Last weekend I sent a complaint to Remedy Centres, a chiropractic clinic here in Windsor that makes a number of bold claims on its website and promotional materials that appear to contravene the guidelines of the GCC. This morning, I received a reply.
As I explained then, the GCC's policy states that:
"[Chiropractors] may publicise their practices or permit another person to do so consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority."
Now, a number of the claims (notable the suggestion that chiropractic can treat colic) are forbidden by the ASA. However, there is a bit of a gray area here. As I said then, the ASA regulations do not cover websites; however the GCC guidelines do not make this explicit distinction. A key test then is whether the GCC are willing to act on promotional material on websites. Of course, business websites do fall under the mandate of Trading Standards.
Anyway, with that in mind here is the reply I received from the clinic's director Russell Dean:
Dear Mr Robbins
Thank you for your message, the content of which appears remarkably similar to messages sent to a number of my colleagues from various correspondents throughout the UK. Perhaps this is in some way related to this web entry:
"Instead, I'm going to look at previous ASA rulings on Chiropractic, to see what they can and can't promote, in the hopes of prompting some of you to start a Blitzkrieg of complaints against some of the quacks out there."
I understand that you describe yourself as the Lay Scientist. If this is correct, I am sure that you will understand the importance of having properly researched your information before quoting from the GCC Code of Practice. Had you bothered to go to the ASA website (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/Guided%20Tours/New%20Media/) you would have seen that the ASA Code does not cover claims made by companies on their own websites.
I feel privileged to have a busy paediatric practice and am proud of the work that I do. Many children have and will continue to benefit from chiropractic care.
Please note that I do not wish to be contacted by you again.
Russell Dean
Director, Windsor Remedy Centre
Now on a minor point of pedantry I would just like to point out that I describe myself as "Martin", and TLS is just the name of my blog, but let's leave trivialities aside for the moment. Two things really stand out for me with this reply.
Firstly, I've not complained to any other chiropractor, but it looks like a number of you have, and this is pretty cool. The chiropractic community appear to be a bit rattled by the attention that they're receiving, and if we keep up this pressure than perhaps we can teach the BCA an important lesson about why suing over criticism can be a very counter-productive approach to take.
Secondly, the latter half of Dean's e-mail makes no attempt to defend the claims made on his website, but instead seems to read as "the ASA can't touch my website, so there." I've already noted above that the GCC doesn't make the same explicit distinction in its guidelines and so it's untested (afaik) whether they do apply to websites. But what bothers me more is the apparent disregard for the GCC and for responsibly publicity. If I was aware that certain claims were deemed unacceptable by my professional body, I would consider removing them from my business website, but Dean seems to have no qualms about this, presumably believing that he is right and the GCC are wrong.
Well, almost no qualms - I did notice that the Spanish site no longer carries a "For Skeptics" section - it appears to have been removed since my complaint, although some of the pages within that section still exist, apparently orphaned.
At any rate, I'll continue to push on through other routes (and I was delighted to be contacted by a lawyer and skeptic from Spain recently who had some helpful advice relating to Spanish regulation), and we'll see what turns up.
Finally, I'd just like to note that contrary to what some people believe I've got no interest in shutting the place down. As with acupuncture, I'm open to the possibility that a properly regulated chiropractic profession could provide useful ancillary service to public health in areas like back pain. My concern here though is that claims are being made that are not backed up by medical research, and that some of those claims could potentially endanger public health in my community. Those are my motives.
http://layscience.net/trackback/578
Splendid!
Good work Martin,
Rather a snippy response given the politeness and fairness of your post.
Perhaps being touchy just comes with the territory!
Milt
Have a look at bullet point 3 on the key findings of: http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A27C8E46-BFE0-4FC4-A893-CA8AE8B287F9/...
Looks like there's also a test to be performed as to whether outlandish claims can be taken as advertising. Though note bullet point 1: "Advertisers risk losing consumer trust if they don’t maintain standards.". That'll be the BCA/GCC and our friend Russ then. They seem to be enjoying the process of shooting themselves in their collective foot.
Keep on young man.
Dean says:
"Had you bothered to go to the ASA website (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/Guided%20Tours/New%20Media/) you would have seen that the ASA Code does not cover claims made by companies on their own websites."
Had he bothered to go to the GCC website ( http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_Dec05_WEB(with_glossary)07Jan09.pdf ) he would have seen that the GCC 'The GCC Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency Required for the Competent and Safe Practice of Chiropractic' - to which Dean is obliged to adhere as part of his statutory GCC registration - clearly states at C1.6:
"C1.6 may publicise their practices or permit another person to do so consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority."
His move.
So essentially he has encountered someone suggesting that the treatment he uses is ineffective, and has decided his best course of action is to ignore this suggestion. It's that kind of natural curiosity that makes me proud to be a human.
Amazing...
He reminds me of the MPs who insist that their expense claims are within the rules, while completely ignoring the dubious morality of what they're doing.
