The random thoughts of a sceptical activist

The GCC respond: email #2 – we need copies of everything

Email #2 from the GCC:

Re: Your complaints

I am writing in response to your emailed letter dated 7 June 2009, addressed to the Chief Executive & Registrar. Please find enclosed a copy of our Complaint Information Pack, which we hope you will find helpful.

It is apparent from your letter that you wish to submit a complaint against a number of chiropractors. I do note that you have stated that you have been unable to locate a number of them on our Register. I will write to you at the earliest opportunity to confirm whether these individuals are registered with the General Chiropractic Council. If they are not registered with the General Chiropractic Council, I can confirm that we will be unable to investigate a complaint against them under section 20 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 (‘the Act”). This is because, under section 20 of the Act, we only have jurisdiction to investigate complaints against registrants. If it should transpire that the individuals are not registered with us but are describing themselves as chiropractors, we will consider taking action under section 32(1) of the Chiropractors Act 1994 instead.

Please note that in line with our normal procedure, we will need you to provide a copy of the relevant web page(s) that relates to your complaint against each individual chiropractor indicating the date on which you obtained them. This information can be provided electronically or in hard copy.

Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, do please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Emma Willis
Specialist Officer (Regulation)

I have provided the GCC with the text of claims copied from each website and I don’t see why they cannot proceed with just that and investigate each of them and what they are currently claiming. Also, requiring something that is their ‘normal procedure’ – presumably as opposed to a regulatory requirement – should not be insisted on.

In effect, I feel I am doing yet more of their work for them.

However, if they need copies, copies it’ll be. They will be winging their way to them shortly.

Update 14 June 2009: All website files sent to the GCC.

40 Responses to The GCC respond: email #2 – we need copies of everything

  • Paper process?

  • They say: "This information can be provided electronically or in hard copy."

  • Of course they are asking for copies of web pages they have advised their members to remove. What's the betting they will say, "ah, but they no longer do that so no action required". Or will they accuse you of fabricating them?
    Anything to continue the deceit that they aren't involved in organised fraud.

  • I have a similar complaint in. I will be taking paper copies in readiness of the response.

  • Yes, clearly the chiropractic industry can be trusted to regulate itself. "Hey, everyone, go clean up your websites over the weekend. We're going to play the plausible deniability gambit, claim a 48 hour turnaround time, and then demand copies of incriminating evidence from your sites next week."

    Nope, no conflict of interest there whatsoever, GCC.

  • They said the same with the 55 complaints I put in about 2 weeks ago. I don't think it's unreasonable, they need the evidence. So far, they seem to be doing everything professionally.

  • All this stuff on chiro is really interesting. Have you checked out this website
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/13/Outlawed-Most-Important-Medical-Discovery-But-Why.aspx
    I know it is off topic but this is quite strange.

  • Also do sceptics look into how much medicine is backed by evidence based studies? I have found a website that shows that not as much as i thought is.

    http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/percent.html

  • The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm)

    "orgone energy" hits quite a few of those buttons.

  • What about the other post?

  • What of it? It does nothing to improve the evidence for chiropractic.

  • But if you are sceptical shouldn't you apply it to everything?

  • Oh, I do, but it still has nothing to do with the lack of evidence for the claims made by chiropractors.

  • So if some areas of medicine lack evidence, some parts of chiropractic lack evidence, some parts of dentistry lack evidence and so on aren't they all in the same position.

  • No they're not – this blog post is about the lack of evidence for chiropractic.

  • So are you going to do a post about the lack of evidence in some areas of medicine? I think it would be interesting

  • Although it's been well covered elsewhere, I may well do. But why don't you? Do you have a blog?

  • Unfortunately no blog. Is it easy to set one up? Also where else has it been well covered? I think it is more interesting to be critical of the conventional because it is not as readily reported.

  • Yes. I'm sure you can find them.

  • Yeah Zeno, my local mechanic makes some pretty bizarre claims about fuel consumption – why don't you be sceptical about that too? What are you trying to hide? Are you biased in favour of mechanics?

    😉

  • Yeah, I'll get to the mechanics next week.

  • Hang on chaps! The GCC is not like the police. The Investigaing Committees at all the Health Regulators don't actively go out looking for evidence. It is up to the complainant to provide at least the basics. Reading the standards for these committees suggests that they can ask for evidence and invite statements but they are not going to do a house to house or make enquiries as the police do.

    If Zeno did not print out the relevant pages as he went along that seriously weakens his case.

    also, I couldn't help noticing that there were some clinics/ chiros with prefectly allowable claims (as per ASA rulings) in the editorial content of their websites as cut and pasted by zeno.

    I wonder if the MCA go it right and have not cut and run but are seeking to minimise vexatious complaints that will not go forward but could cost the GCC and the chiros time and money to deal with.

    If the point of the exercise was to bankrupt the GCC as Rochard Laningan is suggesting, http://chiropracticlive.com/advertising-standards/could-the-chiropractic-sceptics-bankrupt-the-gcc/ then why not just use the whole BCA list and make something up about every single one of them It doesn't have to be true, it just wastes time and resources.

    I always wondered how long the GCC would survive given that there are so few chiros in it – about 2500 in total. The BCA have 1039 members (40%) If even 10 or 20% of the total number give up registration (which is voluntary) then the GCC might fold through lack of funds. Is that the aim?

  • "In effect, I feel I am doing yet more of their work for them."

    Boo hoo, you poor dear. I'm welling up for the adversity that you face.

  • The point of the exercise is to get chiropractors to abide by their own Code of Practice. There are not doing that and the GCC hasn't until now seemed very interested in doing it either. If there is acceptable evidence for particular claims, then the GCC will not uphold a complaint; if there is no acceptable evidence then the chiropractor will lose.

