Zeno's Blog

Way back in May, I wrote a blog post about some Advertising Standards Authority adjudications against chiropractors. It’s time we took a closer look at one of them. Well, two separate adjudications upheld against one company, Optimum Health Centres (OHC). (Be warned — it’s a horrible Flash website.)

Today [Sunday] Professor Richard Dawkins will put the case for libel law reform to the Liberal Democrat conference proposing an amendment to the civil liberties bill.

The scientist and author is to appear as a guest speaker at Liberal Democrat Party Conference on Sunday.

Professor Dawkins will tell the conference that the chilling effect of libel laws on public debate about science and medicine, on writers and authors and on responsible journalism can no longer be ignored.

Those champions of woo busting strike again. More ASA adjudications — to be formally published tomorrow — showing what is and isn’t acceptable as evidence required to substantiate claims made.

Some things at least happen quickly at the General Chiropractic Council (GCC).

The GCC have recently co-opted someone else to their Investigating Committee (IC). He is Kalim Mehrabi, who is a Director of the McTimoney College of Chiropractic, a colleague of the College’s Principal, Christina Cunliffe who sits of the GCC’s Council.

So, the GCC’s Investigating Committee now has 11 members, with seven chiropractors and four lay members:

Sheila Hollingworth (Chair)
Kathryn Adams chiropractor (BCA member)
Graham Donald (Deputy Chair)
Carl Gardner
Anthony Kerrigan chiropractor
Jane McKenzie-Riley chiropractor
Helen Kitchen (co-opted, GCC legal advisor)
Aaron Coode chiropractor (co-opted, BCA member and works for the AECC)
Amanda Jones-Harris chiropractor (co-opted, BCA member and works for the AECC)
Kenneth Vall chiropractor (co-opted, BCA member and Principal of the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic)
Kalim Mehrabi chiropractor (co-opted and Director of the McTimoney College of Chiropractic)

Yet more interesting Advertising Standards Authority adjudications, published yesterday.

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).

Remember the General Chiropractic Council’s Section 60 Order application to the Privy Council?

The reply I got from the GCC, when I asked what it was all about, wasn’t exactly forthcoming about the nature of the changes, despite it being somewhat wordy.

But we know now.

Yet more Adventures in nonsense from Simon; this time about the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) trying to persuade Trading Standards that chiropractic is effective for some conditions, whilst not actually claiming that chiropractic is effective for some conditions.

On 19 April 2008, the author and physicist Simon Singh MBE wrote an article for The Guardian newspaper on chiropractic.

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.