Chiropractors really, really don't like criticism, do they?
Thanks for the comments....
...but where is all the abuse?! Very curious!
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
This: "the ASA can't touch my website, so there" is exactly how I interpreted that part of his response. Alan Henness is right, I think, that this is what Dean should be paying attention to: "consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority". Seems pretty clear to me. He is publicising his practice via a website and therefore the website should be consistent both with the law and with the guidance issued by the ASA.
I tend to agree. It'll be pretty interesting to see the GCC's interpretation of their rule.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Thought of handing your correspondence over to the local Windsor newspaper?
Agreed.
There are also the Unfair Commercial Practices Regulations...
I'd agree with your and JDC's interpretation. The fact that it's on a website doesn't take away from the fact that those are claims that the ASA wouldn't allow in the various media they have jurisdiction over. I suppose it's a letter vs spirit of the rules type issue.
I got a very different reaction from the clinic I complained to, who made the changes I requested to their website following discussion with their own professional association (UCA). Details at: http://cargo-cult-science.blogspot.com/2009/05/success-with-victoria-chi...
It does seem odd that Tristan was told that after consulting the GCC, advertisement for colic treatment was removed. Yesterday I phoned one of the practices run by the chairman of the GCC, Peter Dixon, and was told that colic could often be treated successfully http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1542
I'm wondering what chance of success there would be with a formal complaint to the GCC about its own charman
Oh Martin. I see you are still attacking anyone and anything you can. Who is next on your agenda, the poor Windsor dustmen? Or perhaps the Royal family....oh sorry you have been there already. Why dont you get all that anger out another way. Go get laid or something.
This is quite funny: I've just received a reply to my email from another chiropractor which quotes the "I understand that you describe yourself..." paragraph almost word for word. I wonder if they copied it from your website or if their internal discussion boards are going crazy with this!
"Who is next on your agenda, the poor Windsor dustmen?"
Oh dear, are the dustmen peddling bogus remedies now too?
RE: "the ASA Code does not cover claims made by companies on their own websites"
I've just had a similar response from Bassett Chiropractic. I've fired off a further email to them and blogged it: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/bassett-chiropractic-reply/
RE this comment: "Oh Martin. I see you are still attacking anyone and anything you can. Who is next on your agenda, the poor Windsor dustmen? Or perhaps the Royal family....oh sorry you have been there already. Why dont you get all that anger out another way. Go get laid or something."
I think someone is confusing the Lay Scientist with Ranty McRant of New Rantshire. Oh dear. (Probably good advice about getting laid, though. I've always believed that an active sex life was healthy. I just need to find the right woman.)
Good job Martin! In case anyone's interested, I documented my own experiences with the Oxford Chiropractic Clinic here: http://q-m.org/2009/05/30/dialogue-with-the-oxford-chiropractic-clinic
I have blogged in passing on this: http://tinyurl.com/llt2bx
Hi David,
actually it wasn't the GCC that advised Jeremy Spanton to change his site, it was the UCA (United Chiropractics Association).
Why do you keep deleting my comments Martin?
Looks like you an "apple picker" who only allows the public to see what you want them to see, huh?
I deleted two of your comments because you posted the exact same thing three times on the site. I don't censor comments here, but I won't tolerate spam.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I sent the same comment 3 times because you keep deleting it???
If you dont censor comments you wouldnt have deleted the first one would you?
And to top that up it wasnt spam. It was related to your complaint.
My comments seem to be deleted as well??
Edit: Amusingly, "Bob" has the same IP address as Peter - what are the odds! (Martin).
You're really not the brightest spark are you Peter/Bob. Do you not realise that I can see your IP address?
Peter's IP address:
62.164.248.127
Bob's IP address:
62.164.248.127
And your comment is still up here: http://layscience.net/node/573#comment-39856
All that have been deleted are duplicates that you posted. To repeat, I don't tolerate spamming here - that includes posting the same comment multiple times. I also don't tolerate sock-puppets.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
He does seem to be on pretty thin ice here. Good point about websites being governed by Trading Standards, even if the ASA can't do anything. Have you thought about reporting him?
I have a sneaking suspicion that we will see something like an 'arms race' here - skeptics will produce more and better complaint letters, fine-tuning them to refernce various points from ASA guidelines and the law. This will be met by chiropractors, who will try to improve their responses collectively in the same way, sadly unaware that they have much shakier ground to base their claims on.
I am now going to start googling chiropractic clinics in my local area - just my little bit to help!
IanH
(and in the interests of educating the young, I am now using chiropractors claims and the available evidence contradicting their suggestions as examples for my science classes)
Yes, its called working in the same office. Quite easy when there are over 1000 people in it...bright spark
So this colleague of yours randomly decided to post for the first time, to pretend that he's had comments deleted when he hasn't, because...?
Nah, sorry, not feeding the troll anymore. Behave, or you'll be blocked.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Thank You Thank You ruhum