  • By complaining in the way that you have you show yourself as being vexatious and this dilutes your arguement and weakens your and your small group of follwers position. By being inconsistent, not responding to questions about the claims made by osteopaths for treating colic and non-spinal conditions(who are also closing their websites)you show significant bias.

    The chiropractors on your list have not broken ASA rules (and you know that)and the majority of their claims are for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

    You are also endangering the public, if the GCC are unable to pursue genuine and serious complaints against chiropractors because they are tied up with a raft of vexatious cliams.

    If you were a registered healthcare professional you could be held accountable and be subject to professional misconduct hearings.

    The neutral following you plotting can see you for what you are.

  • Its a stalling tactic, pure and simple.

    (I take it that you note that the targeted vitriol is being splashed from infantile cowardly anonymous pathetic anti-evidence chiro-quack-supporting wankers)

  • Well said, MKG! Straw men and ad hominens abound, rather than tackle the nub of the problem: the GCC's CoP makes clear their rules for substantiation and many of their members seem to be breaking them.

  • Michael Kingsford Gray said…
    Its a stalling tactic, pure and simple.

    (I take it that you note that the targeted vitriol is being splashed from infantile cowardly anonymous pathetic anti-evidence chiro-quack-supporting wankers)

    great comment you are now showing your true colors and lack of a professional or rational approach- your case weakens further!

  • Supplying detailed evidence for all of the complaints is, I think, a fair request. And I suspect it may even be official policy. Although I appreciate it will be rather bothersome, I don't think too much should be read into the GCC's intentions in asking.

    As for the commentators who are clearly unhappy with you taking this action. Your opinion is your own but don't be surprised that people don't take you seriously when you are unwilling to log even a simple username before you live your criticisms.

    What Zeno is doing is simply holding chiropractors accountable to the codes of practice they are already supposed to be following! If it turns out that the complaints are not valid for specific clinics then they will not be upheld. Simple as that.

    If they are breaking the codes then they deserve the complaints.

  • @Anonymous

    I'll wager that you do not honestly reveal your identity in the follow-up post.
    For I have valiantly done so, and one may even determine my exact physical address, as well as photographic identification via a few simple Google searches.

    But, you see, because I tell the truth, I have nothing to fear through identification.
    So, for me, it is a win/win situation.

    Yet you, as an anonymous FREAKIN' LYING C**T, have two competing fears:
    1) a fear of the shame of not revealing your true identity
    and
    2) the puerile fear contingent upon shame of revealing said identity,
    and revealing to the blogosphere just what a pathetic whinging wanking wally weed that you really are.

    For you, it is a lose/lose situation.
    Wich dovetails perfectly with your repellent juvenile debating tactics.

    OK, I assume that you are willing to make amends in the evidence department.

    I assign a task that is designed to cut your skeptical milk-teeth.
    Critically analyse my following two consecutive posts:

    http://www.layscience.net/node/594#comment-39941
    http://www.layscience.net/node/594#comment-39946

    Provide a reasoned response to the points raised.
    Give peer-reviewed references and citations to every substantial claim of fact.
    Give your real, verifiable identity.

    If you do, I shall respect you, and may even convert to your way of thinking.
    If you falter on a significant number of these tasks, then I shall assume that you remain a cowardly wanker who's only real grasp on anything is not reality.

    Its up to you. The ball is in your court.
    I ask myself: is the anonymous (wo)man enough to rise to the challenge?

    (Stop giggling, Zeno)

  • Looks like it could all end up a waste though eh Zeno.
    MKG, like you count more than billions of other humans, animals, plants, fungi that really keep the world living and the air fresh.
    Well OK humans aren't quite there yet with keeping the air clean, but one day, one way or another, they will be.

    Anonymous (the other one) 😉

  • Anonymous said…
    Looks like it could all end up a waste though eh Zeno.
    MKG, like you count more than billions of other humans, animals, plants, fungi that really keep the world living and the air fresh.
    Well OK humans aren't quite there yet with keeping the air clean, but one day, one way or another, they will be.
    Anonymous (the other one) 😉

    I don't care which 'anonymous' coward you claim to be,** but when your grade-school teachers advised you to post 'in coherent English', I'm pretty sure that you mis-heard.

    Smiley faces do not make up for incoherency.

    If you are able, can you reword your post such that it makes sense?
    Perhaps you have something to which it is worth listening…

    __________________
    ** Anyone who hides behind a transient pseudonym without good reason is hardly worth listening to in any case.

  • MKG said

    "….anti-evidence chiro-quack-supporting wankers"

    "….FREAKIN' LYING C**T,"

    "….pathetic whinging wanking wally weed"

    and then

    Wich dovetails perfectly with your repellent juvenile debating tactics

    are you for real?

    I am sure Zeno is glad you are on his side (case).

  • *** anyone who takes themselves so seriously without any good reason is hardly worth listening to anyway

  • **** asterisks are directly proportional to the significance of the note writer

  • %&$^#*@ No they're not

  • Wow….descent into craziness!

    Just heard back from my complaint – they have offered me to speak with their solicitor in order to make a signed witness statement with regards the complaint.

    This is not compulsory, but it is part of the Rules (2000).

    T

  • Ha Ha….. just looked into where all the knicker twisting was coming from…. I googled zeno.

    guess what came up 1st?

    Zeno corporation… "Thermal Acne Blemish Device"

    and the slogan (gets better) "Improving lives through the science of heat!"

    Just wet my twisted knickers laughing! How ironic is that! Good on you zeno… you prat! Picked a wonderful name!

  • ROFLMAO! Nice one, Anonymous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.