You think she’ll have sour grapes because she’s had to remove references to that huge list of ailments she was implying she could treat? Let’s have a look it again: sciatica trapped nerves jaw pain colic, vomiting and wind persistent crying irritability feeding problems positional discomfort, crawling and gait problems ear infections asthma bed wetting (nocturnal enuresis) constipation sleep disturbance dyspraxia ADHD learning difficulties cerebral palsy cranial support for orthodontic work abdominal discomfort foetal positioning indigestion preparation for labour aching between the shoulder blades Hmmm….yes. You’re probably right. Mortified too at the sight of your…ahem…’regulatory body’ being exposed as a Mickey Mouse organisation, I should think. Reply
That is scandalous. So, basically it all boils down to this… With regard to chiropractors: • The Code of Practice is absolutely clear that it is the chiropractor’s own responsibility to ensure all advertising is compliant with the clause C1.6. – there being no additional “but it’s OK to repeat claims that the GCC or BCA make whether or not there is any good evidence for them”. With regard to the GCC: • Although it has been discharging its duty to protect the public by regulating chiropractors for nearly 10 years, until the Bronfort Report was published it seems it had little idea about the evidence for any particular condition that its charges were making claims about, and a huge loophole remains due to it only providing (flawed) evidence for manual therapies and not for what else a chiropractor might do. • The threshold of evidence required by the ASA, TS and CPUTR appears to never have been ascertained by the GCC, and, as a result, the PCC has decided that there’s no threshold. With regard to the PCC: • It appears to have totally ignored the requirement of the Code of Practice that information supplied by chiropractors must not be ‘misleading or inaccurate’, and has used the ASA as a measure of what standard of evidence was acceptable. However, it appears to have ignored the requirement for chiropractors to comply with the guidance the ASA have issued. • In measuring the acceptable standard of evidence required by the ASA, the PCC claimed that ASA guidance requires *robust* evidence, but that there is no ‘explicit’ reference to high or moderate positive evidence from RCT’ (despite it being very clear that the ASA have a requirement for a very high standard of evidence which is formed in their Codes, other guidance and their adjudications and many ASA adjudications have reinforced this). • Regarding chiropractic for children, it is unknown which of the following two claims is the correct one: The PCC claims chiropractic for children is incapable of being verified by RCT evidence; but the IC says there is no RCT evidence that supports chiropractic for children. Outcome: • What the PCC had to determine was whether the claims (direct or indirect) being made by chiropractors were in violation of their Code of Practice which says that claims must be “consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority” and that “the information used must be factual and verifiable”. • Although the GCC provided evidence that there was no robust evidence (ie from high or moderate positive evidence from RCTs, as it had stated in the particulars), there was still *other evidence*. Because there was *other evidence*, and because the Code of Practicedidn’t specifically demand robust evidence, the charge of not having robust evidence could not (in the PCC’s eyes) amount to unacceptable professional misconduct. If that’s correct, then Zeno seems to be spot on with his observation that the exact meanings of the words ‘chiropractic’, ‘evidence’, ‘regulation’ and ‘protecting the public’ must be clearly defined by the GCC – as a matter of urgency. BTW, fantastic work, Zeno! Reply
I believe the ASA will cover websites from early next year? Will this offer an opportunity to submit a new raft of complaints to an authority that might take real action over the new, more-weasely-worded, claims? Reply
Excellent post Alan. I find it extremely difficult to understand how they could possibly get around their requirements for chiropractors to follow ASA guidelines. Come March, when the ASA regulates claims made on web sites, a large number of ASA complaints which will no doubt produce adjudications can then be followed up with GCC complaints. Reply
The GCC’s actions are really quite extraordinary. It really did not seem possible that they could not find that the rules had been transgressed by the various claims cited in your complaints. As far as I could see, the wriggle room would be in how they dealt with those transgressions. Given what it takes to be struck off as a doctor or vet it seemed likely that the Respondents would be given formal advice on conduct or some sort of mild ticking off, but in terms of the wider campaign against unsubstantiated chiro claims we would have obtained a significant victory. Instead, it looks like the GCC has distorted its own rules and create a series of internal contradictions in the stance they have chosen to adopt in order to avoid saying that the Respondents were at fault and having the spotlight thrown straight back onto things like their own leaflets, which surely the Respondents would have cited in pleas of mitigation when arguing that the penalty imposed should be minimal, “It’s not just me, Guv, I never realised. Even the GCC was at it.” Can the complainant, i.e. Zeno, appeal? Reply
