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”
And yet more empty invective from the Bruce, who can’t seem to keep away from this blog he disdains so much….
@ Skepticat – Really – bless you..!
Help – I am being defamed..! Until this thread, I haven’t made any comments on this or any other site since late last year. I can’t tell you the exact time but it was around about the time my partner ( & my business partner ) gave me an ultimatum to ‘stop blogging’..!
You have stepped off into thin air on this one and are making an accusation for which you can have absolutely no evidence. That is what you interested in right – quoting evidence?
The quotes you have used have nothing to do with me. I have no idea how one would check such a thing but I’m sure there must be a way. Maybe Zeno can check IP addresses or something. I really don’t know. If you can Zeno, (and you can be bothered) please do.
I am strangely flattered that you think I would have come up with pseudonyms or have conversations with myself – I just don’t take this as seriously as all that. I have only ever appeared as myself, and your paranoid accusation is entirely wrong. I am happy to contribute as I am and apologise if you find my support of ‘David’ on this thread nasty. I will give as good as I get & don’t mind a bit of spice in the discourse but believe that over personalisation is not helpful.
I am not intending this post as an opportunity for a (skepti)cat-fight. Having to defend myself against this random accusation is way off the point of this type of forum & I’d rather see this blog to return to some semblance of respectability and at least attempting to be a place for proper debate.
This has been a fascinating in this thread in which the host has moved to ban someone whilst arguing for a free speech, and that a regular champion for the rigorous application of evidence is making accusations with no evidence.
Is ‘Zenos blog’ imploding..?!
@ Artemis
I’m glad you managed to pluck up the courage to contribute positively to the debate.
Oh for pity’s sake, Jackie! I wouldn’t accuse you of pretending to be someone else, were it not for the fact that all of the posts were posted from the same IP address, using the same email address that you always use!
I understand you must be mortified and that’s why you are making a big show of denying it but you are not doing yourself any favours.
Most of the comments I quoted were under your usual name anyway.
Here are the links:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/05/ok-so-how-many-chiroquacktors-claim-to-treat-colic/
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/12/washing-dirty-linen-in-public/
Jackie
Just in case it is not clear, the IP address and email address of all commenters is automatically recorded. The IP address identifies the particular PC used to send the comment. As Skepticat has pointed out, all these comments came from the same PC and used your email address. If someone else was pushing the keys, then that’s something you have to sort out.
Skepticat.
I think if you read my oust you you would see I do not hold this site in disdain, I am saddened, as I have said before, that it has moved from the skeptic cause into one of bigotry and discrimination with an obvious political agenda. I there felt it appropriate to support David as an individual who was voicing the opinion if the other side as it were.
If you want a blog full of nodding dogs or feel it appropriate to discount other opinions rather than your own, don’t have a forum, have a soap box….but at least be honest about it.
Arguments and debates need both sides put into the pot otherwise it becomes what sadly this site has become. I post because I am sad that what WAS a good sceptic site has changed.
Well well..! The plot thickens. I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention – that is indeed something I will have to sort out & apologise for any confusion that may have arisen.
I was away from the UK for 6 weeks from the end of December – hence my certainty that I have not spoken out of turn. As I said, I didn’t have anything to do with this site from pre xmas until this thread. I work in a multi-disciplinary practice and several other people will have had access to my computer whilst I was away so I will investigate further but I absolutely distance myself from any comments made by anyone from this IP or under my email address while I was away.
Going forward, I will continue to post with my email address & if some distant geek has hijacked my address as well spannering my reputation it will soon become clear.
The Real JW
While the rest are calling each other name here are a few ideas that are not far removed from old school chiropractic philosophy that are still going on in osteopathy today. The” osteopathic lesion” sounds much like subluxation to me.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/osteopathic+lesion
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/osteopathic+lesion
This institution seems to have an interesting take on RCTs
http://www.british-institute-of-osteopathy.org/traditional/Default.aspx
This goes to show how vexatious this attack on the chiropractors really is and begs the question why was osteopathy never mentioned in Singh’s article in the guardian,why did he choose to single out the chiropractors?
