Just found out that the GCC, after taking legal advice, cannot go ahead with your complaints. Any conditions which they were promoting/endorsing at the time of your omnibus complaint prohibits them from disciplining those chiros that were simply following their example.

They can,however, press ahead with other claims made on websites which they themselves heroically unearthed, rigorously protecting the general public.

David, BW’s post was not a distraction – you and your patients are capable of being deceived by experience. In the 1960′s surgeons were convinced that it did good to graft a stomach artery to the cardiac arteries. You could be sued for not recommending the operation. It took an RCT (of open heart surgery!) to show they were mistaken.

Stefaan said “they rightly pointed out the obvious to a profession that was too blind to see it” – very true. Zeno’s comment,Wednesday 30 June 2010 at 13:01, reminds us that he got here from the ASA rules – he’s made ASA complaints about many other things.

“what do you think chiropractic theory is” is irrelevant – whatever Chiropractors do, they are required to hold solid evidence for it before they advertise it as a treatment for anything. The GCC investigating comittee seems to have missed this point.

I don’t think Zeno has achieved his first point, which was that Chirporactors were flouting the ASA rules (witness the several rulings against them), but the GCC was not enforcing thir CoP that required following the ASA rules in all communications. The investigating comittee, by saying there is no case to answer for people who have made non-evidence backed website claims, has declared that breaches of the CoP need not result in an Professional Conduct Committee case.

Of course the ASA says you can’t advertise these treatments (at all, since to advertise treatment is to imply effectiveness according to the ASA) until you have formally gathered such evidence, and the GCC says you can’t publicise the treatments until then.

TBH, I’m not sure what to make of it. I appreciate it’s a draft but it seems complicated and I’m not sure it’s clear what it is you are trying to prove. What’s your null hypothesis?

We will have to agree to disagree.

That is not true. I introduce factual and accurate information (which I suspect chiropractors would prefer to have suppressed) which I feel is relevant and in context, and might be appreciated by un-enlightened readers.

“David wrote: “What explanation can you come up with for the fact that these people don’t just refer me patients, they come to me as patients as well?”

Unless they’re attending for the short-lived relief of acute low back pain, I would suggest that either their critical thinking faculties aren’t as sharp as they could be, or that (for their own reasons) they have time and money to waste on a theatrical placebo.”

Like I said, you’re clutching at straws.

I can’t believe you really need it spelling out for you, but I’ll try.

Blue Wode’s habit is to take a small part of whatever post s/he’s commenting on and reply with some tenuously linked quote which is largely irrelevant to the topic and generally offers only opinion rather than fact.

S/he simply uses every post as an opportunity to introduce another strand of anti-chiropractic propaganda rather than actually engaging in debate on the current topic.