Check you’ve got the latest version of FishBarrel ready for the Nightingale Collaboration’s next campaign

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:

•  you’ve got the latest version of FishBarrel.
•  you’ve added your signature in the options

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.

If you haven’t installed FishBarrel before:

Then it’s easy – using Chrome, get it from https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB

Then fill out the options page.

If you have installed:

If you have installed FishBarrel, then check the version. In Chrome, go Settings > Extensions  and look for the FishBarrel extension.

If you’ve got version 2.1.5 or later:

Then you don’t need to do anything except upload your signature to the options page.

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 Alan Henness - you can get the latest version by deleting the header template text and then refreshing the page.

If you’re on an older version but it starts with a 2:

Just click “Update extensions now” at the top of Chrome’s Settings > Extensions page.

Now upload your signature to the options page.

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.

If you’re on a very old version that starts with a 1:

Download version 2 from here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anacdmlkdpleidkhaenamooegbidibfg/publish-accepted?hl=en-GB

Manually copy any settings over from the old version to the new one (click on the duck icon, then click “options” on each tab).

Upload your signature to the options page.

Delete the older version from Chrome’s Settings > Extensions page.

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

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

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

No I'm afraid he didn’t.

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

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

Davies was saying that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davies said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making misleading health claims online just got a little more problematic

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

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

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

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

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

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

FishBarrel: Keep what you highlight short & to the point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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





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

What to do about Boots.

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

Important Update

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

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

In your complaint to Trading Standards you should mention:

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

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

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

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

When should I complain?

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

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

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

Complain to Trading Standards about Boots Quackery

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

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

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

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

What to mention in your complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

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

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

and within "Non-hormonal options"

"Magnetic therapy: no benefit"

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

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

How do I submit my complaint?

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

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

What about Libel?

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

Can I make my complaint more powerful?

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

You certainly don’t need to do this however.

Details of names & dates below:

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

Boots carries on promoting quackery despite the ASA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chiropractic Trade Organisations launch coordinated attack on General Chiropractic Council

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

You can download the letter here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!

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

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

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

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

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

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

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

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

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

The Morality of Employment Law

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

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

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

I wanted to waive, amongst other rights:

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

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

Let’s use an analogy: TV rentals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re controlling and devaluing my life.

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Simon,

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Sam

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

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

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

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

Helpful advice and information to copy & paste:

Section 1:

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

Section 2:

Name of Trader: Boots UK Limited

Address: 1 Thane Road West

Town or City: Nottingham

County: Nottinghamshire

Postcode: NG2 3AA

Telephone Number: 0115 918 2000

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

Trader's email address: [Leave blank]

Section 3:

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

Leave rest of Section 3 blank.

Section 4:

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

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

Off skiing in Tignes.

1023

I wasn’t able to make Frank Swain’s talk at Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday night, but I did catch up with the uncensored parts on The Pod Delusion Podcast later.

Frank is right when he says that there are a whole host of reasons why people believe, and to convince them we need to meet them on their own turf. If anecdotes convince people to believe, anecdotes will be more effective in convincing them not to believe. (I should clarify that I’m summarising what Frank says, these are my words.)

As an example of a campaign that was not effective, Frank cited 1023.

On the point of 1023 being ineffective, I disagree.

What Frank was saying is that the main message of the 1023 campaign is that “there’s nothing in it”. Homeopaths know there's nothing in it. People who have been shunning real medicine in favour of homeopathy for years know there's nothing in it.

And people who already know there’s nothing in it are not going to be convinced by being told that there’s nothing in it. Frank’s right here - but he’s very wrong when he says that this makes it an ineffective campaign.

A tiny percentage of the population shares our skeptical viewpoint. A larger, yet still small percentage; practice homeopathy.

In the middle sits the vast majority, ready to be plucked by either camp. They go to dinner parties and people tell them they’ve visited a homeopath. They walk past homeopathic practices on their way to work. They’re mostly rational, but don’t know what homeopathy is. They may know there isn’t much evidence to show that it works, but they don’t realise that it’s been tested time after time and shown to be ineffective. They don’t realise that it lacks an active ingredient altogether. They don’t realise that it’s a thoroughly discredited absurdity. They don't realise that there's nothing in it.

