Curbing the quacks & protecting the public
In November last year, there was speculation that the ASA’s remit might be extended to cover claims on advertisers’ own websites, rather than just third-party online adverts (the so-called digital remit).
In launching their new Code of Advertising Practice today (which comes into force on 1 September 2010), the ASA/CAP have given more details:
4. What is not included in new the Codes?
Extending the Digital Remit of the CAP Code
In its consultation, CAP clarified the existing online remit of the Code which covers paid-for advertisements and sales promotions on websites. However, the consultation did not contain proposals to extend the Code’s remit to cover marketers’ own marketing communications on their own websites. This was because this was the subject of a separate project being considered by the wider advertising industry, led by the Advertising Association, at that time.
On 8 March 2010 the advertising industry has now recommended an extended online remit to CAP, along with new enforcement powers and a mechanism to fund its regulation. This would allow the Advertising Standards Authority to apply the Code to online marketing communications that currently sit outside their remit for the benefit of consumers, children and industry.
CAP will now assess the practicalities of the recommendations, with the aim of bringing the new remit into effect as soon as possible, later in 2010.
I’m sure this will take some time to sort out properly, but it opens up all sorts of new possibilities for those really interested in protecting the public from claims — particularly health claims — that are not substantiated by robust scientific evidence.
Sceptic activists have been very successful in curbing some of the worst excesses of quacks and others out to make a fast buck from the vulnerability, gullibility and scientific ignorance of others, but so many claims are made on sellers’ own websites. Until the ASA takes over this as part of their remit, the only option has been to report them to Trading Standards. However, this has proved unsatisfactory, partly due to the lack of resources and experience within TS and partly due to the lack of a coherent country-wide strategy.
When the ASA takes on this function, I hope they have correctly anticipated the high demand that is likely to come from sceptics anxious to police quacks who are not currently properly or adequately policed.
92 Responses to “Curbing the quacks & protecting the public”
Thanks for highlighting this part of the report – I look forward to Sept. and the decision about websites. The present situation is confusing and unworkable.
By quacks I hope you also mean physiotherapists, osteopaths and private hospitals check out their websites!!
andy said: “By quacks I hope you also mean physiotherapists, osteopaths and private hospitals check out their websites!!”
……or chiropractors practicing evidence-based healthcare for the problems that the vast majority of chiropractors spend the vast majority of their time treating.
This would be real progress. You have already shown that the ASA is willing to apply real standards of evidence, rather than the whitewash that the GCC apply. The GCC claiming applied kinesiology was evidence based practice was somewhere between laughable and tragic.
Unfortunately the ASA seems to only be able to order ‘the advertisment must not appear again in its current form’ so it’s not much of a sanction for the bulk of quacks, but for those with statutory regulation it could have more impact, e.g. lodging a fitness to practice complaint against a quack after they have received multiple slap downs by the ASA.
Interesting andy, I have just had a look around at a few sites.
I wonder how confident the osteopaths are about their evidence base for musculo-skeletal complaints let alone all of the practitioners treating colic, asthma etc.
http://www.clinicrooms.com/what-we-treat.asp
http://www.mersearoadclinic.co.uk/bab.html
http://www.cranial.org.uk/page3.html
http://www.quayhealth.co.uk/osteopathy/babies.php
http://www.natural-practices.co.uk/cranial-osteopathy-babies.php
What about the physios? Some interesting findings on their evidence on Cochrane for the run of the mill every day practitioner (both private and nhs).
http://www.manchesterphysio.co.uk/atoz.html
http://www.nuffieldhealth.com/Individuals/Services/P/Physiotherapy/
http://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/treatments_info/a_to_z_of_treatments/p/physiotherapy.aspx?menupage=7
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Physiotherapy/Pages/What-is-it-used-for.aspx
and here is one treating colic…
http://www.londonphysiocentre.co.uk/casestudy.htm
Will this mean that you can then have trading standards go in to the local hospital and demand they stop treating patients in the physio department, as they are taking tax payers money in providing these services that do not have an evidence base that is deemed suitable by the ASA and trading standards?
It is about time that it is realised that these professions are just that, “professions” not a type of treatment. They all utilise various forms of manual therapy and adjunctive modalities. They cannot be evaluated in the same way that you evaluate an anti-wrickle creme, hair products or even pharaceuticals.
Now we will see how sincere you are about public health and await all of your complaints to the ASA about all the manual therapists once they start to regulate websites. I bet they cannot wait.
“Now we will see how sincere you are about public health and await all of your complaints to the ASA about all the manual therapists once they start to regulate websites. I bet they cannot wait”
Pretty sincere, I’d say.