Is there a link between Singh, Ernst and the osteopaths (or is too much of a conspiracy theory idea)?
They seem to have distanced themselves and kept very quiet in this debacle. One would think that they (the osteopaths) too would have much to fight for when you consider the claims that they make on their websites. If the respective councils and associations do not take on these issue together then this could result in an end to all advertising by manual therapists, including physiotherapists, especially the manipulative physio’s (who also use the same evidence base for musculo-skeletal complaints).
Yes, I think that the whole manual therapy thing needs to be looked at as a whole. Sadly, this us the problem that I have with the current approach of the site, it is targeting only one slice if the pie, for obvious political reasons. This is not scepticism it is simple bigotry. A sad sate of affairs for zenosblog.
I started on chiropractic and I’ll see it through, but, as I’ve said before, there are only so many hours in the day, so other forms of quackery will have to wait a while.
Unless you want to tackle them, that is?
Interested in the truth wrote: “…why was osteopathy never mentioned in Singh’s article in the Guardian, why did he choose to single out the chiropractors?”
If you read the original article, he singled out chiropractors because he was writing specifically about Chiropractic Awareness Week:
http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html
Interested in the truth wrote: “Is there a link between Singh, Ernst and the osteopaths (or is too much of a conspiracy theory idea)?”
Well, as I have already said in the comments above, I suspect that osteopathy will be put under the microscope next. It’s certainly been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny in this ongoing thread (which has had more than 70,000 views) over on the UK Skeptics forum:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread.php/2452-Osteopaths-on-the-loose...
And I know that some skeptics are currently collecting data on UK osteopathic practices with a view to investigating them some time in the future.
@the Bruce
>”Sadly, this us the problem that I have with the current approach of the site, it is targeting only one slice if the pie, for obvious political reasons. This is not scepticism it is simple bigotry. A sad sate of affairs for zenosblog.<"
So if you are keen to target other "slices of the pie", what is stopping you?
I'm sorry, Bruce, but you seem to expect one sceptic blogger to do everything at once all at one and you call him a 'bigot' because he doesn't? That's hardly reasonable and I could say something about a pot and a kettle here.
@Jackie W
You seem to think we were all born yesterday. I would have known all those posts were yours just from reading them. They have the same tone, same phrasing and same style. You’re on a hiding to nothing on this one, dear, so why not give up gracefully?
Hi Zeno, I appreciate the time factor, I also appreciate the mantle you have chosen and if the current posts relating to the chiropractics accurately reflect your perception of this singular role, you have worn it with both gusto and glee.
I feel therefore that you are probably an individual who likes to finish what they have started, and as you are only a third of the way there, chiropractice being only a part of the pie, I feel that the limelight, pleasure and success should not be taken from you.
I will await a more broadbased approach to the whole, which should have occurred in the first instance if credibility was to be maintained, as soon as you feel it appropriate. I hope it is soon as I feel that the reputation of your site as one flying the flag of scepticism, is suffering.
the Bruce
Sorry? I should have attacked everything all at one and because I didn’t, my credibility and reputation are suffering?
As you say, I’ll choose what to do and when to do it, but it doesn’t need to be left all to me now does it?
@ Blue Wode
Interesting, thanks for the link. But, still it does not explain why Ernst has always been so vocal about chiropractic and yet the osteopath (a far larger group in the UK) who are doing much the same work as chiropractors seem to get little mention. This is consitant with regards the content of the book that he wrote with Singh.
The fact that Singh coordinated the article with Chiropractic Awareness Week shows the malicious intent and publicity seeking nature of the individual (he was publisising his book). As had his sincere intent been about public health then he would have been talking about all the manipulative therapists,including osteopaths and physiotherapists.
@ the Bruce
I have read your posts – all of them – and in every single one, you make untrue disparaging comments. That is how I know your opinion of this site and where you are coming from.
You have two themes: One is that Zeno (aka ‘this site’) has lost credibility, isn’t really a skeptic, has a political agenda and is, in fact, a bigot.
What on earth did Zeno do to deserve such derision?
Why, he focused on chiroquacks instead of giving equal time to other related quackeries!
