.html">Nuala Bent</a> still claims that Reflexology “is helpful for many conditions including: Sinusitis, Menstrual Problems, Menopausal Problems, Stress, Migraine, Back Pain, Arthritis, Sciatica, Frozen Shoulder”</li><li><a href="http://tap4betterlife.co.uk/">Hazel Parry</a> still promotes reflexology for “migraine, arthritis, sleep disorders and fertility issues.”</li><li><a href="http://www.reflexologymiltonkeynes.co.uk/">Marguerite Gunn</a> still mentions reflexology as a treatment for asthma, joint problems, back pain, colds/flu, hay fever, allergies and infertility.</li><li><a href="http://www.maschamieris.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2732?opendocument&part=2">Mascha Mieris</a> still advertises reflexology for “Back Pain, Migraine, Headache, Infertility, Arthritis, Sleep Disorders, Sports Injuries, Hormonal Imbalances, Digestive Disorders, stress-related Conditions.”</li><li><a href="http://www.wellbeing-with-alison.com/reflexology.html">Alison Graham</a> continues to promote reflexology to “improve digestive function, lower blood pressure, improve sleeping patterns, balance hormonal problems and benefit the immune system.”</li></ul>But maybe all of these practitioners had made the changes within their practices, and just failed to update their sites?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Its members have shown their lack of respect for any decision made by the CNHC by not removing the claims from their web sites.<br /><br />How can the CNHC still consider itself to be a regulatory body if it no longer regulates?Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-16260868712661250942010-03-29T05:13:00.000-07:002010-07-13T22:01:25.932-07:00Scientist to take on Tredinnick MP in next electionDr 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.<br /><br />Michael’s announcement, in his own words, are below.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Please email Michael on <a href="mailto:mb@michaelbrooks.org">mb@michaelbrooks.org</a> if you are in the constituency and able to offer support.<br /><br />Michael's announcement follows:<br /><br />Dear All,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Why Bosworth-Hinckley?<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a>, which recommended that the NHS no longer fund <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathic treatments</a>, was poorly researched and should not be taken seriously. He is a champion of pseudo-science and a hindrance to rational governance.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />If you would be willing to do this, please let me know by email (<a href="mailto:mb@michaelbrooks.org">mb@michaelbrooks.org</a>) or Twitter (<a href="http://twitter.com/DrMichaelBrooks">@DrMichaelBrooks</a>). If you want to know more about me, please visit <a href="http://www.michaelbrooks.org/">www.michaelbrooks.org</a><br /><br />Thanks very much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.<br /><br />With best wishes,<br /><br />Michael BrooksSimonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-35066062948047956512010-02-02T09:31:00.000-08:002010-02-03T09:23:48.766-08:00The CNHC won't be publishing my complaints<div>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 <a href="http://www.cnhc.org.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=41">CNHC’s decisions page</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>I do not believe that they intend to go any further than <a href="http://www.cnhc.org.uk/assets/7-012.pdf">this press release published in December 2009 congratulating themselves on a job well done</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe it’s time to submit a few more complaints.</div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-616631543926588882010-01-27T08:06:00.000-08:002010-07-13T22:06:46.291-07:00Boots avoid admitting there's nothing in it. 10:23If 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.<br /><br />It's quite amusing however, to see them trying to avoid giving me this answer. The email trail follows.<br /><br />10:23.<br /><br /><hr />8 January 2010 21:03<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />I'm used to seeing the quantity of ingredients listed in mg rather that as "6C" or "30C" as your <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathic </a>remedies are labelled.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Simon<br /><br /><hr /><br />11 January 2010 17:39<br /><br />Dear Simon<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I am afraid, however, that it is not possible to convert "centesimal" (c) dilutions of Homoeopathic remedies into milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg).<br /><br />During the manufacturing of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic</a> 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.<br /><br />I hope that this information is of use to you.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Paul Williams MRPharmS<br />Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer<br /><br /><hr />11 January 2010 18:17<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />Sorry, I'm confused by this. Surely there is a specific amount of Arnica in the pills which can be measured in mg?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Simon<br /><br /><hr />14 January 2010 13:27<br /><br />Dear Simon<br /><br />Thank you for your second e-mail regarding Boots Arnica 30c (item code 37-71-814).<br /><br />Unfortunately, the amount of Arnica (or other <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic ingredient</a>) in the drop that is then subsequently diluted with 99 drops of diluent (carrier) is not quantified in milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg).<br /><br />Thus, although it is true to say that a 1 centesimal (1c) <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedy</a> 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).<br /><br />Therefore, with regard to <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedies</a> we are not able to state the quantity of Arnica in milligrams (mg) or micrograms (mcg) for the reason outlined above.<br /><br />The labelling of our products is in accordance with guidelines on the labelling of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedies</a>, 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.<br /><br />I hope that this further information is of use to you.<br /><br />Kind Regards<br /><br />Paul Williams MRPharmS<br />Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer<br />Medical Services<br /><br /><hr />14 January 2010 15:39<br /><br />Dear Paul,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Am I correct that a 1C remedy is 1% active ingredient? That it is 99% water and 1% Arnica?