The homeopaths and chiropractors are the low-hanging fruit because either nothing or nearly-nothing of what they do can survive critical assessment.
There’s plenty of crap talked by members of the paramedical professions who can reasonably expect to have the spotlight turned on them.
It’s all about the evidence, if these numpties can’t come up with the evidence and persistently talk bollocks then they can expect to be pilloried when their time comes.
As the meerkat says, “Simples”. You got a problem holding the osteopaths’ feet to the fire?
Cranial osteopaths are also complete quacks, but their web sites are immune to complaints to the ASA, and trading standards have been patchy and ineffective.
Other osteopaths are similar to chiropractors, but don’t have the ‘statutory regulation’ claim to respectibility that the GCC gives chiro’s.
I looked at a few of the physiotherapist sites “Interested in the truth” linked and they seemed pretty reasonable, except for the claims of “Connective Tissue Manipulation” which I’d like to see evidence for.
Still, “Interested in the truth” why don’t you lodge a complaint to trading standards about a couple of the osteopaths claiming to help middle ear infections and childhood asthma ?
davidp said: “Other osteopaths are similar to chiropractors, but don’t have the ’statutory regulation’ claim to respectibility that the GCC gives chiro’s.”
Actually, yes they do. There is a General Osteopathic Council in exactly the same way that there is a General Chiropractic Council.
There is no reason on Earth why Alan Henness should have singled out chiropractors when he submitted his 500 complaints to the GCC. Except, of course that it’s all in an effort to bolster support for Simon Singh’s defence of his libel of the BCA. If it had ever been a genuine public health concern, then he would have submitted similar complaints about osteopaths and a good number of physiotherapists by now. Tellingly, he has not.
It’s simply fashionable to have a go at chiropractors at the moment.
Thanks for trying to impugn my motives — you know very little about me indeed, yet you try to divert the topic into an irrelevant discussion of why I am doing this.
However, the question is really very simple: are chiropractors complying with their Code of Practice or not? Perhaps you think they shouldn’t be called to account?
Of course, if you think there are other areas of public health concern that are not being dealt with, what are you doing about it?
With respect, David, you don’t know what Alan Henness has or hasn’t done. I know he’s been submitting complaints about all breeds of quack for many more years than he can remember. That’s not to deny that Simon’s case provides a good reason for focussing on chiropractic – of course it does. But your oft-repeated whinge that Alan only did it because he’s some kind of disciple is just idiotic.
I still don’t understand why you object to his attempts to get you guys to clean up your act and stop lying to people.
Zeno said: “…the question is really very simple: are chiropractors complying with their Code of Practice or not?”
It appears that some chiropractors have mistakenly advertised their treatment for various disorders without the required level of evidence. This does not mean that the treatments aren’t effective, only that there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard which the ASA requires before claims can be made in an advert. The chiropractors concerned are not guilty of being dishonest, only ignorant of the level of evidence required for advertising. It is true that the Code of Practice demands that the ASA standards should be met and it may be we should be grateful to Mr Henness for pointing this out, but that is the extent of it.
“Of course, if you think there are other areas of public health concern that are not being dealt with, what are you doing about it?”
I’m not the one who’s taken it upon himself to clean up the world of complementary medicine. The point, my friend, is that you have targeted chiropractic, supposedly for the health and safety of the nation, yet have not complained about others who make claims that are every bit the equal of those made by chiropractors, and certainly with no better evidence. This is a fact and it seems pretty obvious that this fact exists because your motive was to support Simon Singh. If you have other reasons for not having made hundreds of complaints to, for example the General Osteopathic Council, then do please tell us what they are.
David wrote about Zeno: “…you have targeted chiropractic, supposedly for the health and safety of the nation, yet have not complained about others who make claims that are every bit the equal of those made by chiropractors, and certainly with no better evidence. This is a *fact*…”
How do you know that?
Has anyone said they are guilty of anything? And why did it take an outsider to point out the link with the ASA that should have been blindingly obvious to all chiropractors? They do read and understand their CoP, don’t they?
I make no assumptions about — and have no way of knowing — why chiropractors chose to make claims they did, whether it be ignorance, dishonesty, arrogance or whatever. Their reasons are irrelevant for the time being.
There you go again making assumptions about me. What’s your basis for jumping to the conclusion that I’ve not complained about other AltMed? Just because you’re not aware of it?
For a second time, if you’re so concerned, what are you doing about osteopaths or whoever?
@ Skepticat
“I still don’t understand why you object to his attempts to get you guys to clean up your act and stop lying to people.”