Can you not spot an eensy weensy flaw in your argument there, Bruce? Being too busy to do everything at once doesn’t make one a bigot.
In any event, far from ‘losing credibility’, this blog never had any credibility with quacks and that is why it has always attracted snide and bitter comments from them. On the other hand, it has in the ten months it’s been going become one of the most avidly followed blogs in the UK skeptics movement. Somehow I think Zeno can live with the idea of losing credibility in your eyes, especially since it obviously didn’t have any in the first place.
Your other theme is the equally ridiculous assertion that Zeno “does not allow a space for reasonable debate anymore.”
And you base this on…what exactly? There are nearly a thousand comments on this blog and several hundred of those are from Zeno’s opponents. What has changed? Has he started moderating comments? Deleting ones he doesn’t like? No. All he has done is issue one warning to one exceptionally rude poster.
If you want a blog full of nodding dogs or feel it appropriate to discount other opinions rather than your own, don’t have a forum, have a soap box….but at least be honest about it.
I’m beginning to think you are confusing this blog with some other website you have visited. This is one individual’s blog and – yes – like every other blog, it is a soapbox. It is not and never has been a forum – nor is it intended to be and allowing people to post responses to his articles doesn’t make it a forum. If you want a forum, come to this one:
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3
Bruce, you are fooling nobody. Just like a couple of other people on this thread, you haven’t come here to contribute anything useful; you came here to have a go at Zeno. Well, you’ve had a go. And now you can have the snide and bitter last word.
@ Interested in the truth
I don’t agree that Simon Singh showed malicious intent with the timing of his article. I think he provided a valuable public service in that he potentially helped many people to make better informed choices about their health care. As for Edzard Ernst being “so vocal” about chiropractic, I think the reason for that is quite obvious. Indeed, Simon Singh more or less explained it in this paragraph of his original article:
Quote
“But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.”
http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html
Edzard Ernst recently expanded on the unfavourable risk/benefit profile for chiropractic spinal manipulation in his recent criticism of the new NICE guidelines for low back pain (which included spinal manipulation as a recommendation):
Quote
“The risk of mild to moderate adverse effects is undisputed even by chiropractors: about 50% (!) of all patients suffer from such adverse effect after spinal manipulations. These effects (mostly local or referred pain) are usually gone after 1-2 days but, considering the very moderate benefit, they might already be enough to tilt the risk-benefit balance in the wrong direction.
In addition, several hundred (I estimate 700) cases are on record of dramatic complications after spinal manipulation. Most frequently they are because of vertebral arterial dissection. Considering these adverse events, the risk-benefit balance would almost certainly fail to be positive. It is true, however, that the evidence as to a causal relationship is not entirely uniform. Yet applying the cautionary principle, one ought to err on the safe side and view these complications at least as possibly caused by spinal manipulations.
So why were these risks not considered more seriously? The guideline gives the following reason: “The review focused on evidence relevant to the treatment of low back pain, hence cervical manipulation was outside our inclusion criteria”. It is true that serious complications occur mostly (not exclusively) after upper spinal manipulation. So the guideline authors felt that they could be excluded. This assumes that a patient with lower back pain will not receive manipulations of the upper spine. This is clearly not always the case.
Chiropractors view the spine as an entity. Where they diagnose ‘subluxations’, they will normally manipulate and ‘adjust’ them. And ‘subluxations’ will be diagnosed in the upper spine, even if the patient suffers from back pain. Thus many, if not most back pain patients receive upper spinal manipulations. It follows that the risks of this treatment should be included in any adequate risk assessment of spinal manipulation for back pain.”
Link: http://tinyurl.com/yfh4n5s
[Ref: Ernst, E. Spinal manipulation for the early management of persistent non-specific low back pain ? a critique of the recent NICE guidelines. Int J Clin Prac, Vol 63, No10, Oct 2009, pp.1419-1420]
It all makes sense to me.
@ Blue Wode
Well, we will have to disagree on Singh’s motive, but as he has not mentioned any other manipualtive therapists I am sticking to my interpretation.
And, again when they discuss the risk of cervical manipulation it is only as conducted by chiropractors. There was no mention of the risks of cervical manipulation performed by osteopaths or physiotherapists.
