Zeno's Blog

A brief interlude between posts on chiropractic.

I received an invitation to attend a conference on acupuncture: the British Conference of Acupuncture and Oriental medicine to be held at Royal Holloway University of London, in September. All I’m going to do is give you a few quotes from their blurb. Some of the workshop highlights include:

In his recent Story so far, Simon Singh said:

Initially The Guardian newspaper tried its best to settle the matter out of court by making what seemed to be a very generous offer. There was an opportunity for the BCA to write a 500 word response to my article to be published in The Guardian, allowing the BCA to present its evidence. There was also the offer of a clarification in the “Corrections and Clarifications” column, which would have pointed out: “The British Chiropractic have told us they have substantial evidence supporting the claim they make on their website that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. (Beware the spinal trap, page 26, April 19).”

Unfortunately, the BCA rejected these offers and moreover made it absolutely clear that it was not suing The Guardian, but rather it was suing me personally. At this point The Guardian newspaper chose to step back.

I find this all very odd. The BCA said that what Simon had said was:

defamatory and damaging to the BCA’s reputation

The Guardian offered the BCA space for a 500-word reply. The BCA refused.

The Guardian offered them a clarification. The BCA refused.

Interesting…

Extract from the GCC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance, which defines what sanctions should be applied when a chiroquacktor breaks the rules. In the section on ‘Removal from the Register’, there is a sub-section titled Dishonesty, one paragraph of which states:

Various bloggers have been investigating what their local chiroquacktic shop is claiming they can affect/cure. I’ve got bigger plans.

I’ve now collated the claims made by 296 chiroquacktors. They make some crazy claims. I’m still analysing the data, but here’s a taster:

Colic 29%
Whiplash 25%
Bed wetting 23%
Infection 19%
Asthma 18%
Arthritis 18%

Loads of bloggers have been, well, blogging on this. I’d like to compile a reasonably comprehensive list of the main (as I see it) blog posts here. They are in no particular order, just as I remember them and find them.

I would like to keep adding to this list, partly as an aid for myself to keep track of the various posts, but also as a resource for anyone else who is interested in the whole sorry saga. I’ll edit this post to make it longer, rather than adding new posts.

I’ve also complained to Trading Standards about a local chiroquacktor using the title Dr after getting clarification from the GCC:

Thank you for your enquiry. The relevant part of the Code of Practice for chiropractors states that

“Chiropractors must

Top secret, no doubt, but this manual gives a useful insight into the workings of the chiroquacktic mind.

For those ready for more education, I’ve found some more complex material on subluxations:

When spinal vertebrae pinch or choke nerves,

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).