It is these people who will be convinced by 1023.

If you’re trying to convince as many people as possible, and are within an environment where the vast majority of people are ignorant yet open minded, only a complete fool would target those who already know about the subject, but are so close minded that they ignore the knowledge they already possess.

I have had a couple of opportunities to speak to open-minded, intelligent audiences on this subject. Most people don’t know what it is. Simply explaining it is all that is required to convince them, completely, that it’s nonsense. It takes minutes.

1023 did this on a mass scale. It was a beautiful, engaging demonstration. Hundreds of people took 42 times the recommended dosage of so called "drugs". This impersonation of a crazed religious sect grasped the attention of newspaper reporters. How can a paper not report a mass drug overdose?

The message was clear: we’re able to do something that seems implausible because we’re using implausible medicine. Or - we’ll be fine: there’s nothing in it.

Of course you won’t convince a homeopath. But that homeopath needs customers. And because of 1023, homeopaths are now operating in an environment where many more people know they’re peddling pills that contain nothing. Their customers are socialising with more people who know the pills contain nothing.

Grow this simple understanding throughout the population and you create an environment where homeopathy will struggle to survive. 1023 did that beautifully.

Frank said people aren’t convinced by facts. Telling a story is in many cases more convincing. So I’ll end with a story. Here it is:

Before I was convinced by facts, I once suggested to someone that they might try visiting a homeopath.

A Step-by-Step ASA complaint

Recently I’ve had lots of requests for advice on the best way to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority about various devices falsely claiming health benefits. The good news is that it’s easy. But of course, if you hadn’t done it before you wouldn’t know that.

I’m going to walk you through the process with a quick example, an advertisement for a Reflexology Circulation Enhancer in July 25th’s Sunday Telegraph.

The first step is to look through the ad, sentence by sentence, to see if you can find any specific misleading claims. You’re not just looking for outright lies, but also what Harry Frankfurt defines as bullshit. Claims that have been made up without concern for whether they’re true or not.

Sometimes the advertiser won’t make their claims clearly, they will imply them. The ASA can still adjudicate against misleading implications.

You can click the picture to the right to see a clearer view of the ad. If I work through from the top, we find something pretty quick.

1. The title “circulation enhancer” clearly implies that this product is able to increase circulation. I do not believe that the manufacturer JML have any evidence to substantiate this claim.

Easy.

The subtitle is the next obvious bit. “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”. So I’d simply quote this, then question it:

2. The advertisement claims “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:
a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.
b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.
c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

Again; easy. The ad continues:

“For centuries, the Chinese have believed that every part, gland and organ of the body is connected to specific areas of your feet which when manipulated using fingertips help soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again.”

“Bringing that philosophy into the 21st century, the JML Circulation Enhancer uses proven T.E.N.S technology to create the same effect – but this time at the touch of a button and in the comfort of your home.”

I’ll quote this text to the ASA, and then make the following observations:

3. While it may be true that some people believe that manipulating parts of the feet can “soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again”, that advert is implying that these beliefs are true. I do not believe that the advertiser possesses evidence to back these claims up.

4. When JML state “proven T.E.N.S technology” they are implying that T.E.N.S has been proved to be effective for the specific claims they make, for example to “re-energise”.

5. When JML state that their technology creates “the same effect” as reflexology, I do not doubt them, as reflexology is unlikely to have any effect. However, the implication is clearly that both their product and reflexology have a beneficial effect on health.

6. JML state “Chinese have believed…”. While there may be Chinese people who do believe this, I have found no evidence to suggest that it is believed by a significant portion of the Chinese population. I find this statement offensive because it implies that the Chinese are a particularly gullible race.

I should clarify that I don’t think JML are a racist organisation, I don’t think they’ve thought through the implications of what they are saying. That last point was for my own personal amusement.