Still showing your usual level of abrasiveness I see. I do not lie to my patients.
Blue Wode wrote: “David wrote about Zeno: “…you have targeted chiropractic, supposedly for the health and safety of the nation, yet have not complained about others who make claims that are every bit the equal of those made by chiropractors, and certainly with no better evidence. This is a *fact*…”
How do you know that?”
When Zeno made his bulk complaint about chiropractors to the GCC, he wasn’t shy about telling the world. In fact he seems to be quite proud of the complaints that he’s made. I’ve made the assumption that, had he made similar complaints about osteopaths, he would have told us by now.
However, if he has treated chiropractors and osteopaths equally and it’s just that I’m not aware of it, he can quite easily tell us now….
@ Zeno
Zeno said: “For a second time, if you’re so concerned, what are you doing about osteopaths or whoever?”
I didn’t say I was concerned. The point is that YOU seem very concerned about what chiropractors do and say, yet seem unconcerned about osteopaths. I’m struggling to see your reasoning if it isn’t simply the result of the Singh debacle.
@ David
Thank you for the clarification that you were referring to *bulk* complaints. Your original statement, however, remains a presumption.
With regard to osteopaths, I have a feeling that they will be next. Chiropractors, IMO, have always been a greater target for criticism since they are much more mired in quackery with their false beliefs in (undetectable) chiropractic ‘subluxations’.
Subluxations and osteopaths
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1224360/Why-suddenly-pain–it.html
I haven’t been on this blog for months & it’s great to see the same rattly old puffins still here squabbling away..! If chiropractic is currently more mired in quackery than other manual treatment professions, when ‘their time comes’, I’m sure that collectively, you will be able to generate more than enough mire to go around.
Fair play to you for toughing it out David – a chiro barnacle fighting your corner admirably. Best of luck to you – but I fear you may be a kanute in the face of an self appointed & self important tide.
I also don’t see any public health agenda here – not in the slightest. The exclusive focus on chiropractic in the face of mountains of doubt & uncertainty throughout manual treatment comes across as too ill-natured and pejorative. It feels more like a slightly sycophantic Singh-case-based vendetta.
Time will tell
Zeno – It appears that David isn’t concerned about osteopaths treating colic. That’s why he isn’t doing something about osteopaths or whoever.
@ Andy
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a UK osteopath mention the ‘subluxation’. Do you have any evidence that osteopaths believe in them (i.e. not the occasional medical one they might see) more than chiropractors? Several hundred chiropractors in the UK still believe that ‘subluxations’ (as defined by chiropractors) are valid, detectable lesions.
I see David has got in here before I could.
BSM seems to miss the point. Robust RCT are hard to come by for any of the manual therapies including “institutionalised” physiotherapy for a lot of the more common musculoskeletal complaints seen on most chiro/osteo/physio websites.
So, with the ASA regulating websites even these professions are going to come under fire. That is where the sincerity point comes in.
If Zeno is taking the chiros to task on these issues because of his concerns for public health due to lack of evidence for musculo-skeletal conditions (putting colic, asthma etc. aside) then we can expect to see a lot of complaints lodged at your local physios too?
@davidp
Osteopaths do have statutory regulation, much the same as chiropractors, if fact they have had it even longer.
The difference is that in the GCC code they use the ASA standards to regulate advertising, which at this point still does not cover websites.
I have no intention to lodge any complaints as I do not feel that the ASA has it right regarding the way in which they evaluate the level of evidence for any of the manual therapies. Clinicians (including GP’s, surgeons etc.) do not work in a black and/or white environment most of it is grey.
Dear old Blue Wode. You can’t bear it, can you?
Andy torpedos your argument and your response is: “Do you have any evidence that osteopaths believe in [subluxations] *MORE* than chiropractors?” (emphasis mine).
It would be quite amusing, if it wasn’t so tragic, that you have such a passionate (dare I say, obsessive) loathing of chiropractors.
It’s sad that you feel so compelled to denigrate chiropractic when apparently you’ve never experienced it for yourself.
@ David
Andy has not torpedoed my argument. If he can provide evidence that a substantial number of osteopaths believe in the fictitious ‘subluxation’ lesion (as described by chiropractors), then I will have learnt something and will adjust my argument accordingly.
Subluxation in the chiropractic sense is not taught on osteopathic courses
the closest Osteopaths get to subluxation is the strict medical use of the term to describe a deranged joint.
I am puzzled by this fellas use of the term as well.
(I have recently qualified so I can provide all of my notes to anyone that really really wants to wade through them)
@David
“Still showing your usual level of abrasiveness I see.”