Ernst: “1 in 700″ is “his estimate”, not exactly based on any hard (as he likes to see)science behind that comment.
Yet when the profession conducts a study (Bolton and Thiel) it gets ridiculed as it is biased because it is conducted by chiropractors.
Well, who is going to conduct it. We haven’t seen Ernst conduct any trials into any manipulative therapies, yet he denegrades everyone elses studies with very colourful language in the media as did Singh on their quest of self promotion. Then he wonders why he does not have support or funding.
Further to this he claims/implies to have been trained as a chiropractor (or was it Singh who claimed he had been trained?). Evidence of this would be interesting!
Anyway, back to the point that it is going to be interesting to see what is or is not advertised on ALL websites when the ASA start to regulate them.
P.S. what will happen if Zeno’s complaints go through and the cost of the procedure results in the GCC folding? You will end up with 2500 unregulated quack waddling the streets doing what they want. Now there’s a good idea, that must be a great service to the public. One of sincere concern for public health!
Skepticat
yip you have me, I came on board to have a go at Zeno. Please, it is his site of course I did but not in the manner you are alluding too. He claims, and in all fairness it was in the past, to be a skeptic site. It then became a unilateral assault on one group, and in itself that may be seen by some to be ok, however when there are other groups out there with not dissimiler claims then it seems bigoted and biased.
To then remove an individual who was trying to fight their corner, and to my mind in just as am offensive manner as your good self, then that, amongst the current direction of the site shows bigotry, discrimination and political motive.
I have been asked why I have not taken up the cause to bring the other groups to task, the answer is simple: Zeno has already written a programme and has a system in place. The fact that he chooses only to go after one group when a ‘shitgun’ approach which covers all of those who makes these claims initially seemed strange. However, to those of us who have never posted, I am sure that at least to some, Zeno is using ‘skeoticism’ for his own political ends.
Personally, I feel that ge has lost his way and should intact fonish what he has started and fir that reason I supported David. Maybe he is unwilling to take on a larger or possibly more organised group, such as physiotherapy or osteopathy who all, to one degree or another, have the same claims in their advertising.
I am hoping that he will get back to first principles of skepticism, eg seeking the truth for truths sake, not for a personal agenda based on politics.
So yes, I am critical, and whether I post or not, people like me will remain so. It is like selling the Grail to gain office…..and if the news is anything to go by, we have enough political shinanigans going on without it affecting, what was one a good site.
Sorry if my opinions don’t fit your own… but isn’t that the nature if scepticism.
the Bruce said: “To then remove an individual who was trying to fight their corner”
Eh? Who removed which individual? How did you manage to make that one up?
“Zeno has already written a programme and has a system in place.”
You clearly know little about websites.
“The fact that he chooses only to go after one group when a ’shitgun’ approach which covers all of those who makes these claims initially seemed strange”
I thought we sorted that nonsense out ages ago? Go away and have a really good think about what is actually involved. Familiarise yourself with the websites of whoever you think needs investigating. Read and understand any regulation documents. Read and understand their code of practice or whatever. Work out what they can and cannot claim. Work out what their complaints process is. Capture the websites URLs (if available). Go look at the pages of those websites. Look for claims you don’t think can be substantiated. Note the names, address and claims. Pull them all together. Go do some research on what has a robust evidence base (or whatever their CoP requires). Work out the best way to make your complaint. Then send in your complaint.
That is just the outline.
“I am sure that at least to some, Zeno is using ’skeoticism’ for his own political ends.”
LOL! And what ‘political ends’ would that be?
Zeno also succesfully complained to the ASA about Kerala Ayurvedic Health Clinic. http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/07/another-asa-win-against-quackery/
Since his omnibus complaint He’s also blogged about ASA rulings on other quackery. E.g. http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/08/when-only-the-best-will-do/
My impression was that one of the triggers for Zeno’s bulk complaint was observing that the ASA had ruled against Chiropractic advertising of treatments for Asthma, Colic, etc. on the basis of lack of evidence.