Great work. I am not a bit surprised at the lack of clarity on CPUTR standards of evidence. The regulations themselves, and the attached guidance, are reasonably clear, but Trading Standards officers can be staggeringly obtuse and ignorant. Some of them still cling to the old Trade Descriptions Act definitions even though they have been repealed. I am not surprised either at the GCC’s abuse of basic logic and due process, as the GMC can be pretty poor also. I have direct personal experience of a complaint for which the GMC’s Fitness to Practice panel completely ignored its own written procedures and exonerated a respondent, despite extensive documentary evidence from another public body. The GMC never responded to our protestations about that. It’s clear that the entire field of health care professional regulation is hopelessly inadequate at protecting the public. Reply
Been following your blog for a while and this article is astonishing. it does seem that the GCC are more concerned with the fate of the chiros than with protecting the public, which is the opposite of what they should be doing. is the GCC actually fit for the purpose of prosecuting these claims or is it too entangled (partially responsible) due to its own incorrect information sheets? Is it this conflict of interest that had turned this into a farce? and if they are too conflicted who regulates the regulators behavior? keep up the good work Zeno. Reply
Nice work Zeno this has exposed most if not all the weaknesses of the chiropractic profession in the UK. Thank you. Stefaan Reply
BSM wrote: Can the complainant, i.e. Zeno, appeal? Interestingly, the comments made to me by those that have followed this business are more along the lines of “Can’t the chiropractors sue this bloke for causing trouble once it’s clear that they’re not guilty and have been exonerated?” Reply
Zeno, She also received advice from her ‘professional association’ and removed references to the following conditions until such time that more robust research evidence becomes available… This is an excellent result and many other chiropractors have done the same, leaving fewer opportunities for the public to be mislead (sic)by claims for which there is no good evidence. It’s just a pity it needed my complaint to make this happen. I find your response to this quite interesting. I can see why you would be happy that this and other chiropractors have removed certain claims from their websites, after all, wasn’t that the point of the exercise? But it seems that you are unhappy this chiropractor hasn’t been punished. That suggests a degree of malevolence that contradicts the notion of humanism. Reply
@David, I personally read no malevolence in the work above but accept that the course of action taken by Zeno may appear that way to you. I personally think that the exercise is primarily an intellectual one and does actually not do anything that most chiropractors were not already aware of but were too busy/distracted/lazy/apathic to do anything about. Some people would argue that the structure of power in the GCC is intimidating and does not allow for the little individual clinician to take action but eventually the false structure will collapse (as it always does-which I think is very much a humanist and babylonic notion). I think chiropractors can look at this situation and get bogged down with what people in the blog-o-sphere think they know and assume that this is the held view. I would urge every chiropractor to focus on what they are here to do as clinicians and that is to make individual patients better, regardless of what Blue Wode, the GCC, Brontfort et al or the BCA think, whilst not going into denial about the acute lacking in evidence. It is quite simple indeed: claims have to be backed by evidence, the evidence for certain number of things just isn’t there, therefore certain claims cannot be made. This in itself does not mean that there wouldn’t possibly be any evidence for these things were the studies conducted at all or conducted correctly, just that there isn’t any right now. Bottom line is that if we get the patient better, the patient will be happy and will refer others to us. If they in turn get better they will do the same. All this means is that the development of a chiropractic clinic on the basis of certain advertised claims is dead and this only serves to reinforce what all good chiropractors I know have done: build practices on word of mouth. The growing of a chiropractic clinic on certain advertised claims should simply never have been born. Until evidence comes to light as to why and in which cases they are getting these results, it is in my opinion the only thing that can be done truthfully. Some will argue that the lack of evidence is meaningful. It isn’t, it is just symptomatic of where we’re at as a profession. Some will argue that in the face of lack of evidence risk becomes a serious issue. It doesn’t, it just puts the onus on the clinician to be open and honest about the state of evidence and allow the patient to make informed choices and take informed risks. All in all it just means that we have to work better and harder for our reputations and that cannot be a bad thing. Regards, Stefaan Vossen Reply
Stefaan, I agree with you. You’re quite right, chiropractors have got into the habit of namimg conditions they treat because people quite often don’t realise the range of problems that chiropractic can help with. However, the basic principle remains that chiropractors simply improve and maintain function, irrespective of the symptoms that are expressed by the dysfunction. It does seem though, that whatever problems might exist with making specific claims, there is a desire among “sceptics” for retribution rather than a simple clarification of the evidence for making certain claims. Reply