Yes, your continual sanctimonious whining and insults at zeno and BlueWode does tend to bring out that side in me. (There’s a moral in there somewhere.)
David and JackieW, I am going to explain this to you one more time as simply as I can. If you really don’t get it after that, I’ll give up.
1. As I said, Alan Henness has a long history of challenging quackery and has made many, many complaints about many different kinds of quacks.
2. Of course his decision to make complaints about chiropractors at this particular time is because of Simon’s challenge to the BCA. What better time to focus on the false claims of chiropractors than when they invite publicity in the way that the BCA has done?
So, you see, you are right about the causal effect of the libel action – Alan wouldn’t deny that he was inspired by Simon’s challenge to the BCA to put their money where there mouth is. Where your critical thinking faculties seem to be failing you is in understanding why he wants to challenge chiropractic at all. Because of your personal investment in chiropractic, you are closed to the possibility that there could be anything wrong with it or with a significant number of chiropractors and this, in turn, is blinding you to the most rational answer to that question. Instead you resort to rather infantile ad hominems that wouldn’t be out of place in the schoolyard: “You’re just a sycophant, nah, nah, nah, you don’t really care,”. Is this really the best you can do? Because – and you seem to be having trouble grasping this – it isn’t actually an argument; it is just empty personal abuse, which serves only to make you look nasty.
3. Finally, here’s another point that has been made umpteen times but which still doesn’t seem to be penetrating:
The fact that Alan is focussing on chiropractors at the moment, doesn’t mean he won’t focus on something else when he has the time. He will – I can absolutely guarantee it. (Cue for either of you to come back with one of your usual nasty insinuations about zeno how has too much time on his hands, should “get a job”, etc, etc, *yawn*)
@David
“I do not lie to my patients.”
You shouldn’t take it all so personally. You may not lie to your patients but I’ve seen two chiropractors in the last few months and both of them lied to my face. Given some of the stuff on the chiro websites, I’ve no reason to suppose they were atypical.
(Btw, Jackie, I hope you’ve fully recovered from your breakdown by the way or where you just paralytic last time you came posted all that abuse here?)
@ Skepticat
Words fail me, but thank you for confirming that you continue to suffer from your affliction.
@ Blue Wode and OsteopathJW
As Blue Wode knows, because I’ve told him before, the two main chiropractic teaching institutions in the UK (the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic and the Welsh Institute of Chiropractic) do not teach the subluxation theory as he would describe it.
Unfortunately for him, this doesn’t fit with his argument so he chooses to deny it. As for his assertion that he would modify his argument in the face of evidence, I haven’t seen much sign of it so far.
@ David
And you’re still a coward.
David
You are bringing up the same old fallacious arguments that have already been demolished, you refuse to engage in a productive discussion and you continue to hurl ad hominems and puerile and abusive insults.
If you do this once more, I will ban you from commenting any further.
I find this site interesting and somewhat amusing. It would seem that the chiropractirs are being targeted, and I can understand the rational with regards supporting Simon Singh. It is though pretty obvious that David has a valid point. This is not a site based on scepticism, although having followed it for a few years, it is a chiropractic bashing site. I would be more impressed if the argument that David outs is accepted as reasonable because it seems as if he has a valid point, just not the point that this site has chosen to adopt.
Sadly it would seem that by considering banning those who disagree with Zeno or this current ’cause’ he is coming across as an individual who only wants those on the site who agree with him. I hope that is inaccurate, but I don’t see David as being any more inflammatory than some other postings, albeit on the otherside of the argument. Sadly to have a debate you need two sides or it becomes a witchhunt.
What was an interesting site has degenerated into a bigoted attack on one group ignoring, by choice those others who come under the same treatment misapprehensions. Zeno unfortunately, where he once was seen as a bastion of the cause, a mantle he chose to don, now sadly has become an individual who has lost his way. I hope he finds it again soon or we will have to change our names to bigots in the pub. A sad day.
Well said “the Bruce”. Zeno threatening to “ban” David highlights his insincerity and was it not for David the comments would have ended after the usual two or three chums patting him on the back. Yet, Zeno continues to allow Skeptikat to hurl abuse at will. This may be because she is his partner and he would be deep in the brown stuff at home.?
Speculation aside the disingenuous and insincere approach continues. It is amazing that it has got to this stage , but then looking at it from the beginning it seems like it was a carefully orchestrated from the beginning and that the BCA fell for Singh’s bait.