There is also a testimonial:

“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”

7. Statements made in testimonials need to also be backed by evidence. This clearly implies that the device is efficacious for the health benefits outlined at the top of the advert.

Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.

8. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that “reflex points” actually exist, let alone that they are capable of being “stimulated” by this device.

And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.

9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.

There is also the picture with the magic blue bullshit field around the legs of the lady on the chair.

10. The picture showing the rings around the lady’s feet are clearly designed to imply that there is some sort of magic field emanating from the device. I doubt that JWL have any evidence to show that this field exists.

Once you’ve made the points, simply wrap it up in an email. I generally prefer to email the ASA rather than use their online form because of attachment size limits on their form, but either way is fine if it works.

Here’s the final product.

To: new.complaint@asa.org.uk
Subject: Complaint about Circulation Enhancer advert in The Sunday Telegraph.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to complain about an advertisement I found on page 20 of the Lifestyle section of the Sunday Telegraph on the 25th July. The advert makes a number of what I believe to be unsubstantiated health claims.

I have attached a copy of the advert.

1. The title “circulation enhancer” clearly implies that this product is able to increase circulation. I do not believe that the manufacturer JML have any evidence to substantiate this claim.

2. The advertisement claims “The ingenious electronic device uses ancient Chinese reflexology techniques to relieve the stresses and strains of the day and boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”

I doubt that JBL have any evidence to back up their claims that:
a. This system is capable of relieving stresses and strains.
b. This system is capable of “boosting energy levels”.
c. It is in any way possible to “boost your energy levels through the power of your feet!”.

The advert also states:
“For centuries, the Chinese have believed that every part, gland and organ of the body is connected to specific areas of your feet which when manipulated using fingertips help soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again.”

“Bringing that philosophy into the 21st century, the JML Circulation Enhancer uses proven T.E.N.S technology to create the same effect – but this time at the touch of a button and in the comfort of your home.”

3. While it may be true that some people believe that manipulating parts of the feet can “soothe and re-energise, restoring a natural feeling of well being again”, that advert is implying that these beliefs are true. I do not believe that the advertiser possesses evidence to back these claims up.

4. When JML state “proven T.E.N.S technology” they are implying that T.E.N.S has been proved to be effective for the specific claims they make, for example to “re-energise”.

5. When JML state that their technology creates “the same effect” as reflexology, I do not doubt them, as reflexology is unlikely to have any effect. However, the implication is clearly that both their product and reflexology have a beneficial effect on health.

6. JML state “Chinese have believed…”. While there may be Chinese people who do believe this, I have found no evidence to suggest that it is believed by a significant portion of the Chinese population. I find this statement offensive because it implies that the Chinese are a particularly gullible race.

There is also a testimonial:

“The effect is amazing. I could feel it working from the moment I switched it on!”
7. Statements made in testimonials need to also be backed by evidence. This clearly implies that the device is efficacious for the health benefits outlined at the top of the advert.

Under benefits, they state “Low frequency micro-currents safely stimulate the reflex points in your feet”.

8. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that “reflex points” actually exist, let alone that they are capable of being “stimulated” by this device.

And “Reinvigorates tired parts of the body”.

9. I do not believe JWL have evidence to show that this device is capable of doing this.

10. The picture showing the rings around the lady’s feet are clearly designed to imply that there is some sort of magic field emanating from the device. I doubt that JWL have any evidence to show that this field exists.

I am complaining as a concerned member of the public and wish to confirm I have no commercial interest.

[full name, address and phone number]

Many thanks,

Simon Perry

There is little evidence that it doesn’t work

When Maggie Dunn and Maggy Wallace of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council spoke at Leicester Skeptics in the Pub earlier this week, I certainly got the impression that they were, at least to a certain extent, able to be swayed by rational argument.

I think they genuinely took something away from the Q&A session, yet there was one thing that they repeatedly said both in the Q&A and during our dinner beforehand that was (a) important and (b) not responded to. I wish to address this point here.

When faced with points made about the fact that there was no evidence for the claims made by a lot of the practices they regulate, their response was words to the effect of “but there is little evidence that it doesn’t work”.