<br /><br />What is the percentage of Arnica in the final 30C product?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Many thanks for your help,<br /><br />Simon<br /><hr />18 January 2010 16:29<br /><br />Dear Simon<br /><br />Thank you for you further e-mail regarding Boots Arnica 30c (item code 37-71-814).<br /><br />I can confirm that a 1c Homoeopathic remedy comprises of 1% of the <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic ingredient</a> i.e. Arnica and 99% of the diluent (carrier).<br /><br />I can also confirm that to produce a 2c Homoeopathic remedy 1 drop of the 1c <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic dilution</a> is then further diluted with 99 drops of diluent (carrier). This would equate to 0.01% of the Homoeopathic ingredient i.e. Arnica.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The labelling of our products is in accordance with guidelines on the labelling of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedies</a>, 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.<br /><br />I hope that this information is of use to you and is sufficient to allow you to calculate the percentage of Arnica.<br /><br />If you require further support in understanding <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedies</a> then you may wish to contact the supplier for this product, Nelsons, via enquiries@nelsons.net.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br /><br />Paul Williams MRPharmS<br />Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer<br /><hr />18 January 2010 18:02<br /><br />Hi Paul,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that I've made a mess of the mathematics.<br /><br />Can you confirm the answer you get for a 30C remedy?<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />Simon<br /><hr />22 January 2010 15:37<br /><br />Dear Simon<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Whilst the information about the dilutions of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedies</a> is freely available from validated reference sources, the actual percentage in a 30 c <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic remedy</a> is not stated and, therefore, I am afraid I am unable to provide this information.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I can confirm that Boots Arnica 30 c are a <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">licensed Homoeopathic product</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathy</a>, which our Pharmacists adhere to.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homoeopathic medicines</a>.<br /><br />I hope that this information is of use to you.<br /><br />Regards<br />Paul Williams MRPharmS<br />Medical Information (Pharmacist) Officer<br />Medical Services<br /><hr />23 January 2010 08:52<br /><br />Hi Paul,<br /><br />I get the impression that you are trying hard to avoid answering my question.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This is a perfectly simple and clear question: is there any Arnica remaining in an Arnica 30C remedy?<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />Simon<br /><hr /><br />As yet - no response.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.1023.org.uk/"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 220px; height: 131px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-rBsxCEGOznniy93r1ciGUrRirAo8G8loK6e8pG5QHpomXQeqHAIEFZwkDqrcCGt5zUdHgWnmvw8zNO2zPF2AhFvTktNdBRloS6oEgrKNi-m3ZVeEVSLs2KHy1NeVp0QLeV-_wFDjAjc/s320/1023.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431458200084202882" border="0" /></a>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-20858709359499931292010-01-12T08:55:00.000-08:002010-07-13T22:03:52.534-07:00David Tredinnick MP Promotes Dangerous Ideas<div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>An individual approaching a <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopath </a>for a cold remedy will probably do no more self harm than to waste their money and feed their own delusion, but the <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopath </a>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>But mumbo-jumbo becomes most dangerous when it is believed by those with power.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The farming practices were devised by Trofim Lysenko, who denied many basic tenets of biology, even genetic theory.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>On October 14 last year, David Tredinnick, MP for Bosworth, voiced controversial ideas during a Parliamentary question. His speech included: "<i>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>"</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>His question also included the lines: "<i>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.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>"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</i>."</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, in my view, the most dangerous of Mr Tredinnick's suggestions concerns his promotion of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a>: "<i>Attacks have also been made on the efficacy of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a>. A letter was sent to the World Health Organisation warning against the use of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a>, 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.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>"<i>Will the Government therefore be robust in their support for <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy </a>and consider what can be done so that it is used more effectively in the health service?</i>"</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's put this into context. <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homeopathy </a>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. <a href="http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Boots-homeopathy-question-trust/article-1591785-detail/article.html">The implausibility of homeopathy has been already covered in my column on December 10</a> and I will not bore you by repeating it.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>For a start, writing an article entitled "<a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homeopathy</a>, 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the conclusion, Jacobs noted the results "suggest larger sample sizes be used in future <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathic</a> research to ensure adequate statistical power".