the quackometer

The University of Wales is Responsible for Enabling Bogus* Chiropractic Claims to be Made

Friday, June 05, 2009

The Simon Singh/BCA libel case is having the unintended consequence of the media being full of reports of the strange beliefs of chiropractors. They are a cult like body of people and are demonstrating that they are unwilling to discuss matters of evidence but very happy to call their lawyers to get at their critics. In this way they show behaviour more readily expected from scientologists than a responsible health profession.

Another unintended consequence of the BCA decision to sue Simon Singh is that an army of bloggers, scientists and sceptics have been scouring leaflets, advertising and web sites of chiropractors resulting in hundreds of complaints being made to the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and directly to the General Chiropractic Council. What was once considered a strength of Chiropractic – Statutory Regulation – is now being turned back on them as the GCC is obliged by law to investigate every complaint made to them. They are now sitting on a huge pile of letters. The ASA has recently ruled on one claim by a Dr Carl Irwin that he should not call himself ‘Dr’ or claim he can treat things like babies colic. Hundreds of chiropractors make similar claims. The GCC will be busy.

This sort of mass complaint would be powerless against homeopaths. It is now well established that the homeopath’s regulatory bodies, such as the Society of Homeopaths, do not upkeep their own code of conduct and ethics. They are under no obligation to do so by law. But Chiropractors now have to suffer from their own status.

Statutory Regulation of chiropractic makes a number of demands on the trade. Importantly, their education must be from one of three approved schools that provide a degree level education. One school stands out here: the McTimoney College based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, where the degrees are underwritten by the University of Wales. McTimoney Chiropractic is a sect within the bigger cult. It has its own ideas about how hard you should hit the body when it is ill. According to the McTimoney Chiropractic Association, the School was set up in Oxfordshire by John McTimoney who believed that “health depends on healthy nerve messages, subluxations of the vertebrae or other joints interfere with these, and that such subluxations can affect not only joints and muscles, but every cell and organ in the body.” McTimoney Chiropractors do not rely on X-rays to ‘diagnose’ problems, but use their hands to ‘feel’ for things to ‘correct’. Their Latin motto, In Manu Vis Medendi, means 'in the hands is the power of healing'.

These sort of beliefs would appear to be the root of the sort of claims that Simon Singh was disputing. Whilst there is some plausibility that a chiropractic back massage may help back pain, there is no good evidence that chiropractic subluxations exist and that correcting them allows general health conditions to be treated.

The McTimoney Association is quite explicit in its beliefs. Singh was questioning the role of chiropractic in children. McTimoney’s believe that the act of birth harms children and that chiropractic can correct birth problems:

Birth is probably one of the toughest events we undergo as humans. A baby's head has to squeeze through a small birth canal to be born. In doing so the baby's head in particular will absorb much of the shock, and the soft bones will yield slightly allowing it to travel down the birth canal. This is called 'moulding'. After birth the baby's head will gradually revert to a more normal shape. However, if this 'unmoulding' doesn't take place completely, the baby can be left in some discomfort which they are unable to communicate.

Most babies cope extremely well with the process and emerge contented, happy, able to feed, sleep, and grow normally. However, for some, the recovery can take longer, especially those who had a particularly difficult entry into the world and these babies may show some, all, or a combination of the following signs:

Irritability, fractiousness

Feeding problems

Continuous crying

Sleeps little, difficult to settle

Colic, sickness and wind

All of these could indicate that there is a misalignment in the baby's skeletal system and that the baby is uncomfortable as a result.

Evidence for this is of course lacking. It’s nonsense.

Of course birth is not the only problem, but growing children also suffer “simple bumps and tumbles associated with growing up can often cause misalignments of the skeleton”. Naturally, only chiropractors appear to be able to detect these problems. There appears to be few childhood conditions that a good bone rub can’t help:

There is also a range of problems which cannot necessarily be associated with a bump or fall, but which may nonetheless be due to bony misalignment and the subsequent interference with nerves. There are many recorded incidences where treatment has been beneficial for the following symptoms:

Some childhood asthma

Learning difficulties and behavioural problems including:

Poor concentration and inattentiveness

Fidgeting and difficulty sitting still

Hyperactivity

Vunerability [sic] to infections including:

Ear infections

Repetitive colds

Sinus and dental problems

Clumsiness or poor co-ordination

It would appear that a huge source of bogus* chiropractic claims come straight from the (undoubtedly sincerely held) beliefs of the McTimoney’s.