Personally I disagree with Zeno a little on on tactics, but since he has acted and I haven’t (and can’t being non-UK) it’s a pretty empty disagreement. I feel it would have been better to restrict the omnibus complaint to claims that had already been explicitly ruled against by the ASA, which would make the GCC have to either uphold the claims or dispute the ASA’s guidance that the GCC code requires be upheld. I can see that almost all the claims Zeno complained about fail the evidence/substantiation of claims rules required by the ASA, and so an honest and impartial GCC would uphold the complaints. I am impressed that Zeno got past the brush off the GCC gave Simon Perry, telling him they wouldn’t look at complaints about shared websites, only about individual chiropractors.
The Osteopath rules are less explicit and clear:
This reference to the BCAP only applies to “advertising”, leaving websites in loophole territory. I’d suggest complaints to the ASA first, followed by complaints to the General Osteopathic Council once the ASA has given some clear rulings. Even if the ASA’s remit is extended to websites, the General Osteopathic Council may take the option of refusing complaints about websites as not “advertising”.
Am I talking to a brick wall?
You keep harking back to some non-existent past in this blog’s life, Bruce. It is apparently too much to expect you to do the courtesy of reading my posts properly before coming back and spouting the same old nonsense. As I said before, the vast majority of posts on this blog are about chiropractors. There has been no change in the character of posts or in their main focus since the blog got going ten months ago. Why do you keep repeating something that is demonstrably false? Just go back to the beginning and read the whole damn blog if you don’t believe me.
I see you are sticking to your “argument” that Zeno is a bigot. Let’s have a look it again:
P1. There are various groups making ‘not dissimilar claims’.
P2. Zeno decided to focus on the group that was making the most noise promoting themselves and trying shut critics up, rather than the ones staying under the radar.
C. Therefore Zeno is a bigot.
Hmmm….you might consider signing up for a logic class if you can fit it in between trolling people’s blogs.
To then remove an individual who was trying to fight their corner, and to my mind in just as am offensive manner as your good self, then that, amongst the current direction of the site shows bigotry, discrimination and political motive.
As nobody has been removed and as I pointed out in my last post that nobody has been removed and as Zeno has again now pointed out that nobody has removed, I’m sure you will be big enough to withdraw that remark and apologise for your error.
Now off you go and do your bit for skepticism instead of hanging round flinging gratuitous abuse at Zeno because in your all-important opinion, he doesn’t do enough.
Interested in the truth wrote: “Well, we will have to disagree on Singh’s motive, but as he has not mentioned any other manipualtive therapists I am sticking to my interpretation. And, again when they discuss the risk of cervical manipulation it is only as conducted by chiropractors. There was no mention of the risks of cervical manipulation performed by osteopaths or physiotherapists.”
I would suggest that you read my previous post again. Simon Singh mentions physiotherapists, but the reasons for not singling them out are explained in the subsequent quote by Edzard Ernst – i.e. chiropractors are, apparently, not as judicious as physiotherapists, and others, in their application of manipulative interventions due to their ongoing belief in ‘subluxations’.
Interested in the truth wrote: “Ernst: “1 in 700″ is “his estimate”, not exactly based on any hard (as he likes to see) science behind that comment.”
As Edzard Ernst explained in the quote, he was applying the cautionary principle in the interests of patient safety. Why don’t you? Isn’t erring on the side of caution good, scientific medicine? (Especially when there are equally effective, safer, cheaper, and more convenient options available in the case of spinal manipulation.)
Interested in the truth wrote: “Yet when the profession conducts a study (Bolton and Thiel) it gets ridiculed as it is biased because it is conducted by chiropractors.”
To my knowledge, the Bolton and Thiel study has never been “ridiculed”. It has, however, been heavily criticised, and not without justification. Here’s what Edzard Ernst had to say about it in 2008:
Quote
“The sample of this survey was sizeable but not large enough to exclude rare events…
The picture gets more complicated when considering the 698 treatment consultations of patients who failed to return for their next treatment. Theoretically some or most or all of these patients could have died of a stroke. Overlooking even one single serious adverse event would change the estimated incidence rates from this study quite dramatically.