The argument offered in opposition to this was simply that the onus of evidence is on the person making the claim. While I agree with this, it is more of a custom in argument rather than a valid point. However, there are reasons why this custom is observed that I believe are more influential than simply stating it.

There are two points that are implicitly made when someone points out that there is “no evidence that it doesn’t work either”:

1. That in the absence of knowledge, the probability of being right or wrong is 50/50.
2. That in the absence of knowledge, it is ethical to take a position and communicate it authoritatively.

Both of these points are incorrect.

The human body is an incredibly complex organism, and there are potentially billions of possible medical interventions, only a small handful of which are likely to work for any given ailment.

Even if we find that a given intervention is indeed useful, the probability of it being useful for any particular disease is still small. I can think of no intervention that works for most diseases.

If you were to make one reasonable and thought-through assumption about a drug’s possible effects from extensive knowledge of chemistry and biology, there is a good chance you’re going to be wrong when you apply it to the complexities of the human body.

But if you were to make an assumption based on no knowledge whatsoever, it would be highly likely that you are wrong. What’s more, the principle of Occam’s razor dictates that the chances of you being right will diminish with the number of assumptions made.

For instance, take reflexology. The first assumption is that various parts of the body are somehow connected with pathways to various parts of the foot. The second assumption is that massaging near one end of a pathway will produce an effect at the other. The third assumption is that this effect will be clinically beneficial. The forth assumption is that reflexologists have correctly mapped which positions on the foot are connected to which organs.

The likelihood of any of these single assumptions being correct in the absence of any evidence is miniscule. But for reflexology to be effective, all of these assumptions would have to be correct.

Even if we assume that the chance of each being correct is 10%, a ludicrous overestimate, then the chances of the therapy working would be a tiny 1 in 10,000.

But, for the purposes of argument, let’s imagine we live in a strange universe where the probability of any intervention being efficacious for any disease was the same as a coin toss landing heads.

Would it then be ethical to make claims of efficacy for an untested intervention?

I think not.

By making an authoritative claim that the intervention works, you are implying that you have a greater knowledge of the intervention’s efficacy than someone who is ignorant on the subject. In the mind of a person hearing your claim, the probability of efficacy will now be significantly higher than 50/50. After all, they heard it from someone presenting themselves as an expert.

If you were to ask a person who has never studied the efficacy of reflexology if it works for arthritis, the only honest answer they would be able to give would be “I’ve never studied it but in the absence of evidence it is unlikely to be effective”. For reflexologists, having never tested their treatment’s efficacy, any other reply is dishonest.

At Boots, it's 3 for the price of 2 on quackery

At 2pm on the 14th July, Skeptic Kash Farooq alerted me via Twitter to a quack medicine product on the Boots web site that he was going to make an Advertising Standards Authority complaint about.

The only problem was that the ASA does not regulate web site content. And this has been a problem stopping us from tackling Boots for some time. If Boots has false or unjustifiable claims to make about a product, they only seem to make them in areas where the ASA can’t touch them. They use packaging, point of sale materials and their web site to make their claims – all outside of the ASA’s remit. I’ve personally never seen widespread false claims made by Boots on posters, leaflets or in the press where the ASA can start issuing adjudications against them.

Whether this is a deliberate strategy by Boots, or just through chance alone I cannot be sure. But yesterday, they slipped up.

Kash had noticed that Boots had a 3 for the price of 2 offer “across all vitamins, complementary medicines and herbal products”. There are a couple of exceptions where the ASA will regulate claims made on the web. One is:

“We regulate sales promotions, such as special offers, prize draws and competitions wherever they appear.”

Boots appeared to have put their entire range of alternative health products – the products for which they regularly make unjustified claims of health benefits – fully within the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority.

I had no idea of how long this promotion would last, and with the ASA sometimes taking over a week to look at a case, I did not want the claims to fall out of remit before my complaint went in. Boots may have seen the tweets about them and realised they needed to withdraw the promotion. For the best chance of success, the complaint had to go in by the start of business the next morning.

