Zeno's Blog

No. I’ve not been converted and I’m not urging you all to realise that the future of humanity and an end to all pain, suffering and diseases known to man lies in the chiropractic way.

It’s the name of a chiropractic clinic in Edinburgh. They wanted to spread the word about the benefits of chiropractic and decided to advertise.

Oops! You’d have thought… No. I won’t say it again.

When it comes to supplying the Advertising Standards Authority with evidence that backs up claims you’ve made in an advert, it’s a good idea to make sure it does actually back up the claims you’ve made. Common sense, really. Saves a lot of hassle. And an adverse adjudication. And adverse publicity.

It’s a fallacy of personal incredulity I know, but I’d have thought that Philips Electronics UK Ltd — part of giant Royal Philips Electronics of The Netherlands — would have been circumspect when it came to ensuring they have the appropriate evidence for claims they were making.

The General Chiropractic Council publishes annual Fitness to Practice reports, which contain summaries of all complaints dealt with over the year and useful advice and guidance for chiropractors on topics like:

1. Professional boundaries
2. Abuse of trust or exploitation of lack of knowledge
3. Communication with patients and obtaining consent
4. Record keeping
5. Management and care: initial examination and review of treatment
6. Use of X-rays
7. Local complaints procedure
8. Treatment prescribed by another health professional
9. Protecting patients and colleagues from risk of harm
10. Honesty, integrity and trustworthiness
11. Politeness and consideration towards patients
12. Respecting confidentiality

Some light relief.

Genius! Sheer genius.

And another one, found by Dr Aust: Chiropraktischer Untergang – updated with added Sturm und Drang. See his excellent blog for several more.

Pharmacies are in the news again this week. Not Boots this time, but that other well-known high street chemist, Lloyds Pharmacy.

An ASA adjudication, published today, upheld a complaint against a TV advert about their ‘light therapy device‘.  The advert claimed:

Hay fever seasons [sic] here again.  But heres [sic] something you might not have tried before, the Lloyds Pharmacy hay fever reliever.  Its [sic] been shown to help reduce symptoms like your runny nose and itchy eyes … Just pop it up your nose for a couple of minutes two or three times a day and start making the most of your summer.

Although I wouldn’t be entirely keen on sticking anything up my nose, I don’t suffer from hay fever. However, I do know it can be a miserable condition and anything that might help would be worth a try. But you’d want something for which there was good evidence for efficacy before you splashed out your hard-earned cash, wouldn’t you? And you’d want the seller to be able to provide that good evidence when asked?

Phew! This has been a spectacular week or so for alternative medicine.

Firstly, we had the Landmark ASA ruling on asthma and colic. Then we have the spectacle of some of its major proponents being tortured and exposed before the House of Commons Science and Technology Sub-committee looking into the evidence (or lack of it) for homeopathy. Skepticat tells it far better than I could, but the admission by Boots of the absence of evidence for homeopathy and that they just sell the stuff  ‘cos their customers want to buy it has been described as a Ratner moment.

That was Wednesday; but today was another significant day for the regulation of quackery.

The Code of Practice for chiropractors clearly states that claims made by chiropractors have to be:

…consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority.

There have been several cases where the ASA have found chiropractors to be in breach of this guidance by making claims for all sorts of medical conditions, some serious. Since the adjudications form part of the ASA guidance, you’d have thought that chiropractors would be somewhat cautious about making claims that the ASA either have already rejected or ones not on the list of conditions they will allow (providing the advertiser provides convincing evidence, of course). The only condition the ASA will allow without asking for evidence is migraines (not headaches). Not even lower back pain.

And now there’s another one.

There has been a lot of speculation today after some media reports about Google and the ASA.

One article was in Revolution magazine: ASA imposes paid search tax to police websites and another in the Guardian: Google deal with Advertising Standards Authority will fund regulation.

It is not clear from either of these articles exactly what has been proposed or whether the ASA’s remit is to be extended.

My last post ended:

In the light of this, why are so many BCA members still making such claims?

Oh dear.

I blogged on What the BCA got up to in 2007 some months ago and examined their 2007 accounts, lodged with Companies House.

Their 2008 accounts have just been published. And they make interesting reading. They give details of the BCA’s financial position at 31 December 2008.