Might Larsen find himself subject to a new complaint to the GCC for the persistence of his website claims and his previous (and any continuing) use of the title Dr on his website or anywhere else? It would seem to me that these could be the basis of complaints even if he has already been included in the 600 already made. Basically this new ASA ruling provides the opportunity for a more finely targeted complaint to be made with possibly more serious aggravating factors. Reply
“Bury Family Chiropractic said…the ad did not claim to treat or improve those conditions. Rather the ad stated that people who suffered from [those conditions] often found that chiropractic treatment they received for other conditions also improved their…symptoms.” I don’t see what difference it makes. They still need evidence that people who suffer from [those conditions] often find that chiropractic treatment they received for other conditions also improved the symptoms of [those conditions]. Cure. Treat. Improve. Who cares what word they use. They still need evidence that is “cures” “treats” or “improves” Reply
I’m with BillyJoe. The language they use is, I would say, misleading by omission. I am therefore suspicious about the underlying intent. Are they really trying to inform their customers/patients? “[BFC argued that their] ad stated that people who suffered from [those conditions] often found that chiropractic treatment they received for other conditions also improved their…symptoms.” How very lawyerly. Let’s take the phrase in the original ad: “People with conditions like irritable bowel syndrome, recurrent colds, asthma or colic in infants often find improvement.” What is omitted is, say, a sentence that follows this and says: “However, it is important to be aware that these conditions often improve on their own anyway”. It is the omission of this which is the sneaky bit. Cf the GCC’s: “There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that [if you see a chiropractor] you may see an improvement in some types of asthma… headaches, including migraine…and infant colic” Again, where is the qualifying sentence saying these things are episodic or may be self-limiting? If one may take a leaf out of the libel law playbook, one really has to ask how an average reader will interpret, in their presented context, the phrases in ads (chiropractors), or in info directed at the public (GCC). As penned by the chiropractors and the GCC, and then read by an ordinary punter, they seem to me to be quite misleading. The million pound question is why they are not changed to make them less so. Reply
Another excellent blog post Zeno. I’m a bit confused about them using the title Dr in their ads. Is the folowing acceptable by the ASA? Dr Joanne Middleton Chiropractor and associates. That’s exactly how it appears in the newspaper ad. I have complained twice to the ASA about this woman, I got acknowledgements of my complaints but she is still calling herself DR some six months after my initial complaint. Reply
Now there’s an idea, BSM! Would you like to make a complaint? BillyJoe/Dr Aust: I think the ASA have made it very clear that woolly weasel words like those will not avoid the CAP. For example, see A claim or not a claim: that is the question. Reply