As it all started with him writing an article to promote his book in the guise of a scientific debate (in the Guardian, lol) in which he tears into Chiropractors and the association, but absolutely no mention of the osteopaths and them treating visceral conditions despite the fact that they treat far more of these conditions. It is a pity that the guardian does not have Zeno there to sort the “ ad hominems and puerile and abusive insults” in which case Simon would never have landed in this position. He harps on about historical facts which are just that, history (by the way i have learnt more about chiropractic history from the sceptics than i even did at college).
Then when Simon is taken to task his mates at sense about science back his ill-conceived article and start gaining public and celebrity support but not telling the full story and publishing carefully edited information. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/380 (no mention of happily or bogus).
Then we end up with “the complaints” about everything, not just the visceral conditions, which is where I see all the other manual therapies coming under the spotlight in the future due to the way in which the ASA evaluates it evidence as I mentioned in an earlier post.
If David had come here with reasoned arguments, then they would have been listened to and considered. What arguments he has brought have been countered (to my mind, very effectively), but David has consistently failed to engage with those rebuttals, resorting instead to insults and ad hominems that were becoming wearisome.
In doing this, he has broken the site rules — rules put in place to ensure a reasonable and reasoned debate. I have let his abuse through up till now but his last posts here have pushed him over the limit I am prepared to accept.
Sadly, I am sceptical about many things including situations and treatments in the heathcare sector and that includes aspects of both CAM and allopathy. So as a sceptic, I feel scepticism itself is a healthy process and can ensure growth through analysis and in this case EBM. The difficulty is, it is far easier to critique than produce for a host of reasons, but that is the nature of things. However in all cases, ‘what is reasonable’ I believe must be considered and allowing oneself to slip into bigotry and discrimination based on agenda is not scepticism. Sadly I feel that is what seems to be happening here.
I have only posted to remind people that there are many peple who read sites like this through interest in debate who do not post. Sometimes one must penetrate the comfortable communication bubble of agreement that occurs when like minded people get together, orchestrated or otherwise. There must always be, virtue that an argument/ debate exists the ability to hear a minimum of two siides in order to rationalisthang find the right outcome. To rule out one party’s view, especially when they seem to be only one part of the pie and have been singled out for whatever reason seems disingenuous. Thus is not skepticism but dogma, which can of course lead to change, not potentially for the good of the masses, but instead for the good of the voca few.
@the Bruce
What do you mean “this is not a site based on skepticism”? This is a skeptic bloggers blog and every post on it is written from a skeptic’s perspective.
You claim to have been following this site for a few years, that it used to be interested but has now “degenerated” into attacking chiropractors, which is a strange thing to say, given that 95% (78 out of 82) of the posts here were written within the past ten months and the vast majority have been about chiropractic.
It is though pretty obvious that David has a valid point.
What point would that be? David doesn’t make points, he comes here to rant’ at and insult Zeno in order to make himself feel better. (The same is true of JackieW). As Zeno has pointed out, all David’s ‘arguments’ about chiropractic have been demolished and all he’s left with are the insults, which are getting nastier. You haven’t seen anyone else here accuse anyone of having an “affliction”. The fact that he’s gets your respect for behaving like that is quite revealing about you.
Sadly it would seem that by considering banning those who disagree with Zeno or this current ’cause’ he is coming across as an individual who only wants those on the site who agree with him..
It may seem that way to you but most people would take into consideration the fact that people here can comment freely – there is no moderation – and hundreds who have disagreed with him have done so and continue to do so. Yet the only one he has warned is the one who has been consistently and repeatedly rude and nasty both to him and other posters.
The suggestion that he wants to ban David because David doesn’t agree with him, doesn’t actually stand up to scrutiny as I hope you will be big enough to acknowledge.(I know the poster after you isn’t.)
I don’t see David as being any more inflammatory than some other postings, albeit on the otherside of the argument.
Then take you blinkers off and have a proper look. Look at David’s second comment on this thread, for example. It’s essentially the same comment he has made on numerous other threads. It contains no argument – it is just another ad hominem. Look at any other article that David has commented under and you will see a pattern. This is how it goes:
1. David posts a nasty trollish comment. This may contain a claim about chiropractic or reference to some kind of alleged evidence. It will invariably contain a ad hominem attack on zeno. In plain English, that’s a gratuitous insult against zeno as a person.
2. Blue Wode posts challenging the claims David makes about chiro. Blue Wode is unfailingly civil towards David, while at the same time trouncing his argument. I come on and challenge David’s insults towards Zeno, as I did in my first post on this thread.
3. David sanctimoniously tells me he won’t engage with me because I’m rude. (David evidently thinks he should be at liberty to hurl hateful insults at Zeno without being challenged. My strategy towards David has been to try to get him to think again. Every time he’s nasty to Zeno, I’m nasty to him. Funnily enough, he doesn’t like it.)