In my view, the most confusing aspect about the results of this survey is the fact that the incidence of minor adverse events is so low. Previous studies have repeatedly shown it to be around 50%. The discrepancy requires an explanation. There could be several but mine goes as follows: the participating chiropractors were highly self-selected. Thus they were sufficiently experienced to select low-risk patients (in violation of the protocol).
This explains the low rate of minor adverse events and begs the question whether the incidence of serious adverse events is reliable.”
Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC. Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey. Spine 2007; 32: 2375–8.
http://beta.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1301a07g04r01.htm
It’s also interesting to note that in response to Ernst’s remarks (also published in the above link) Bolton and Thiel claimed that in the UK alone there were an estimated *four* million manipulations of the neck carried out by chiropractors each year. Yet, six months earlier, in October 2007, in a letter to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, they claimed that the figure was “estimated to be well over *two* million cervical spine manipulations”:
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330
How that estimate could double in under 6 months is anyone’s guess, but it leaves them open to accusations that they may be trying to play down the risks.
Interested in the truth wrote: “Further to this he claims/implies to have been trained as a chiropractor (or was it Singh who claimed he had been trained?). Evidence of this would be interesting!”
Professor Ernst was the Head of the Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine in the University of Vienna’s Medical Faculty. As a consequence, not only is he very familiar with physical therapies, he has also been trained in spinal manipulation and has applied it clinically. See the end of his Systematic review of Case reports of Serious Adverse Events Following Manipulation of the Cervical Spine (1995–2001) here:
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_08_150402/ern10520_fm.html
As for your concern that if Zeno’s complaints go through, and that the cost of the procedure results in the GCC folding, there will be “2500 unregulated quacks waddling the streets doing what they want”, I would venture that that is not too far removed from the current situation regarding chiropractic practices in the UK. IMO, the current regulatory system needs to be overhauled and tightened up as a matter of urgency.
Ok, if Zeno is your partner, I am impressed by your vociferous defence. However, I will reiterate, I came into this for two simple reasons….. David was being banned from the site for breaking the rules. Has this changed if not he has been removed or pushed out….so back to filling the site with nodding dogs.
Secondly by specifically going after one group and after 10-11 months this really has not changed, while leaving the others alone is discrimatory and bigotry against one entity.
WIth regards my understanding of websites, I agree that is not my forte, what I do understand is facts. A programme written for one group surely can be tweeked to gather information on another, at least that us what my IT friends tell me. So why not get on with it, if the cause is to stop all the woo that is out there by curtailing the claims of all who make them. I presume that would be seen to be reasonable and fair.
With regards your personal comments to me skepticat, I thank you for your advice, some of it helpful, some of it not but always making me smile.
If the site has never had credibility, surely this is an opinion and we all, it would seem have them. Re political motive, good grief it is this site’s support of Simon against the chiropractics and the legal case that seems to be ongoing. But by doing that, as the mainstay of the site, Zeno has enjoyed his name being bandied about as a bastion for skepticism along with Simons. No problem with that, but at least be honest that the attack, which has been explained on this site, is for that reason and thus the others have been left alone.
I once again reiterate that for whatever reason, if physiotherapists and osteopaths are making similer claims, and if it is all got to do with EBM / public interest and not politics why has there not been a spreading of these complaints. It is simple…..politics and bigotry.
I hope you have a nice day skepticat, for me at least this is not personal and is simply a debate relating to fairness and skepticism.
Thank you Blue Wode for that informative post.
When I return to this thread I expect to see some progress in the discussion, not the same old falsehoods being repeated even though they have been soundly refuted.
Going on and on and on like a creature possessed about how Zeno is this or that because he’s not doing what Bruce isn’t prepared to do himself, surely means Bruce qualifies as an offical troll. Shouldn’t he be awarded with a badge or something?
A badge for being a troll, my goodness how nice, a great deal of thought must have gone I to that, but seriously pretty petty stuff. When David made comments based on the passion he brought to the debate, he was denounced, threatened with exclusion and pushed away. Please get serious, if you want nodding dogs, replace the heading on your site to show Churchill…..’ Oh yes ‘
A great big thanks to ‘the Bruce’ and ‘Interested in the truth’ for all the comedy here! Classic examples of how to utterly fail to win an argument. Repetition and continually droning on long after you’ve been shown up for what you are – completely incapable of holding any kind of a rational discussion.
