The random thoughts of a sceptical activist.
My last post ended:
In the light of this, why are so many BCA members still making such claims?
Oh dear.
Categories
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.
After the General Chiropractic Council ‘withdrew’ their What is Chiropractic? leaflet two weeks ago — as a result of a complaint by Simon Perry about its claims for childhood ailments — it took them a week to publish a new version on their website.
It really is just not good enough to supply loads of papers — scientific or otherwise — to the Advertising Standards Authority when your claims are challenged.
In an adjudication published today on an advert for the ‘pro-biotic drinking yogurt’ Actimel, the advertiser (Danone) supplied a plethora of 23 papers to try to substantiate the claims they made in their advert.
You couldn’t make it up!
That’s almost become a overused exclamation in the blogosphere these days, particularly when yet more idiotic woo claims are uncovered. But it also applies to the shenanigans over the General Chiropractic Council‘s Patient Information Leaflet (PIL).
A few weeks ago, I was sent a copy of the 12 August edition of the Southend Echo, which carried an advert for a chiropractic clinic in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. The paper was folded to expose this advert for the Cliffs Chiropractic Clinic Ltd:
What was strange about this was that it was sent to me anonymously. Through the post. To my home address.
Way back in May, I wrote a blog post about some Advertising Standards Authority adjudications against chiropractors. It’s time we took a closer look at one of them. Well, two separate adjudications upheld against one company, Optimum Health Centres (OHC). (Be warned — it’s a horrible Flash website.)