Spot the difference
The first photo was taken in East Kilbride shopping centre on 16 August 2009. The second was taken this morning.
Spot the difference:
Answer: Today’s advert has the claims for “Children with colic & ear infections” covered up.
The removal of these claims may have been due to the GCC’s recently released Bronfort report, or perhaps they’ve now read the ASA guidance they’re supposed to follow. Who knows.
The claims left are for: “headaches and migraines, neck, back and shoulder pains, sciatica or disc injuries, sports or accident injuries, pins and needles in arms and legs”.
A step in the right direction, but a long way to go yet.
The GCC’s Plethora
Well. The GCC’s ‘independent’ review of the effectiveness of chiropractic has finally been published: Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report (although not yet on the GCC’s website).
Paid for by the GCC (see page 77), this document runs to 113 pages and there is additional commentary by two others, adding a further 13 pages.
It’ll take time to read through and digest fully, but here’s a handy summary of what they did — and didn’t — find evidence for. They have listed conditions in three categories: effective, inconclusive and ineffective. Continue reading
The respectable face of homeopathy?
The dichotomy must tear some homeopaths apart. They eschew conventional medicine — particularly the link to the ruthless and profit-mongering Big Pharma with all their toxic concoctions — yet they crave the respectability, fame and fortune of mainstream medicine. And in their quest, they seem to have no scruples and even mimic their enemies.
But then there’s the problem of homeopathy not being amenable to randomised controlled trials (apparently), yet they keep citing ‘trials’ published in their own comics. That might fool the layman into thinking there is a good evidence base for the efficacy of their sugar potions, but it fools no one who has even a jot of knowledge of science.
Boots the Alternative Chemist
Casting the runes II
In Casting the runes, I highlighted the abject failure of OfQuack to reach even their ever-so-slightly modified 2009 membership target. Remember, it started out at 10,000. Then it was downsized to 4,000 — just five months after they opened for business — by re-writing their press release from the previous December. Then, in September, The Lay Scientist announced that their July Committee meeting minutes said they were planning a celebration in the Autumn when their membership was expected to reach the dizzy heights of just 2,000.
Well, now it’s the last day of 2009, how have they fared? For those following the OfQuack Fail widget, it’ll come as no surprise to find that they have failed — spectacularly.
Recent Comments