Amazingly, the McTimoney School offers a MSc in Chiropractic Paediatrics. This postgraduate degree is underwritten by the University of Wales. You can also gain a similar MSc in crunching the bones of animals as well as babies. The University validates these degrees and presumably passes them as meeting acceptable standards. What these standards are though must surely exclude having a sound scientific basis. It is the GCC that assesses the content of the courses. We may not expect the GCC to be too harsh in assessment – its own survival depends on the survival of the college. It may also be worth noting that the McTimoney College Principal, Christina Cunliffe, is on the Education Committee and General Council of the GCC.

Without the degree awarding body of the University of Wales endorsement of these courses, students could not join the GCC and subsequently practice as Chiropractors. By underwriting the claims that chiropractic can treat colic, the University has allowed this whole affair to happen.

Recently, Universities have been attacked for offering bogus* science degrees in pseudoscientific subjects, such as homeopathy. Many courses have closed as a result. This does not harm homeopaths too much; most learn their trade from private unaccredited schools.

Somehow, the Chiropractic degrees have escaped this scrutiny. I do not think that will last. And if similar decisions are made in places like the University of Wales as has happened elsewhere, the very future of chiropractic in the UK will be severely threatened.

Chiropractic statutory regulation has given this form of quackery* great strength. But that strength may well be turned against itself and be the undoing in the long run.

* Deliberate deception not implied.

Labels: chiropractors, qualifications, Simon Singh

16 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

Quack Word #39: 'Superfood'

Friday, February 02, 2007

Regular listeners to BBC Radio 4's Womans' Hour will have recently heard nutritionist Suzi Grant extolling the virtues of so-called superfoods. Quackery, I say.

But what on earth can be wrong with a superfood? Surely eating foods rich in nutrients has nothing to do with quackery, but is just common sense? I don't think it is quite that simple, and I would contend that anyone using the word 'superfood' is a quack and deserves to score Canards on the Quackometer. Using the term 'superfood' is at best meaningless and at worst harmful. Let me explain.

Suzi has been appearing on the show regulalry talking about her ideas on superfoods. This Friday's edition of Womans' Hour (listen here) was not such a clear run for her though. This time, Suzi was joined by a dietitian by the name of Catherine Collins. Now, as you know, dietitians are for real. They train for years, have to be registered in order to call themselves a dietitian. They are accountable for what they say and can be struck off if they behave in inappropriate ways. They work in hospitals. Nutritionists tend to be or do none of these things. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist or nutritional therapist. You are a nutritionist. Tell your Mum - she will be proud. They are accountable to no-one but their own conscience and need no training. What training they do have may be severely lacking in credibility. If you are ill with a condition that needs sounds eating advice, like cystic fibrosis, you would best talk to a dietitian. Taking advice from a nutritionist could well seriously damage your health.

So, Catherine (dietitian) vs. Suzi (nutritional therapist). The show was all very Radio 4, cosy and good natured and rather lacked the impact that it ought to have had. After all, Catherine was there to debunk the superfood nonsense, but the interviewer, Carolyn, rather engineered the conversation to an apparent consensus - which there most definitely was not. So, let us here have a look at the issues.

Let's start with a definition of superfood... and at the first hurdle we get stuck. There is no accepted definition, and definitely no scientific way of classifying foods into superfoods. Suzi contended that, when faced with the choice of blueberries and lasagne, she 'knows' which is a superfood and which is not. (The berries, obviously!) Catherine thought this rather ironic as dietitians do not look at individual foods particularly, but instead try to get people to eat 'super diets'. And a Southern Mediterranean diet, with its balance of food groups, including lasagne, is very close to what might be considered a 'super diet'. Of course, Suzi contended that eating loads of lasagne will make you feel woozy and so on. If you stuff yourself silly, answered Catherine. But of course, Italians do not do that. They eat small portions, of many courses, in a varied meal. Moderation, variation and balance. Simple stuff for a super diet. So, the difference so far can be summed up as the dietitian concentrating on the whole diet (holistic, dare I say) and the nutritional therapist fetishising particular trendy foods.

So, is the thing about superfoods just misdirected good intentions? I think it is worse than that, as nutritionists tend to surround their superfood advocacy with wrappings of pseudoscience, mumbo-jumbo and misinformation. This is not good as it confuses people, misinforms then and gets in the way of understanding what makes a good diet. This side of the superfood phenomenon was also on display in the BBC interview.