I started going through the claims and realised that there was no possible way I could get through them by myself. Boots had 679 products in the range, many of which were making clearly unjustifiable claims. And in comes the power of Twitter. With a couple of Tweets, I suddenly had a small army of helpers.

I created a shared Google Spreadsheet in which a team of 9 or 10 people started adding URLs from the Boots web site and copying and pasting next to them the unjustifiable claims made about the product. With a little help from technical wizard @tommorris answering my call for help, I found a program that would automatically download the large number of web pages and print them to a local PDF to hold as evidence.

Watching what was happening on the Google Spreadsheet was awe-inspiring. When I started letting people into the document, there were 80 URLs copied and pasted into the list. By the time I got 15 more URLs into it, @the_beacon, @richardtomsett, @HelenaThomas, @dellybean, @kashfarooq, @nwoolhouseuk, @cherryblack, @RoisinThomas and @kingmuskar had pretty much copied and pasted all of the claims and were now waiting on me.

By the end of the evening, we’d sent off complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about 107 Boots products.

The claims they were making varied from shocking – claiming that a homeopathic remedy is “to relieve the pain of teething.” To the bizarre – a magnet which you put in your knickers which they claimed “helps to reduce or completely eliminate the symptoms of menopause” – something one of my helpers described as a “Fanny Magnet”. There were some less serious claims such as listing “30c Aconitum napellus” as an active ingredient on a product when I can say with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999994% certainty that if manufactured carefully contains no Aconitum napellus (and I worked that number out, it’s not just a guess).

But my helpers continued after I finished. @nwoolhouseuk, @ScepticLetters,
@GDLockUK, @kashfarooq and @the_beacon together sent in a second complaint with another 133 products listed. @nwoolhouseuk was still going at 1:30 in the morning, and @ScepticLetters finally finished it off at 4am.

Boots will now hopefully be held to account. For years, whether accidentally or by design, they been keeping the misleading claims they make about their products just beyond the remit of the ASA. One slip up, and with excellent teamwork we caught them out in one night with a total of 240 complaints.

Letters to the Gideons

I did my Skeptical Activism & The Quacklash talk at Westminster Skeptics in the pub last night. My opening gag for the talk is related to a letter I wrote some years ago.

Several years ago I was inspired by the hilarious Timewaster letters and went through a period of writing daft letters to various organisations for no other reason than my own personal amusement. Last night, someone suggested I should publish these letters on my blog. While I don't want to ruin my opening gag by publishing the one I refer to in the talk, here's a series of letters I wrote to The Gideons, the people that leave Bibles in hotel rooms.

GCC investigations committee refers 36 Chiropractors to Professional Conduct Committee

The GCC has now updated me on the status of 50 of my complaints.

In 36 cases, the Investigations Committee has decided that there is a case to answer and they will be referring an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct against them to the Professional Conduct Committee.

In eight cases, the GCC is awaiting further information.

But in the remaining six cases, the GCC has decided not to pursue the allegation. It reads as though a determining factor was that those chiropractors immediately removed the claims upon being advised to do so by their association. The only explanation I can think of is that the BCA wrote to their members advising them not to make the claims while simultaneously pursuing a case against Simon Singh for referring to those same claims as "bogus".

Looks like the BCA does sometimes give good advice after all.

OfQuack launches six-month bullshit amnesty: the regulator that doesn’t regulate

Regular readers of this blog will know that some time ago I began making complaints to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council about reflexologist members who happily promote their bogus treatments despite the fact that there was not a jot of evidence to support them.

The CNHC has now informed me that for the next six months, they will no longer be processing any complaints that are similar to the ones I’ve submitted. By similar, I take this to mean complaints regarding practitioners who mislead their clients by making unjustifiable or false statements, including practitioners who have already been cautioned by the CNHC for doing it before.

The CNHC ruled in my favour of my original complaints, and told the members to stop making the claims, giving them until the end of March 2010 (4 months!) to remove them from their web sites. So now the four months are up, how many web sites have changed? I went back to look at 13 of the web sites I originally complained about.

