The random thoughts of a sceptical activist.
Various bloggers have been investigating what their local chiroquacktic shop is claiming they can affect/cure. I’ve got bigger plans.
I’ve now collated the claims made by 296 chiroquacktors. They make some crazy claims. I’m still analysing the data, but here’s a taster:
Colic 29% Whiplash 25% Bed wetting 23% Infection 19% Asthma 18% Arthritis 18%
Categories
Loads of bloggers have been, well, blogging on this. I’d like to compile a reasonably comprehensive list of the main (as I see it) blog posts here. They are in no particular order, just as I remember them and find them.
I would like to keep adding to this list, partly as an aid for myself to keep track of the various posts, but also as a resource for anyone else who is interested in the whole sorry saga. I’ll edit this post to make it longer, rather than adding new posts.
I’ve also complained to Trading Standards about a local chiroquacktor using the title Dr after getting clarification from the GCC:
Thank you for your enquiry. The relevant part of the Code of Practice for chiropractors states that “Chiropractors must
Thank you for your enquiry. The relevant part of the Code of Practice for chiropractors states that
“Chiropractors must
Top secret, no doubt, but this manual gives a useful insight into the workings of the chiroquacktic mind.
For those ready for more education, I’ve found some more complex material on subluxations:
When spinal vertebrae pinch or choke nerves,
Chiroquacktors frequently claim that they have never harmed anyone with their spinal manipulations. What’s the Harm and the parents of this little baby know better.
However, no doubt, as a cynical marketing exercise to allay public fears and show the sceptics amongst us that it really is safe, they have recently set up CPiRLS – The Chiropractic Patient Incident Reporting and Learning System.
For completeness, the relevant sections in the The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) seem to be:
A bit of detail on what Jack of Kent has been talking about on his blog post, BCA v Singh: What The Advertising Standards Authority Said…here’s the information I passed to him:
I made a complaint to the GCC and Trading Standards on Tuesday about a local chiro who was using the title ‘Dr’ on his website. When I looked further into what chiros are allowed to claim and what they are not allowed to claim, I discovered something I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere (although I may just have missed it).
Gimpy has written a good blog entry on the BCA’s use of the word ‘bogus’ in their 2003/2004 annual report.
I came across a local chiro yesterday morning who was using the title ‘Dr’ on his website, but who doesn’t appear to have any real medical qualifications. I fired a quick email off to the GCC:
It was (of course) packed. Still not sure why mjrobbins was so surprised when he got a round of applause when he asked a question! He’s obviously too modest.
Prof Brian Cox was NOT asked to sing Things can