Monthly Archives: June 2009
In response to my email to the GCC telling them about the breach of confidentiality and/or Data Protection Act, I received a prompt reply:
A week or so ago, we learned that the GCC were intent on Moving the Goalposts. This was covered by Professor David Colquhoun in his post: The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) wants to waive the rules. They were applying to the Privy Council for something called a ‘Section 60 Order’. I asked the GCC what this was and why it was being done. I received the following reply a few days ago.
Last week, I received a letter from the GCC:
It’s really quite simple. The GCC Code of Practice requires all chiropractors to hold the appropriate level of evidence for any claim they make. If and when a chiropractor receives a complaint about those claims, all the chiropractor has to do is send that evidence to the GCC. The GCC will no doubt then not uphold the complaint against them and they can get on with what they were doing.
Not the GCC this time, but OfQuack.
Thanks to the ever-vigilant Andy Lewis at the Quackometer for spotting this one.
Well, have they?
Rather than add to my ever-growing list of those blogging on the BCA vs Simon Singh case, I thought that the publication of the BCA’s ‘plethora’ yesterday was a good place to start a new list.
It’s very clear what standard of substantiation is required for claims made by chiropractors. It is in black and white in the General Chiropractic Council’s Code of Practice. Paragraph C1.6 of the CoP states that any information published by chiropractors or on their behalf, must be ‘consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority’ (ASA). More on this can be found in my previous post and in my complaint letter. The ASA guidance clearly says that only scientific evidence is acceptable.
In yet another leaked letter (UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES BRIEFING NOTE FOR CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS 15 JUNE 2009) from the GCC, they want the Privy Council Office to expedite something called a ‘section 60 Order':
Email #2 from the GCC, received earlier today: