In a comment on my last blog post, I mentioned that the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) had appointed two more chiropractors to their Investigation Committee (IC): Aaron Coode and Amanda Jones-Harris. Both work at the Anglo European College of Chiropractic (just how did they ever get a .ac.uk domain?) and both are members of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
This story has been told many times now by bloggers like Jack of Kent, The Lay Scientist, Skepticat and many, many others. It has also been reported worldwide and Simon’s own account can be read at Sense about Science.
But what started this all off? What was it that caused the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) to take the serious and precipitous action of personally suing Simon and which has resulted in a maelstrom of publicity for the BCA in particular and chiropractic in general.
I’ve had another victory against woo.
The Advertising Standards Authority have today published their adjudication on complaints I submitted against an ayurvedic clinic, Kerala Ayurvedic Health Clinic. This is a clinic that advertised in a local paper and made claims about the effectiveness of their ayurvedic treatments. In total, I made four specific complaints and the ASA added a fifth; three were upheld. The full adjudication can be read here.
Many of these clinics selling woo make claims that they can treat all manner of medical conditions and invariably, they cannot substantiate those claims when they are challenged. Such adverts also try to give the impression that they are proper doctors and medical practitioners, again, usually without being able to substantiate those claims.
…a founder member of both the European Chiropractors Union (ECU) and the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) and is the sole UK representative on both organisations.
According to their latest (2007) accounts, they paid £6,753 to the WFC, presumably the membership subscription and another £10,000 for “W F C Matters” (up from £98 the previous year).
In his blog post “We don’t regulate clinics or companies”: The GCC Respond to my BCA Complaint, The Lay Scientist, Martin, highlighted the selectivity of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) when they misrepresented the conclusions of a Cochrane study. The BCA reported it in their press release as:
There was weak evidence to support the use of [chiropractic].
when, in fact, it actually said:
There was weak evidence to support the use of hypnosis, psychotherapy, acupuncture and chiropractic but it was provided in each case by single small trials, some of dubious methodological rigour.
In Martin’s words, such quote mining was:
a pretty crappy thing to do.
Yes they are! Well, sometimes, anyway. As is how they arrive at their decisions.
A responsible organisation looks after the personal data it holds. That’s not just good practice, it’s a legal requirement under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is there to oversee the Act and ensure it is appropriately followed. In their own words:
The ICO enforces and oversees the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Environmental Information Regulations, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.
Our main functions are educating and influencing (we promote good practice and give information and advice), resolving problems (we resolve eligible complaints from people who think their rights have been breached) and enforcing (we use legal sanctions against those who ignore or refuse to accept their obligations).