The first idea that is just plain wrong is that just because certain foods are bursting with a particular vitamin or nutrient then they will be especially healthy for you. The idea is that because Vitamin C stops you getting nasty illnesses, then lots of Vit C must be very, very healthy. The truth is that your body has a requirement for sufficient nutrients in order to work. Sufficient is the key word here. If it has an excess amount of these nutrients, and cannot store them, then they will essentially go to waste. So much food quackery is based around the canard that 'more good stuff is better'.

Next, there are certain woo-like beliefs that seeds and sprouts are 'bursting' with all the 'energy' that a plant will need for its life. Utter rot. Plants obtain their energy from photosynthesis and nutrients and water from soil. A seed's job is to produce a leaf or two and a small root so that it can start extracting the stuff from the environment that it will need to grow. In that sense, a seed is no more special than any other plant matter. Lucky seeds do not contain all that energy the nutriquacks talk about. Imagine the energy in an acorn required to make an oak tree. One wrong tap and it would go off like a nuclear bomb. Dangerous walking in Autumn.

One last canard on display was that the colour of foods is very important. Superfoods are often brightly coloured. Somehow a food's nutritional value can be judged by its colour. Now, to be fair, getting people to eat a variety of different coloured foods may help in promoting variety and the use of fresh products - but that is it. Colour is not a flag for nutritional value, but might just liven up a damp salad.

I can almost hear Suzi typing an angry email to me saying that all her pronouncements are backed up by scientific studies. To that, I would say that Ben Goldacre has done a fantastic demolition job on the quality of superfood research. In this Saturday's Guardian he wrote about finally getting hold of 'Dr' Gillian McKeith's PhD 'thesis', probably better described as a PhD pamphlet and recipe book. It has long been expected that its academic quality may be questionable as her PhD was awarded by a non-accredited US correspondence college cum vitamin supplement shop. Best read Ben's analysis of the thesis for all the gory details.

I said earlier that concentrating on superfoods could well have the capability to actually harm people. I think this comes about as heeding advice about taking superfoods misses the big picture. And the big picture is to simply eat a balanced, varied and modest diet. Superfoods give the impression that ordinary, affordable and everyday foods are somehow deficient. Rather than spend five pounds on wooberries and mumbo-jumbo bean sprouts in Waitrose, a family would be better off buying regular and larger quantities of fresh fruit and veg from their local market. On a restricted budget, it is even more important to ignore dubious, expensive products in the belief you can take shortcuts to a good diet. Rather than buying imported African blue-green energy-algae, with all the CO2 emissions associated with travel, eating a cheap British apple would be better for the environment too.

So what's left for superfoods? Little really. Like most alternative medicine quackometer words, it is a word without substance and is just a marketing word, like 'holisitic', 'organic', or Gillian McKeith's use of the term, 'Doctor'. The word sells expensive berries in Waitrose, bottles of weird algae extract on nutriquacks' web sites, and unimaginative and lazy recipe books. Oh, and it fills slots on the radio with nonsense.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, diets, mckeith, nutritionist, Quack Words, qualifications, vitamins

7 Comments View blog reactions

PHYTOBIOPHYSICS® - Flower Power or Duck Weed?

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

A big thanks to quackometer correspondent, a broadcaster, journalist and nutritional therapist, Suzi Grant for bringing me to the attention of the wonderful sounding healing technique of Phytobiophysics®. (please don't sue me...) This is a technique that is being promoted by the Institute of Phytobiophysics which follows the Mossop Philosophy through its products and courses. The Mossop philosophy is supposed to:

harnesses the vibration energy of plants to release energy blocks in the human body so that balance is re-established for all levels of consciousness; spiritual, emotional, mental and physical.

So far, just the usual pseudoscience, sounding a bit like a Bach Remedy. However, the Mossop Philosophy is based on the 'discoveries' of Professor Dame Diana Mossop. Wow. Regular quackometer followers will now just how much flaunted titles excite the little black duck. A Professor and a Dame! That has to be worth a little dig.

So before we inquire a little deeper, just what are the claims of Prof. Dame Mossop and the science of Phytobiophysics?

The Professor apparently suffered from malaria and did not respond well to real medicine as it was at the time. During some convalescence in the Far East and some 'organic nutrition', the Dame became convinced that illness was caused by 'unhappiness' and that plants provided the 'vibrations' to cure us. Much 'research' followed before Diana was able to bring forth her extensive range of healing flower products to the world.