</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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".</div><div><br /></div><div>Or, in other words: <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a> does not seem to work for childhood diarrhoea.</div><div><br /></div><div>But all Mr Tredinnick is suggesting is that we use this form of quackery to treat a bit of Delhi Belly.</div><div><br /></div><div>Diarrhoea, according to the World Health Organisation, kills about 2.2 million people each year – most of them children.</div><div><br /></div><div>Internationally, it is responsible for 4% of all deaths.</div><div><br /></div><div>And by specifically mentioning the advice given out by the Worldwide Health Organisation his agenda appears to take a global perspective.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>But if you live in the Bosworth constituency, it seems your MP may prefer to treat these poor children with something even simpler: quackery.</div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-28393323900601768812009-12-29T09:08:00.000-08:002010-01-12T09:15:42.859-08:00Black Magic Psychic in Leicester<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmNGy7pwrP2dTR9u4zF2IdfzOQTX1QcC0TUXR3Sjw8vcLD8ZXFRRhgQFBITZzf5I2Bf9mjzqAQQ2d6D_ZBG-sRZKtkAmRx_VI-mqbTMQlBWySsJwBnFkRAgtyh7MCd3Ws7wsrXCx8Ejxs/s1600-h/photo.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmNGy7pwrP2dTR9u4zF2IdfzOQTX1QcC0TUXR3Sjw8vcLD8ZXFRRhgQFBITZzf5I2Bf9mjzqAQQ2d6D_ZBG-sRZKtkAmRx_VI-mqbTMQlBWySsJwBnFkRAgtyh7MCd3Ws7wsrXCx8Ejxs/s320/photo.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425902359056718450" /></a><br /><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>It would be interesting to see similar claims originating from an Asian cultural background.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Mukya's operation is run from a terrace house on Paton Street, off Narborough Road, in Leicester's West End.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>But it wasn't long before he demonstrated he was serious about this business.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The visit lasted less than seven minutes and I left him with £120.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The name of the friend was simply given as "John" with no surname. I think I know about 10 Johns.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>I tried to push him to give me a price for this next stage but he flatly refused.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-73505946840933993442009-12-29T08:55:00.000-08:002009-12-29T09:17:08.203-08:00The Difficulties with Psychic Photography<a href="http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Spells-cash-disappear/article-1654378-detail/article.html">My recent article in the Mercury exposed a Leicester psychic attempting to scam a punter (well, me) out of a lot of money</a>. We had a bit of an adventure trying to get a photo for the piece.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I managed to get this <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDMzslEfTPfl2OTXGrGqZ9RvPXryKQEsNy3Qs7MkRWkEyxCbn4d4UUb8REoDb9awwXV77jb1BUnMbrEi-cH6S8M2B0I1ahZ7dzTwBlzP5FX16azCeLkuzXB1jw99KB0iBxtJqfCCq2MUY/s1600-h/photo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDMzslEfTPfl2OTXGrGqZ9RvPXryKQEsNy3Qs7MkRWkEyxCbn4d4UUb8REoDb9awwXV77jb1BUnMbrEi-cH6S8M2B0I1ahZ7dzTwBlzP5FX16azCeLkuzXB1jw99KB0iBxtJqfCCq2MUY/s320/photo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420708168721910002" border="0" /></a>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We got a nice, clear shot:<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivi6LUywfyPrDBvcV0elv-r8OK-7NjwGXFiilXRwYsDQ0Xq046XieJcxrN4JbwA3u4_90YaRmQb9f5H6RWvTU-iqjvGluRFLrYYin-XgXjMCFfiSDG2IRbsc0w7rG6L_8cDmbcI4Qm1O4/s1600-h/1291487.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 170px; height: 258px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivi6LUywfyPrDBvcV0elv-r8OK-7NjwGXFiilXRwYsDQ0Xq046XieJcxrN4JbwA3u4_90YaRmQb9f5H6RWvTU-iqjvGluRFLrYYin-XgXjMCFfiSDG2IRbsc0w7rG6L_8cDmbcI4Qm1O4/s400/1291487.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420704134902252386" border="0" /></a>(reduced quality for web publication)</span><br /></div>Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5959094372836804855.post-55319936561088042552009-12-10T20:45:00.000-08:002010-07-13T22:08:16.598-07:00Trust Boots<div style="border: 1px solid red; margin: 15px; padding: 10px; background-color: rgb(238, 238, 238);">This is a repost of <a href="http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Boots-homeopathy-question-trust/article-1591785-detail/article.html">my article in the Leicester Mercury</a>. 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.<br /></div>“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?<br /><br />On the shelves of their pharmacy on Gallowtree Gate in Leicester you will find a small section devoted to <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a>. Many people I meet are confused about exactly what homeopathy is – some thinking it is simply a type of herbal or natural medicine.<br /><br />Allow me to explain.<br /><br />The first principle of <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a> is what they call the “law of similars”. <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">Homeopaths </a>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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopaths</a> 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.<br /><br />Turning a chemical such as onion juice into a <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathic preparation</a> 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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 1.7x10<sup>21</sup>. 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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 6x10<sup>38</sup> 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.<br /><br />These pills do not contain any active ingredient.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a> 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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathy</a> for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.”<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">homeopathic remedies</a> citing the lack of evidence. Fair enough.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.1023.org.uk/">qualified homeopath</a>."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Is this likely to lead you to “Trust Boots”?Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14195003492084088327noreply@blogger.com0