Of the 13, two of the websites no longer exist which left 11 I could check.

Three of reflexologists seem to have toned down the claims, though continue to make them:

• Linda Pate seems to have prefixed her claims with the statement “there is a view that”.
• Lina Ramchand perhaps believes that her claims that reflexology releases toxins, can help with "infertility issues" and can "lead to easier child birth" comply now that she’s put them within quotation marks.
• Siobhan Elliot seems to have removed the claims to treat colic, IBS and arthritis from her site but now states “it is believed reflexology may be useful” for pregnancy and fertility. Her site invites you to request more info on reflexology, when I asked I was sent a word doc that claimed to treat IBS. Her page on reflexology links to another site that makes the claim that reflexology has anecdotally been shown effective for migraines, fertility, sleep disorders and hormonal imbalances.

Only one reflexologist has removed the bogus claims from their site. The other seven continue to happily promote their bogus treatments on their web sites on April 1st 2010, the day after the deadline they were given to remove the claims:

• Carole Armstrong claims that reflexology "may help with a variety of conditions both acute & chronic including sleep or hormonal problems, back pain & neck pain, digestive problems such as IBS".
• Linda Walker still makes claims for hay fever & arthritis
• Nuala Bent still claims that Reflexology “is helpful for many conditions including: Sinusitis, Menstrual Problems, Menopausal Problems, Stress, Migraine, Back Pain, Arthritis, Sciatica, Frozen Shoulder”
• Hazel Parry still promotes reflexology for “migraine, arthritis, sleep disorders and fertility issues.”
• Marguerite Gunn still mentions reflexology as a treatment for asthma, joint problems, back pain, colds/flu, hay fever, allergies and infertility.
• Mascha Mieris still advertises reflexology for “Back Pain, Migraine, Headache, Infertility, Arthritis, Sleep Disorders, Sports Injuries, Hormonal Imbalances, Digestive Disorders, stress-related Conditions.”
• Alison Graham continues to promote reflexology to “improve digestive function, lower blood pressure, improve sleeping patterns, balance hormonal problems and benefit the immune system.”

But maybe all of these practitioners had made the changes within their practices, and just failed to update their sites?

No.

I phoned four of the practitioners. Carole Armstrong was more than happy over the phone to tell me that reflexology “can help” with arthritis. Linda Walker claimed to treat both arthritis and hay fever. Hazel Perry said that reflexology “can help her” referring to my mother’s fictitious arthritis. Sharon Dean, the only reflexologist who had removed the claims from their web site, was told me that “some people believe it can” help with infertility problems, though she did clarify that this was “not proven”.

To see what the CNHC would do about their members continuing to flout their regulations in spite of an existing ruling against them, I submitted a second complaint about Linda Walker. I included email evidence that Linda Walker was still making the same claims as before.

The CNHC told me that they would not be investigating this complaints, or any complaints like it. They “would not be able to action any complaints of a similar nature to those you have already submitted for six months from the date of this letter”.

The CNHC, it seems, now refuses to investigate complaints about its members making misleading or unjustifiable claims – even against those it has already ruled against.

Its members have shown their lack of respect for any decision made by the CNHC by not removing the claims from their web sites.

How can the CNHC still consider itself to be a regulatory body if it no longer regulates?

Scientist to take on Tredinnick MP in next election

Dr Michael Brooks, an author, journalist, broadcaster and consultant to New Scientist with a PhD in quantum physics will be taking on David Tredinnick MP in the next election. For anyone who knows anything about Tredinnick’s hopeless understanding of science and almost fanatical commitment to mumbo jumbo, the reasons will be clear.

Michael’s announcement, in his own words, are below.

But most importantly, we urgently need the signatures of 10 people who are registered to vote in the Bosworth constituency. Without this, we cannot register Michael as a candidate. If you do not live in this constituency, do you know anyone who does?