Interested in the truth? Now that’s a misnomer if ever there was.
Zeno and Skepticat must be laughing their arses off at your antics. I know I am. Keep it up lads.
I don’t want nodding dogs, I want to see intelligent constructive discussion – something you appear to be quite incapable of on the evidence I have seen thus far.
I have learned a great deal from this blog both from Zeno’s articles and from the fantastic *properly supported* contributions made by Blue Wode and others.
David’s appears to be someone who doesn’t know how to argue. His contributions – apart from being marred by gratuitous personalised sniping at others – were unsupportable and were easily demolished, but instead of acknowledging this and moving on, he would just repeat the same old rubbish again. He repeatedly called Zeno a sycophant for no good reason and when Skepticat objected he became abusive towards her as well. He refused to engage with Skepticat’s well-observed comments, and accused her of “suffering from an affliction”. That is by far the worst insult I’ve seen on this blog. Yet all he got was a warning that he would be banned if he continued behaving like that. To any reasonable person that is a reasonable response from site owner but he wasn’t even man enough to admit he’d done anything wrong. He wasn’t pushed, he flounced out like the prima donna he is.
Your passionate defence of his right to post vicious insults is revealing, as is the sheer paucity of your own contributions. Apart from repeatedly attacking Zeno for reasons that don’t even exist except in your imagination, you haven’t actually said anything, Bruce.
So you are about as much use as a nodding dog yourself.
@IainD
I wish I’d seen your post before posting my last one. You said it all so much more concisely than I did.
I will keep attempting to have us all laughing, humour is good keeps the world going round. I do hope however that they are ‘laughing their arses off’, bring them a little closer to the ground
No wonder this site is going downhill, how can you think with all that baaaing.
Still, I can see that opinions such as mine are blotting your projection that all sceptics think the same as you guys and are all on side. Well in some cases I am but without going over old ground, in this particular scenario, I don’t.
EBM is a positive thing to aim for, for all coluts of healthcare….. This current discrimination is cowardly and just bandwagon jumping. Sadly, the insults are having very little effect, as I appreciate there are many opinions out there, expressed on many different ways.
the Bruce
LOL!
Can you stop for a second and try to think about exactly what discrimination you’re talking about? It’s been pointed out many times that Zeno not taking on all the quacks at one cannot by any stretch of the imagination of even the most fevered quack be considered discrimination. Why don’t you address that properly? Can you?
As for bringing the site down, you guys are showing everyone the pathetic way that quacks try to argue their corner. You’re doing a great job. Keep it up.
A great job, voicing an opinion, well I hope so. Discrimination, well an attack on one specific group while ignoring others within the same group, who seem to have the same claims. I would think that choosing the target based on a political agenda would be discrimination.
That is my opinion, but I do find the responses very interesting, like poking a hive with a stick….the drones attack to protect the queen. I am not saying that some of zenosblog posts have not been interesting, in fact I have said the opposite. I just feel that he is cherry picking his targets based on current political events.
No one asked him to take on the chiropratitioners, to make all the complaints, to mobilise the troops to contact the ASA and Trading Standards, but he did and I can here the applause or us that back slapping? But by virtue of the fact that he has failed/ refused/ chosen not to be inclusive in his attacks would suggest ulterior motives, and based on the current responses, a lack of acceptance of the truth. To decide that David should go, was a little petty, but then so have some of these responses.
At the end of the day, you don’t want debate, you want to criticise and critique but hate criticism of one of your own.
Sadly the site wants it’s many silent readers to believe that we are all walking the same path, in some cases yes, but in others, such as my comments would imply…no.
Onr would hope that after the announcment relating to Simons case a broader approach to this matter may take place…… I will let you get back to looking after the hive.
I would like to apologise for my comments but unfortunately cannot fond it in me to change my opinion based on what I see before me. Skepticism is not this, in my humble opinion it really is bigotry….
You are comedy gold!