The Dame now runs a web site selling flower essences, a bit like Bach Remedies, but somewhere (its a bit confusing) vodka is used rather than brandy and the flower vibrations are 'amplified' and not 'diluted, as in homeopathy'. One has to wonder just how much vodka is not reaching the manufacturing stage.

Now, flowers are nice, and I might not mind too much, but PDDM (I can't be bothered to type her full name all the time), claims that her pills (manufactured by a homeopathy factory, apparently) are much stronger than homeopathic pills (not hard) and bach remedies (for brandy lovers only) and can cure viral diseases. Oooh. Scary. Viral infections can be lethal and need proper medical care. We are are now getting into danger territory - the sort of territory that gives rise to HIV deniers and the bonkers thinking of some unfortunately misguided African politicians that will undoubtedly end in the deaths of millions of people unless some very clear thought is applied. Whilst I see nowhere on PDDM's web site to suggest that she is in this genocidal thought camp, claims for viral cures really do need to be backed up with sound evidence. The stakes are high. Who knows who will misuse this technique.

Anyway, the web site and her biography leave many questions unanswered. But for my correspondent, Suzi Grant, Prof Dame Mossop is someone I "might like to talk to ... before deciding it is also 'quackery'". Suzi is a journalist and so I would like to apply some journalistic techniques here. Basically, checking my facts, not taking anyone's word for it, and asking the obvious questions.

So, here are the questions I would like to ask the Professor Dame...

You claim to have been made a Dame in 1993 after being "honoured with a Knighthood by the International Order Knights of Malta of St John of Jerusalem for her contribution to medical research".

- So, you were not made a Dame by the Queen - the usual route? I can find no mention on the web of the International Knights' Order you talk of (is this organisation the same as the Knights Hospitaller?) and no mention of anyone else similarly honoured. Does this organisation exist? If they do, why their secrecy? Why are you allowed to talk about them and no-one else? Puzzling.

You claim to be a Professor, but I see in your biography no mention of any academic degrees.

- What subjects have you studied at postgraduate level? Who awarded your Professorship? To me it looks like the only organisation that could have done this is the 'Institution' you set up yourself to sell your products. Did you award the title to yourself? Most web retailers do not call their founder a Professor. Puzzling.

You claim that your 'Institution' is "affiliated to the Open International University for Complementary medicine". Looking at the Open International University web site, it would appear that the sole function of this organisation is to organise a shin dig for various complementary therapists once a year. This university would appear to have no students, no lecturers, no premises and no courses. Puzzling.

You claim your bizarrely unique Dameship is for your 'contribution to medical research' and yet nothing appears to be published on this. You claim to be "the author of seven unpublished books". Why are they unpublished? Why hold back your knowledge from the world if it really is so important? How did the da Vinci Code people who gave you your Dameship know you had made a contribution to medical research?
On that note, how do you yourself know what you claim to be true? What experiments have you done? Where have you published your papers, Professor? I can find no mention of Phytobiophysics® on pubmed. Surely, you are not telling me that Phytobiophysics® has no independently peer-reviewed and published work in respected medical journals? Puzzling.

You claim that "unlike bacteria, viruses are electrical in nature – they interfere with the electrical field forces of the body". Those are all words in a gramatically correct sentence, but they appear to make no sense. Are you aware of viral theory? In what possible sense are viruses 'electrical in nature'? This looks like classical pseudo-scientific gibberish and as the black duck would say, you don't appear to know the meaning of the words. Is the consensus and well established view of viruses being either fragments of DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein caspid wrong? A nobel prize becons if you are in any sense right. Puzzling.

Why do the flowers have to be picked at the full moon? So you can see? Why not take a torch? Or even do it during daylight? What if it is cloudy? Deeply puzzled.

I could go on. But the depth of ridiculousness is far too much for one blog. Next time perhaps...

I will end on an odd observation. Diana Mossop (I shall drop the titles for now until I get my answers) claims to have helped supermodel Jodie Kidd through a bit of a crisis. Great. Good Stuff. But didn't my last suspect Professor, the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi also have thing about supermodels, only this time Kate Moss?

What is it with supermodels? I must investigate...

Labels: homeopathy, phytobiophysics, quacks, qualifications, titles

58 Comments View blog reactions

Right Royal College of Pompous Quackery - Dublin

Thursday, September 28, 2006

I had to share this with you. Following on from my recent Quack Word 'Doctor' blog, I came across the Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) , a Dublin based - well, I'm not sure quite what it is...