4. He continues to argue with Blue Wode for a while then, when it’s obvious he’s defeated, he just disappears.
Zeno provides a space where people can engage in civilised, adult discussion if they want to. Constant aspersions do not amount to ‘civilised, adult discussion’ but it seems those of you posting in defence of David can’t see the difference.
I am truly sorry, my opinion is that Zeno does not allow a space for reasonable debate anymore. As he has said it is his opinion that David has broken the rules of the site and as it is his site he has that right. It is not however within the realms of what is reasonable, my opinion that he has.
I never wished to get involved in the pettyness nor agendas of this site but my impression is still, believe what we believe or be silenced. On this count I think Zeno is wrong and hence the post. I therefore reiterate that this site has degenerated into a site not based on scepticism but in bigotry.
Well, Bruce, as your idea of the “realms of what is reasonable” is that people should be free to post the same personal insult over and over again, you might find a site like Rants n’ Raves a more comfortable home. Over there you will find many posters like David. No constructive discussion takes place but people who don’t know how to argue civilly are free to fling insults left right and centre.
Here’s the link – enjoy!
http://www.rantsnraves.org/
Zeno said: “David
You are bringing up the same old fallacious arguments that have already been demolished, you refuse to engage in a productive discussion and you continue to hurl ad hominems and puerile and abusive insults.
If you do this once more, I will ban you from commenting any further.”
That was a fascinating little post, Zeno.
I don’t believe my arguments to be fallacious and I don’t believe that they have been demolished either. However, I am having to repeat myself because you and your fellow chiro-bashers continue to trot out the same old tripe, implying that chiropractors are charlatans.
If my comments have come across as insults then an apology is in order. My intention is to draw attention to the unreasonable position taken by you and some of your fellow bloggers.
Interestingly, you have been notably quiet on the issue of why you have singled out chiropractic and not dealt with osteopathy with the same vigour. Despite your slightly aggressive protestations that I have no evidence that you are not treating the two professions equally, you have singularly failed to produce the evidence to show that you are.
While you allow the likes of Skepticat to thrash around in here like a spoilt child, your threat to ban me can only be interpreted as censorship rather than moderation. It starts to look like you are just trying to silence a voice that speaks out against you.
There is an amusing irony here. You and others had tried to characterise the BCA-v-Singh case as an issue of freedom of speech, which of course it isn’t but I’m not going back to that one just now. You have criticised the BCA, and by extension all chiropractors, for seeking to stifle debate and yet you threaten to ban me from this forum. Perhaps I should soon be expecting a lawsuit for libel!
Would I be insulting you if I called you a hypocrite?
@ Skepticat
I’ll let readers decide for themselves who they believe to be the more rational and civil contributor here.
David, you can’t seriously believe your posts are civil. I have followed many of the discussions here and I’m afraid the tone of your posts, the snide innuendo and the ad hominems have often intimidated me from posting myself. On this thread you have surpassed yourself and nobody should have to put up with the insults you have directed at people here. It’s obvious to me that you are nothing more than a troll.
scepticat wrote:
>(David evidently thinks he should be at liberty to hurl hateful insults at Zeno without being challenged. My strategy towards David has been to try to get him to think again. Every time he’s nasty to Zeno, I’m nasty to him. Funnily enough, he doesn’t like it.)<
I see what you mean.
@ Artemis, Skepticat and Zeno
Can you point out the “hateful insults” that I have “hurled” at Zeno and others please?
Sadly to be advised, with ink included, which made me smile, to join the ranks of ‘ rant and rave’ seems to underline my current belief that this blog is in fact is a politically motivated site hiding behind the banner of scepticism.
I brought my opinion to the table based on what I saw was unfair. I did not expect to have everyone agree as that is the nature of both opinion and therefore debate. This site however seems to welcome only an opinion that vilifies one particular and very specific group of manual therapy, while choosing to exclude and in fact ignore the others with the same approach and claims in their advertising. Surely this is neither the action of a sceptic nor in fact does it have the public’s best interest at heart.
Sadly there have throughout my lifetime, and that of my forebears, attacks on minority groups under the guise or banner of something else. I have always found it distasteful and today is no exception. I welcome the continued debate, not the censorship that seems to be occuring.
Maybe an alternative opinion such as Davids, is unwelcome here because it does nit fit the very specific criteria of ‘ nodding dog’ syndrome.
I hope it will be rectified soon as I rather enjoy some of this, however, entertaining as it is, scepticism it definately is not….. I did of course supply my own ink, much to my own amusement.
As skepticat pointed out to you, you have repeatedly sneered at Zeno and called him a sycophant. Your response to skepticat’s observation about your behaviour – an observation I share – is to then dismiss him as having an “affliction.” You may not like what skepticat says to you but I notice that in every single instance it is you who starts the trouble by being gratuitously nasty. And that’s how I would describe the whole of the post you directed at Blue Wode. It really is unnecessary and confirms my opinion that you are just a troll whose sole purpose here is to try to antagonise Zeno.
It is a mystery to me why Zeno has put up with your nastiness for so long and completely predictable that you should cry “censorship” the moment you receive a warning that, IMHO, is long overdue.
@ Artemis
This is absurd.
So, what you’re saying is that because I challenge the views posted here and question the motives of the posters, I am being “nasty” and that shouldn’t be allowed.
It appears that you are confusing a challenge to someone’s actions and words with an insult. If the complaint against me is that the language is argumentative then I will happily concede that. However, when it comes to “nasty”, I fail to see how my postings compare with the ad hominems that Skepticat sends my way and are tolerated by Zeno.
Like I say, please show me the insults I have made. I honestly consider my comments to be observations, not insults.
But you needn’t worry, I’m off for the next week so you won’t have to put up with me at all.
This is getting wearisome, troll.
You can’t see that dismissing someone as a “sycophant” or as a “spoilt child” are insults not challenges?
In that case, I can’t help you any further.
@ Artemis et al
So far, I’ve have been called a liar, a coward, a “troll”, sanctimonious, nasty and I forget what else. Yet I’m being criticised for being abusive and insulting people.
This is a joke and “the Bruce” is right, this site has lost its credibility, although actually, I think what I’ve exposed here is the true nature that it had all along.
So, don’t bother banning me Zeno, I’m out of here.
Stop insulting people, ‘troll’. Amazing. Surely that is the defining sentiment of this blog.
It will be a real shame if David makes no further contributions. It appears to me that he has come to the end of his tether as a result of the apparent hypocrisy of threatening to ban him, when other ‘pro-zeno’ contributors are guilty of remarkable antagonism and personal hostility.
(See: “…I hope you’ve fully recovered from your breakdown by the way or where you just paralytic…” amongst many others. My contributions are far more glib than Davids so in a way I ask for it).
Zenos threat to ban could be understood and respected if he had applied the rules evenly and from the start but this is a glaring case of double standards – particularly distasteful as this blog is so closely allied with a crusade under the banner of freedom of speech.
Perhaps all contributors are equal but some contributors are more equal than others…
@Jackie W
“the apparent hypocrisy of threatening to ban him, when other ‘pro-zeno’ contributors are guilty of remarkable antagonism and personal hostility.
(See: “…I hope you’ve fully recovered from your breakdown by the way or where you just paralytic…” amongst many others…).”
OK, Jackie W, let’s remind ourselves of your behaviour when you last had a blitz on this blog. On 7 & 8 Jan you posted numerous times – pure invective – under three different user names. You even had a conversation with yourself using two different names! (Hint: It’s a good idea, if you’re going to pretend to be someone else, to use a different email address and post from a different IP address.)
This is how you started:
Jackie W 2010/01/07 at 1:03pm “I am a young medical doctor …”
And here are just a few of the constructive and charming comments lifted from your responses to Zeno’s blogposts:
“you are happily making a fool of yourself trying to discredit a professional body”
“you are not doing this for personal reason, but rather to help/support someone (friend?) who is a lunatic scientist author”
“I would like to wholeheartedly congratulate all your supporters; you have won the medal of (dis) honour with your courageous and productive acts. Surely, the majority of ‘non’ graduated British people are proud of you.”
“Do you actually have a job? or you just kill time by writing nonsense?”
“it seems that there are more educated guests here (David) rather than just lunatics fighting very hard to prove themselves to themselves.”
“I find it extremely funny that there some jobless people out there who choose to keep themselves occupied by claiming to care about the public”
“GET A JOB INSTEAD.”
“I assume that by ‘wanting to help the public’ you mean they should listen you you, invisible God, rather than a Governmental Body. I should have brought a dictionary for xmas and read again the definition of ‘ignorant arrogance’.”
“recently I realized how many loser and unqualified people out there are using the net to gain popularity and happily make a fool of themselves.”
At the time I believed you were either very drunk or going through some kind of personal crisis so I didn’t respond but now I see you are back and are still every bit as nasty (not just “glib”, Jackie, you are nasty – thoroughly nasty). Take your first post on this thread:
Jackie W: Thursday 18 March 2010 at 20:48
“Fair play to you for toughing it out David – a chiro barnacle fighting your corner admirably. Best of luck to you – but I fear you may be a kanute in the face of an self appointed & self important tide.”
Even when you express your sycophantic support for David, you do it by being abusive towards us. In a nutshell, Jackie W, you have come to this blog on several occasions for no reason other than to make nasty personal attacks on Zeno (David has done the same) and you wonder why you have attracted antagonism and hostility?
What a credit you are to the…um medical profession.
You guys crease me up!
Your ‘profession’ is being torn apart and facing a major crisis and all you can complain about is a few insults and how zeno isn’t playing the game on his blog? Unbelievable. Your lack of self-awareness is typical of many other quacks I’ve had the misfortune to come across.
The GCC’s report – regardless of the critical examination of it that is starting to show it to be flawed and biased in many areas – has laid out the evidence (or lack of it) for many of the claims made by chiros. There is zero evidence for anything not mentioned, yet these are many of the things zeno complained about. What about the ‘inconclusive’ conditions (and I see Bronfort is pretty familiar with that small sweet red fruit)? Do you think they will stand up to the ASA’s scrutiny? (And I love zeno’s observation about a so-called health profession being regulated by an advertising body paid for out of marketing budgets!)
So many serious questions, the answer to which could decimate your industry and radically change the way any remaining chiros work and yet you come on here insulting zeno and skepticat.
But the really big question is why haven’t you addressed these issues before now? Has it come as a complete surprise to you lot that that there’s not a jot of evidence for (as zeno has highlighted):-
“sleeping and feeding problems, prolonged crying as well as no RCTs for ADHD, irritable bowel syndrome, tinnitus, dyslexia, eczema, , hyperactivity, ‘wellness’, catarrh and sinus problems, reflux, chronic fatigue, stroke, multiple sclerosis, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, digestive disorders, constipation, etc, etc, etc.”
There is nothing new in the GCC’s report – it’s just gathered the evidence together into one place in a handy, easy-to-use reference for you. Did they forget to tell you about the lack of evidence at chiro college? Don’t you read reviews from Cochrane and other independent organisations? Didn’t they mention the ASA and their adjudications?
Once you’ve got over the current mess, whosoever are left, are you going to solve the problem at its source and make sure all chiros are properly trained in what they can and cannot help with?
Or are you just going to change your websites and adverts to comply but carry on misleading your customers regardless?
After seeing the behaviour of chiros here and elsewhere, I know which I’m betting on.
Good points, IainD, particularly the one you raise about chiropractors not having addressed the issues before now. I suspect that the reason is because most chiropractors in the UK work in private practice and concerning themselves with robust evidence would have a detrimental effect on their incomes. Even their regulatory body, the GCC, has seemed happy to excuse them from having to ensure that their interventions are supported by good evidence. For example, here’s what it said in a letter it sent to the group Action for Victims of Chiropractic (AVC) in 2004:
Quote
“No health profession limits its approach to treatment for which there is evidence, because for most interventions in healthcare there simply is not yet good evidence.”
http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/victims/news.html
No doubt the above was the reason why it was happy to declare in a November 2006 letter to the AVC group that:
Quote
“Adjustment of the atlas, craniosacral therapy and applied kinesiology fall within the […] definition of evidence-based care.”
http://jdc325.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/gcc-ak.pdf
(All the letters that the GCC sent to AVC can be read on the AVC news page link above.)
With regard to the Bronfort review having carried out no new trials, in a previous comment I made on this post I wondered if patients could demand to be refunded up nine years retrospectively (since the date that statutory regulation came into force) for having been administered bogus treatments. I am now also very interested in how chiropractors will go about resolving the following very real problem:
Quote
“I wonder how an individual chiropractor can/will handle the new ‘guidance’ when dealing with an existing patient who’s being ‘treated’ for one of the ‘outlawed’ problems? “I’m sorry sir but there’s no evidence that chiropractic can do anything for that problem you’ve been paying me to treat for the past year.””
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5733075&postcount=1265
Go nail those who need nailed, but leave the debate open and stop acting like petulent children. But I suppose it’s better than bigotry.
Get back on the road, and off the political agenda. This is not scepticism this is verging on discrimination. Open the debate up to all manual therapists bring them all to task, sadly, David is right. Having read some of the posts I can understand both sides, although ‘troll’ and ‘ rant and rave’ seems to suggest more than one set of rules. But maybe this sight is becoming a springboard for Zeno, ego although I would be disappointed if it was the case, is a wonderful thing.
This is a meant to be a skeptics site but it is currently falling far short of the mark.