Your rambling, repetitive comments still fail to address the point – but I’m sure even you are well aware of that.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for those kind words, I will lol.
Scepticism or fascism
I have just been removed from your wife’s blog ‘skeptikat’ because I suggested that your actions against only the chiropractors rather than all who made the same claims was bigoted and discrimatory with a political agenda rather than a sceptical one.
As this will probably be my last post as I appreciate that you and your wife act as judge, jury and executioner, unless the posts tow the party line, by removing posters ability to post. It would also seem that you, your wife and your innerr circle can be as offensive as you chose but god forbid your actions, or your wife’s choice words be called into question.
I will ask two simple questions.
Based on your actions against the chiropractors, why should I not consider your actions to be bigoted and politically motivated.
When, for the benefit of the public, as your heading jokingly implies, will you be attacking the osteopaths etc with the same fervour, glee and criticism who are making the same claims as the other group.
With regards your accusations that I am a chiropractor, because only a chiropractor would ever be foolhardy enough to question the motives and agenda of the self perceived ‘unattackable’. Please be aware that lack of acceptance or confirmation of an accusation does not make it right. Also I only started posting in defence of Davids right to fight his corner when you threatened to remove him, and in fact chased him away for his opinions, because they disagree with yours. I appreciate that you suggested he was offencive, well read some of the other comments, some a bit closer to home.
You and your good lady really need to get out more. Fair and reasonable is acceptable autocracy with regards opinion is neither acceptable not scepticism.
Have a nice day, and if you guys ever feel pain by over indulging on your back slapping I am sure one of those osteopaths ior chiropractors would love to offer their advice and assistance. Lol
the Bruce said: “Based on your actions against the chiropractors, why should I not consider your actions to be bigoted and politically motivated.”
You’ve now said this 15 times and it has already been answered in detail. If you don’t remember it, please re-read what has been said to you. If you didn’t understand it, then I can’t help you any further.
Yip, don’t feel question has been answered, when are the other groups being targeted , if at all?
That’s all well and good Zeno but c’mon, you are “bigoted and politically motivated” aren’t you? Really? After all, if you were serious you would have cast a net so wide that it would have been equally ineffective against all quacks instead of actually being effective against some of the more prominent ones.
Oh, and can you release the program that does all that fact-checking stuff for you? Open source? GPL? I might take on all the osteopaths but I don’t want to spend more than an hour or so on it. Okay?
LOL AndyD!
the Bruce will take Andy’s post seriously. Just watch….
Lol, good old Zeno. Good grief you must be bruised from all this backslapping, and in the eyes if some , you deserve it. My stance however hasn’t changed.
You have a good day now, you hear. Lol
Actually, having read around this issue, it would seem that you have done the ethical chiropractors, I assume there are some otherwise all sceptics would agree with Zeno, a favour. The Brontfort report that you mentioned above seems to have a level of credibilty within the non-Zeno ‘sceptic’ community. So rather than weakening their profession, you may have just strengthened them. As I understand it, they seem to be well regulated, the response to the complaints has shown that, well educated ( eduacated to MSc standard in health sciences…so it can’t all be woo), and serving a purpose otherwise they wouldn’t exist. If this us the case, and although my opinion once again may not meet with yiur approval lol, then the osteopaths must be in the same boat. Maybe Zeno is cleverer than I gave him credit for and this was what he was after all along. Maybe his attacks were in fact to bring these guys into the mainstream by highlighting their strengths by hitting on thier weaknesses, if so…..clever stuff indeed.
The response to Zeno’s and Simon Perry’s complaints has been pathetic. It’s been 9 months and they still haven’t got past the “Investigating Committee has begun its consideration of the complaints we received from several people about more than 600 chiropractors.”
They have not sent out unambiguous advice of the list of considions that the ASA considers not supported by evidence (including colic, asthma), instead sending out the Bronfort report and leaving it to the chiropractors to decide what, if anything, to do.
They did find time to change the complaint rules to change the standard from ‘case to answer’ to ‘reasonable prospect of success’ in the non-public investigating committee state, while making misleading statements about what they were up to.
If they are ‘protecting the public’ why haven’t they unambiguously told people to take down the blatently false claims?