Bosworth constituency covers the towns of Ambien, Barlestone, Nailstone and Osbaston, Barwell, Burbage St Catherines, Lash Hill, Burbage Sketchley, Stretton, Cadeby, Carlton, Market Bosworth with Shackerstone, Earl Shilton, Hinckley Castle, Hinckley Clarendon, Hinckley De Montfort, Hinckley Trinity, Markfield, Stanton, Fieldhead, Newbold Verdon, Desford, Peckleton, Ratby, Bagworth, Thornton, Twycross, Witherley and Sheepy.

Please email Michael on mb@michaelbrooks.org if you are in the constituency and able to offer support.

Michael's announcement follows:

Dear All,

I’m a science writer and a consultant to New Scientist magazine. I’m looking for 10 people who would be willing to sign my nomination form to stand in the general election in the Bosworth-Hinckley constituency.

The point of standing is to highlight the fact that science is not just an indulgence for the curious, but is vital to British life, culture and economic well-being.

Science contributes more to Britain's GDP than the financial services sector. It also seeds future economic benefit. Science-based healthcare has made all of our lives immeasurably better.

And yet science does not really figure on political agendas; it is an add-on, at best. The Conservative shadow science minister has already said science funding will almost certainly be cut under a Tory government. Labour is promising more, but funding for science has actually flatlined under Labour, and is lower than it was in 1986, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.

It's not just about science and scientists. Science feeds into most aspects of modern life -- this is about what kinds of qualification we want our MPs to have. Do we want politics and economics graduates making the decisions? Or do we want MPs who are qualified to deal with scientific and technological questions, and able to analyse a problem using a skillset that has proved the most powerful tool we have: rational, scientifically-based thinking?

I will stand for Parliament in order to get people across the country talking about what they want from their MP. Hopefully that will cause them to ask difficult questions of all their candidates, such as whether their children will be able to work in science in Britain, or whether they will have to go abroad to the countries who are currently increasing their science funding: France, Germany, China and the US, for example.

Why Bosworth-Hinckley?

The sitting MP, David Tredinnick is symptomatic of the problem facing the future of Britain. Not just because he was involved in cash-for-questions and in the expenses scandal, but because he is exactly the kind of MP who undermines science. Tredinnick’s expenses included a claim for astrology software. Do we want MPs to be making decisions about the future of our country based on where Saturn happens to be in the sky on the night before a vote in the House of Commons? Tredinnick has also tabled an “Early Day Motion” suggesting that the House of Commons Select Committtee’s report into homeopathy, which recommended that the NHS no longer fund homeopathic treatments, was poorly researched and should not be taken seriously. He is a champion of pseudo-science and a hindrance to rational governance.

If we are to secure the future of science and engineering research, and thus secure the future of Britain’s economy, we need to make sure that our MPs will not ignore and undermine the scientific traditions on which this country is built.

Getting Tredinnick out of office will be a good start. Hopefully we can populate the House of Commons with people who understand what really makes the world go round – literally and metaphorically. We need a scientific government for this scientific age.

I write regularly for New Scientist and the New Statesman, and hope to highlight all these issues in various blogs, magazines and newspapers during the campaign.

But in order to get this off the ground, I need ten people who are registered to vote in the constituency. You don’t have to vote for me, but I’d be grateful for the chance to get on the ballot paper!

If you would be willing to do this, please let me know by email (mb@michaelbrooks.org) or Twitter (@DrMichaelBrooks). If you want to know more about me, please visit www.michaelbrooks.org

Thanks very much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.

With best wishes,

Michael Brooks

The CNHC won't be publishing my complaints

Following my complaints to the CNHC about 14 reflexologists claiming to treat specific diseases without any credible evidence, you may have noticed that nothing has yet appeared on the CNHC’s decisions page.

I contacted Maggie Dunn about this matter. It appears that because my complaints were dealt with before it got through to the conduct and competence committee, they do not intend to publish the details on the web site, nor do they intend on ever naming the offending practitioners.

I do not believe that they intend to go any further than this press release published in December 2009 congratulating themselves on a job well done.

With still no clarification from the CNHC on what practitioners are allowed to claim, it seems likely that there are many more CNHC members continuing to do exactly the same with no worry about regulation.

Maybe it’s time to submit a few more complaints.