David, The trouble is the evidence that chiropractic is effective is so far outweighed by the evidence it is not effective (both in quantity and quality) that “clarification of the evidence for making certain claims” would result in their being no good evidence for efficacy whatsoever! If a practitioner of a different branch of medicine (or “medicine”) was claiming to treat conditions with no proof of efficacy then we would want them to be punished to. It is effectively a form of fraud! Reply
@David Funny how these things go full circle isn’t it? For the chiropractors: you may recognise in this the old proverbs of the “dinosaurs of chiropractic” like “find it fix it and leave it alone” or another gem “look after the patient and the patient will look after you” and finally “adjust the subluxation and the rest will take car of itself”. Good old dinos! The problem really is that those people who don’t understand what these things really meant didn’t do very well in practice and ended up employing practice management consultants and non-sense technology creating a completely fallacious understanding of their practice. All this stuff rolled in together over two or three decades created the perfect circumstances for Zeno, Simon Perry and Andy to discover a scenery that was not only filled with error but also deluded. For me, personally, whatever their intentions, I am grateful to them, as the result of tehir efforts could be that chiropractic now stands a chance to actually get back to doing what it is supposed to do. Kind regards, Stefaan Reply
@Matt what is the evidence that “it is not effective”? Just a question as you state it so confidently… And what is “it”? Stefaan Reply
@Stefan If you’d actually bothered to read the article, you would have found links to Cochrane reviews for: “Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain”, “Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain”, “Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain”, “Manual therapy for asthma”, “Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea” and “Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome”. Concluding, respectively, that “The review shows that while combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute and subacute low-back pain, there is currently no evidence to support or refute that combined chiropractic interventions provide a clinically meaningful advantage over other treatments for pain or disability in people with low-back pain. Any demonstrated differences were small and were only seen in studies with a high risk of bias. Future research is very likely to change the results and our confidence in them. Well conducted randomised trials are required that compare combined chiropractic interventions to other established therapies for low-back pain.” And no evidence for any efficacy for the other treatments. “It” is advertising treatments claiming them to be effective for certain conditions, with no evidence to suggest that they are effective. Reply
@Matt ah you see the thing is that what those studies researched is not actually chiropractic practice, but that’s ok, we now know that generically manipulating backs to alleviate conditions which may have nothing to do with spinal dysfunction don’t elicit significant stats. But that just isn’t chiropractic practice. I fully agree that “it” is effectively a form of fraud, let’s punish those fraudsters! Reply
Good work Alan. #Although the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) recently published some of their Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) decisions (‘Notice of Finding’) about complaints I had made about chiropractors misusing the title ‘Dr’ on their websites (I’ll have more to say about them another time),# I have complained three times to the ASA about “Dr” Joanne Middleton (Chiropractor) who not only calls herself “Dr” on her website but also in the phone book and the local newspaper. All I’ve had back from them are acknowledgements of my complaints and she continues to be allowed to deceive people. Reply
Oh and in case anybody checks the GMC website, there is a Joanne Middleton registered but I can assure you it’s not our Joanne Middleton. Reply
Stefaan Vossen wrote: I would urge every chiropractor to focus on what they are here to do as clinicians and that is to make individual patients better, regardless of what Blue Wode, the GCC, Brontfort et al or the BCA think, whilst not going into denial about the acute lacking in evidence. It’s interesting that Stefaan acknowledges the “acute lacking in evidence”. It makes one wonder precisely what chiropractors are being taught during their 4-5 years of training. A (real) doctor of neuroscience recently wrote to the Welsh Institute of Chiropractic (WIoC) at the University of Glamorgan to express his concerns about the claims and information available (or not, in some cases) on its official website. He requested clarification as to the website’s accuracy/intent. You can read his letter here: http://sciencedigestive.blogspot.com/2010/06/email-to-university-of-glamorgan.html Apparently the WIoC’s reply, which hasn’t been published, was wholly evasive in that it sent a run down of the modules taught, but not what was actually in them. Stefaan Vossen wrote: Bottom line is that if we get the patient better, the patient will be happy and will refer others to us. But the patient getting better may have had nothing to do with chiropractic. For example, the following factors could very easily be at play: The condition may have run its natural course Many conditions are cyclical Spontaneous remission Some allegedly cured symptoms were probably psychosomatic to begin with Misdiagnosis Also, you seem to be forgetting that most people lack the basic knowledge and critical thinking skills to make an informed choice when deciding whether a highly touted healthcare product is a sensible buy or not. Reply
Stefaan Vossen wrote: If they [patients referred by other patients] in turn get better they will do the same. All this means is that the development of a chiropractic clinic on the basis of certain advertised claims is dead and this only serves to reinforce what all good chiropractors I know have done: build practices on word of mouth. … Some will argue that the lack of evidence is meaningful. It isn’t, it is just symptomatic of where we’re at as a profession. And where chiropractic is at as a profession could very well be where it is going to stay – dependent on the ritual induced placebo of its manipulative techniques, as described not so long ago by a senior lecturer at the Anglo European College of Chiropractic: http://tinyurl.com/32l9o5e Indeed, David Byfield, Susan King, and Peter McCarthy, chiropractic academic staff members at the University of Glamorgan, seem to support that view: “…it has [also] been shown that patients are very pleased and satisfied with chiropractic care whether they get better or not….Furthermore, it has been said that chiropractic’s greatest contribution to health care has been the development of a solid doctor-patient relationship. So, let’s not kid ourselves. It may not be what we say…..but simply the way in which we say it that stimulates some measurable change in patient’s general health care status. Some studies support this view.” http://tinyurl.com/32odolf Reply
Stefaan Vossen wrote: Some will argue that in the face of lack of evidence risk becomes a serious issue. It doesn’t, it just puts the onus on the clinician to be open and honest about the state of evidence and allow the patient to make informed choices and take informed risks. Some might ask what’s been preventing chiropractors from being open and honest all along. After all, its lack of evidence and its risks have been published in the medical literature for some time now. Reply
@BW you could be very right on all of the comments, but then this is what I, and many colleagues of mine have been telling you for a very long time now, and it’s all wearing a bit thin. But it is very good to see that you are finally actually reading what is being written, Well done! Stefaan Reply
An excellent post, the humpty dumpty quote seems very appropriate! Problems are always going to exist in chiropractic as long as the question of what constitutes good, robust evidence is left open to interpretation by individuals. Particularly so when those individuals have a vested interest (in this case a commercial one) in accepting any evidence that supports their cause and rejecting non supportive evidence (often of far higher quality). This becomes even more difficult when there is a huge division between groups of chiropractors in the beliefs of what chiropractic actually is! Many chiropractors have differing (and in some cases opposing) views on a number of topics that are quite fundamental to chiropractic, so the evidence each one needs to justify their position will differ accordingly. That is why there needs to be unambiguous guidance issed by regulatory bodies and that guidance needs to be effectively enforced. Not everybody will like it, but at least there would be something resembling regulation and everybody would know the boundries. The guidance can always be adjusted as new evidence (of an acceptable quality) comes to light. The GCC’s decisions show that an organisation coming under scrutiny, both from inside and outside the profession, cannot be trusted to act as a reliable prosecutor, judge and jury. In the interests of the public ( and dare I say it the chiros ) complaints need properly investigating and people need to have confidence in the results. At some level there are always going to be those who disagree with a decision or the arguments used to reach those decisions, but there should at least be an open, consistent and reliable process in place by which those decisions are made. Reply
@David: (Wednesday 15 December 2010 at 09:15) You say: “Interestingly, the comments made to me by those that have followed this business are more along the lines of “Can’t the chiropractors sue this bloke for causing trouble once it’s clear that they’re not guilty and have been exonerated?” So what you are saying is that no one should question chiropractors? The arrogance (and sheer stupidity) is truly shocking! Reply
Stefaan Vossen wrote: @BW you could be very right on all of the comments… In which case it is of some concern that the GCC is currently approaching UK University Deans with a view to creating more chiropractic degrees: http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/C-120510-Open1.pdf Item C-120510-17(a) Minutes of Education Committee 17 November 2009 Members noted the content of the minutes, and in particular that as a result of the chair’s contact with the Council of Deans of Healthcare network ( http://www.councilofdeans.org.uk/ ), several institutions had expressed an interest in exploring the development of a chiropractic degree programme. Item C-120510-17(b) Minutes of Education Committee 13 April 2010 Members noted the contents of the minutes, and in particular that representatives of two institutions in north west England had visited the Welsh Institute of Chiropractic. The purpose of the visits was to inform the early stages of their exploration of the feasibility of developing chiropractic degree programmes. Humpty Dumpty degree courses? Reply
Study concludes that chiropractic can help ADHD. Check it out at: http://nutritiondietnews.com/research-concludes-that-chiropractic-care-may-benefit-adhd/85735/ And after reading it ask yourself about whether the education of chiropractors is anything like that of medical doctors. Reply
Andrew Gilbey wrote: @David: (Wednesday 15 December 2010 at 09:15) You say: “Interestingly, the comments made to me by those that have followed this business are more along the lines of “Can’t the chiropractors sue this bloke for causing trouble once it’s clear that they’re not guilty and have been exonerated?” It’s true. That is what people who understand and have benefited from chiropractic have been saying to me. That’s not what I said, simply what others have said. Andrew Gilbey wrote: So what you are saying is that no one should question chiropractors? No, that is not what I’m saying. Only an idiot would draw that conclusion from what I wrote. Andrew Gilbey wrote: The arrogance (and sheer stupidity) is truly shocking! I couldn’t agree more. Reply
@david Well actually, you didn’t say “people who understand and have benefited from chiropractic have been saying to me”, you actually said “those that have followed this business”. I think it was reasonable I took that to mean other chiropractors. And surely the bottom line is that most chiropractors have and many still are making or implying claims that are not supported by sound scientific evidence. Care to comment about the conclusions of the ADHD ‘study’ I mentioned before your last post? Reply
The issue of advertising and scientific evidence goes much further than chiropractic or even CAM. I suggest you google colic and physiotherapy, you may be surprised. It is also interesting that the level of evidence “high or moderate” set by the GCC is not explicitly that used by the ASA. If we take this further many claims used for physiotherapy would also be inappropriate. Additionally, many private hospitals are offering spinal facet joint injections for low back pain yet this treatment is not supported by robust evidence (see NICE low back pain guidance). We need a sensible approach to this so that all professions take the same view and we have a level playing field rather than starting a vendetta against a particular profession. If people like Zeno really want to make a difference then they should try an engage with chiropractors and others so that changes are made that are truely in the public interest. Reply
Zeno, can I ask if a Sheila Holingsworth was on the PCC panel for any of the cases processed so far? And if so, are you aware that until a few weeks ago, she was chair of the Investigating Committee? I wonder if it is legal for the Chair of the committee that investigated a complaint to be part of the PCC pool that hears the same complaint? Maybe Jakc of Kent could advise? Reply
dizzyblonde I got this from the GCC: I can confirm that as part of segregation of duties, Sheila Hollingsworth [sic], has not and will not be empanelled to consider any allegation referred to the Professional Conduct Committee by the Investigating Committee, during the period when she was a member of the Investigating Committee. This extends back to August 2009 when she was appointed as the Chair of the Investigating Committee. Reply
andy wrote: “The issue of advertising and scientific evidence goes much further than chiropractic or even CAM. I suggest you google colic and physiotherapy, you may be surprised.” OK, let’s have a look using google.co.uk: >physiotherapy colic About 51,300 results (0.14 seconds) Tried it again but this time subtracting a couple of other terms: >physiotherapy colic -chiropractic -osteopathy About 21,900 results (0.21 seconds) In the interests of balance, here are some more results: >chiropractic colic About 251,000 results (0.06 seconds) >chiropractic colic -physiotherapy -osteopathy About 228,000 results (0.19 seconds) >osteopathy colic About 195,000 results (0.14 seconds) >osteopathy colic -physiotherapy -chiropractic About 169,000 results (0.13 seconds) >chiropractic colic -singh -bca -libel -court -guardian -article -bogus About 160,000 results (0.14 seconds) >physiotherapy colic -singh -bca -libel -court -guardian -article -bogus About 19,900 results (0.16 seconds) Nothing very surprising so far. I decided to have a closer look at the first ten practitioners’ websites that the first (physiotherapy colic) search brought up. Out of these ten practitioners’ websites, the number featuring physiotherapists who claimed to treat colic was five. Of these: One sole practioner, a physio, claimed to have “sorted out” out a baby’s “colic problems” using “connective tissue manipulation”. One sole practitioner had qualified (abroad) as both a physiotherapist and an osteopath. She claimed to treat infantile colic with cranial osteopathy. One sole practitioner was a physio who claims to treat colic with cranial osteopathy and mentions she has “attended training” in the latter. One sole practitioner was a physio who used a range of quack therapies (including craniosacral and reiki) and claims to treat all manner of ailments including colic. One practice comprised just two physios, both of whom claimed to treat colic but don’t say how. The remaining five websites advertise practices that are staffed by a team of two or more practitioners, including a physio and an osteo. All of these claimed or implied that infantile colic could be treated with cranial osteopathy; at one of them the cranial osteopathy is “combined with visceral treatments”. Nothing is particularly surprising about any of the above so I have to wonder what Andy’s point is. It will come as no surprise to anybody that some healthcare practitioners who are in private practice make misleading claims on their websites. They do it because they can and that is why an initiative like Nightingale is long overdue. Reply
Andy also wrote: “We need a sensible approach to this so that all professions take the same view and we have a level playing field rather than starting a vendetta against a particular profession. If people like Zeno really want to make a difference then they should try an engage with chiropractors and others so that changes are made that are truely in the public interest.” I’m sure Zeno is flattered at Andy’s high estimation of him but I’m mystified as to why he thinks Zeno or any other member of the public should have any say in any changes made involving chiropractors, beyond having the right to complain when they make misleading claims in their self-promotion. And, given that Zeno and other complainants are only members of the public, I’m mystified as to why the ambassadors for the chiro profession who comment here and elsewhere think an appropriate and professional response to having their misleading claims complained about is to launch repeated attacks on the character and integrity of Zeno and anyone else who has the temerity to criticise chiropractors for the misleading claims they make. As for the need for a “sensible approach”, given the evident disunity among chiropractors themselves, isn’t the suggestion that they will ever manage to take the same view as each other, let alone any other profession, a bit ambitious? How is the playing field not level? I presume private osteos and physios could stand in shopping malls haranguing hapless shoppers and have national weeks promoting themselves if they wanted to. The point is that chiropractors, more than any other healthcare profession, have drawn attention to the fact that they promote bogus therapies on their websites and elsewhere. (Homeopaths aren’t far behind, IMO.) So what appears to be a “vendetta against a particular profession” to them is simply the consequence of their waving their misleading claims in our faces more than anyone else. I don’t doubt that “many private hospitals are offering spinal facet joint injections for low back pain yet this treatment is not supported by robust evidence.” But I have yet to see a single one accost people outside Sainsbury’s to tell them about it. Interestingly, homeopaths also think they are being singled out. Try googling “first they came for the homeopaths” and you’ll realise chiros are not the only ones with a persecution complex. Why is it so difficult for both groups to realise it’s all about how visible they are? Reply
@Skepticat There are some physiotherapists that practice magic medicine in the form of cranio-sacral therapy, Reiki and reflexology. Very odd for me to witness this considering physiotherapy is supposed to be a science based profession, but you are right to pojnt out that their “advertising” is modest compared to chiropractors. However, it might also be worth mentioning the thousands of physiotherapists who practice TCM acupuncture on the NHS. It would be bad enough if they all only believed in the endorphin theory (given that there is no evidence that enough endorphins can be produced by needling), but is is depressing to hear physios talking about Qi and ‘weak spleens’! Remember the tax payer is paying for all this. Reply
@malucachu Interesting. I didn’t know physios practised acupuncture at all, let alone on the NHS though I was aware that the NHS funds acupuncture and a whole range of other unsupported therapies at the RLHIM and have in fact submitted a number of complaints to the ASA about the content of their leaflets advertising these. Reply
Physiotherapy acupuncture is practised widely. The Acupuncture Association of Chartered Physiotherapists (www.aacp.org.uk) has over 6,000 members. See here the explanation given about acupuncture of the AACP web site: http://www.aacp.org.uk/common/about.asp?ID=acupuncture Reply
Steefan, you seem to miss a double standard here with regard to claiming to treat and fraud. Proper doctors dish out painkillers for arthritis, that’s not treating the cause either, there is no proof of efficacy either with regard to painkiller treatment being synonymous with cure of arthritis. With regard to fraudulent advertising the flu jab has no efficacy evidence either, quite the opposite and we are all paying for a massive toxic placebo here, surely that’s more important than privately funded chiropractors. Reply
Skepticat, the vast majority of alternative practitioners don’t need to advertise what they do, their reputation is what brings in the work. I don’t know anyone who has been affected by this blogslaught, quite the opposite as the public are learning that centralised, organised state regulation is quackery. There is no evidence that governmental control has made much safer, particularly medical science, why should anyone trust a politician, researcher or WHO exec when they are all drinking from the same well. You won’t ever have an impact on good practitioners doing good work however much you don’t like it. I am sure you have freaked out a few people but the vast majority watch this kind of Mary Whitehouse stuff with large amusement. Skepticat we are also paying for the annual flu jab, the EBM for efficacy is non existent, this is far more worrying than a few physios playing pins and needles surely. Reply