What caught my eye was just the shameless aggrandisement of the site. It is quite hilarious, if not a little repetitive at times. Calling yourself 'Doctor' is somewhat pompous when all you have done is paid for some international postage. However, the man behind RCAM has absolutely no shame and titles himself as the:

Distinguished Provost of RCAM (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK)

Wow! Probably, just Joe to his mates. Naturally, when you Google the qualification FRCAM(Dublin), there is only person who appears to revel in this achievement. I'll leave the rest as an excercise for the reader.

The distinguished provost looks like he is just another pseudoscientific nutritionist, his spin being "Nutritional Immunomodulation". This is obviously a lot more clever than Patrick Holfords mere 'Optimum Nutrition', but having only one 'omnipill' is probably a poorer commercial decision that Patrick's vast range of supplements.

Obviously, Professor Obi has had a few problems with what probably amount to bewildering comments about his site as the legal threats and press releases concerning his 'ethical' responses to criticisms cover more space than anything else. 'Ethical' is a favourite word on the site.

The most recent press release states,

7th September 2006 : The Distinguished RCAM Provost , Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK) has formally accepted appointment as Chief Professorial Examiner for the Doctor of Science (DSc) programme in Evidence Based , Alternative Medicine (EBAM) of a highly respected International University in one of the British Commonwealth Protectorates.
This new qualification is primarily aimed at Medical Graduates , Physicians, Surgeons, Pharmacists, Dentists , Osteopaths , Chiropractors , Opticians , Wellness Consultants , Herbalists , Acupuncturists , Naturopaths , Healers, Podiatrists , Chiropodists , Scientists , Healers ,Therapists, Homeopaths , Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Nurses wishing to ethically upgrade their current Qualifications in Alternative Medicine over an exceedingly intensive 12 - 36 month period of study.

British Commonwealth Protectorates? Could that be Dublin?

I really have no idea what this organisation is all about. But it looks like it could be getting quite big soon...

RCAM currently has International Vacancies for One Million (1,000,000) 'Foundation Fellows' ('Movers and Shakers') ; who will independently play a highly pivotal role in diligently mentoring (and regulating) it's future Global Membership.
So if you really think that you seriously have what it takes to become a 'Leader' in Alternative Medicine , then (perhaps) RCAM may definitely be exactly what the Doctor ordered for you.

One million. That's a lot of quacks! And they are just to mentor (and regulate) the wider quack membership! This man has ambition.

The Big J really hates real doctors. This is his most recent press release...

RCAM would like to warmly commend the various Chieftans of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom for ethically and appropriately ignoring utterly misguided calls (from a rather amusing Group of thirteen Clinical Yestermen) to compel Hard-Working (and Tax-Paying) British Citizens to additionally pay for Life Enhancing Alternative Medicine Interventions out of their very own pockets - rather than get such treatments free via the NHS. RCAM would like to also categorically state that such exceedingly flawed 'G-13' demands that the National Health Service of the United Kingdom expediently abandon Alternative Medicine altogether (in total favour of Conventional Medicine) be diplomatically treated with the very utmost contempt which such unguarded verbal flippance duly deserves ; as none of these 13 'Eminent UK Scientists' behind such calls has professionally attained Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications in Alternative Medicine and as such cannot be deemed competent enough to make such sweeping 'Shilly-Shally' statements about the noble independent specialty of Alternative Medicine.

RCAM therefore publicly advises the General Public to lawfully go about their normal Wellness-Seeking Behaviour as usual - without any unwarranted prejudice or fear resulting from such highly self-serving, morally unethical , abjectly crude , totally unprofessional, utterly unstatesmanly, morbidly barbaric, wantonly uncivilized, profanely undemocratic and unspeakably sacrilegious perpetual affronts on the therapeutically formidable institution of Alternative Medicine.

Now, I do not have 'Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications' in Santa Clause Studies to know he does not exist. But hey. I must be a morbidly barbaric and profanely undemocratic, unethical duck.

So, struggling around the acres of pomposity I find one place where Prof Joe might be making some money. You can call him to seek his wisdom, after pre-booking an hour's slot (and handing over your credit card) for a mere 300 Euros. Alternatively, you can pay by the minute on the contact line for a trifling $10 per minute.

Its going to cost you $20 just for Joe to say Hello and to read out his numerous titles, qualifications and names. Not bad 'ethical' work.

Labels: Professor Joseph Obi, qualifications, titles

4 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions