The random thoughts of a sceptical activist.
Chiroquacktors frequently claim that they have never harmed anyone with their spinal manipulations. What’s the Harm and the parents of this little baby know better.
However, no doubt, as a cynical marketing exercise to allay public fears and show the sceptics amongst us that it really is safe, they have recently set up CPiRLS – The Chiropractic Patient Incident Reporting and Learning System.
For completeness, the relevant sections in the The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP) seem to be:
A bit of detail on what Jack of Kent has been talking about on his blog post, BCA v Singh: What The Advertising Standards Authority Said…here’s the information I passed to him:
I made a complaint to the GCC and Trading Standards on Tuesday about a local chiro who was using the title ‘Dr’ on his website. When I looked further into what chiros are allowed to claim and what they are not allowed to claim, I discovered something I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere (although I may just have missed it).
Gimpy has written a good blog entry on the BCA’s use of the word ‘bogus’ in their 2003/2004 annual report.
I came across a local chiro yesterday morning who was using the title ‘Dr’ on his website, but who doesn’t appear to have any real medical qualifications. I fired a quick email off to the GCC:
It was (of course) packed. Still not sure why mjrobbins was so surprised when he got a round of applause when he asked a question! He’s obviously too modest.
Prof Brian Cox was NOT asked to sing Things can
I’ve been looking through all the ASA’s adjudications against chiros and thought a summary of them might be useful to help understand what whacky claims are made and how the ASA deals with them. See the ASA’s website for full details of the offending adverts, the ASA’s response and investigation. The list of these can be found here.
I’ve been looking at the BCA and posted about them on The Lay Scientist, but repeat the posts here.
One thing is certain: regardless of why the BCA didn’t pursue the Guardian, the damage has been done in that people have read the paper and the online article and will have been left with an impression of what Simon said. If they finally win, they get no more than the satisfaction that they have won and that their lawyers have made a packet or too.
If they had pursued the Guardian as well, then it would seem likely that they would have to have published an apology of some sort. They way they have done it – just going after an individual — they get no such public apology and the ‘harm’ that was done to them never gets corrected as far as most of the original readers are concerned.
Everyone is blogging about the British Chiropractic Association’s libel action against Simon Singh.
I have been posting comments, observations and some of my research on Think Humanism, but I thought it was time I gathered it all together.
What is it with religions, who preach tolerance, respect for their fellow man (and occasionally their fellow woman), etc, that they need so many inter-faith groups just to get them talking to each other, even if they all believe