The Quackometer

Last March I asked, “Will the government bail out Ofquack?” when it was becoming very clear that the new government backed ‘regulator’ for pseudo-medical trades people (quacks) were running out of money  fast. It looks like at about the time I was asking this, the CNHC were running cap in hand to the Department of Health.

In documents I have obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, it would appear that the Department of Health has agreed to give the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council a further £409,300 for the year 2009/2010 and is looking at an additional £127,750 for the following year. This money would appear to be conditional on Ofquack “making good progress against their Business Plan.”

Quite what the CNHC are telling the Department of Health is not clear. I am failing so far to get any reports from the DoH regarding their progress. The problem with FOI requests is that you have to know what documents and data are available. It is taking some time to tease that information out. So far, it looks as if there are no reports  – which is worrying in itself.

What is even more bizarre is how Ofquack appear now to be rewriting old press releases that mentioned what their Business Plan might be. I have been reporting now for several years how most of the pseudo-medical  trades that come under the umbrella of the CNHC have been very reluctant to participate. The homeopaths have flatly refused to take part. The Nutritional Therapists looked as if they might but then have backed out. Only the Massage Therapists have joined in any numbers. And after six months of operation,  they have managed to sign up 423 quacks against a target of 10,000 for the year. Back of the envelope calculations would suggest that this number of registrants would keep the CNHC in business for a few weeks. Hence, the need for the government to chip in again if they are not to sink as fast as a lead duck.

But this new money does appear to dependent on them meeting ‘Business Objectives’. It would take an enormous stretch of the imagination to think that 423 registrants is anything like an acceptable achievment. When they started signing people up I said they would be lucky to reach 1,000 by the end of the year. I might have been over optimistic.

So it comes as little surprise to see that in the last few days, Ofquack have been busy in an Orwelian attempt to rewrite history so that it makes things look a little rosier for them. They say they now have “seven overarching priorities” and then go on to list all eight of them.  The press release dated 10th December 2008 now begins with two “overarching priorities”:

• To register 4,000 complementary practitioners
• To achieve a self-sustaining financial position by the end of the financial year 2010/2011 (ie second year or operation

This is not the first time they have re-written their history. Originally, we were told that Ofquack would be supplying a ‘Kitemark’ to registrants. The British Standards Institute objected to them using their trademark and were told to stop. So, the press releases, and the rest of the site, were changed.

Further insight comes from an email I have seen between Ofquack officials and someone enquiring about their progress suggest they are confident they will sign up 2,000 pseudo-medical practitioners by the Autumn and 4000 by the Spring and will achieve their ‘self-funding’ target of 10,000 by Spring 2011.

Now, I think it pretty naughty to go back and rewrite old press releases. It does not look to me like a particularly honest thing to do. Ofquack is showing a complete failure to be open and transparent in its business. Despite pledging to post their minutes online, they quickly withdrew their first attempts and then failed to post others. They recently posted some minutes but they were so sanitised that they contained no information beyond a bunch of people met up and discussed some stuff.

The lack of accountability is quite worrying and I have discussed this before. At the moment, I see no evidence that they have had to report to anyone. I see no evidence that anyone is keeping an eye on their progress. They claim to be a regulator to help the protect the public against dangerous quacks but they refuse to discuss that tricky problem that none of those they seek to regulate have any good evidence that what they do works. It is the nonsensical regulation of charlatanism and delusion. 

The UK is currently facing grave funding decisions for our health service. Cuts are going to be made quite deep by the look of things. Ofquack is a small part of that, but a commitment to cutting out such nonsense would signal a greater commitment to ensuring our Health Service spends money on treatments that are effective and embraces systems that respect evidence. Ofquack just does not fit. It is a toothless regulator that cannot do what it sets out to do – protect the public. It refuses to consider the effectiveness of the treatments that it seeks to regulate. It is happy to give a ‘quality mark’ to pseudo-medical trades people as long as they have a certificate hanging on their toilet wall to show they have been ‘properly trained’. It does not matter a jot if that training is in nonsense, discredited techniques, mumbo jumbo or disproven theories. Ofquack was set up under the watchful eye of Prince Charles and his toad eaters at the Foundation for Integrated Health. All it will do is aggrandize them – which is what Mr Windsor no doubt wants to further his bizarre ‘integrative’ agenda.

The hundreds of thousands being thrown away here may not be large in the grand scheme of things. But it is money wasted and it could be used in a much more efficient way. The first thing that should be done if the government is serious about protecting the public from charlatans and the deluded is to divert the money into training Trading Standards officers in enforcing the current laws that prevent false medical claims being made by businesses. The law is new. It is unfamiliar to TS in practice, but it would only take a few successful prosecutions to really send a message through to the full zoology of quackery out there.

Many people in the UK are unable to identify the location of their major chakras, a study warns.

A team at the Institute of Magical Thinking found public understanding of basic alternative medicine has not improved since a similar survey was conducted 40 years ago.

Less than 50% of the more than 700 people surveyed could correctly place the anahata chakra, Moonbat’s Holistic Drop-in Centre says.

Under one-third could place their gall bladder meridian in the correct location, but more than 85% got their kidney meridian points right. 37% did not know what 37% meant.

There are concerns that the British public's poor grasp of pseudoscience could potentially compromise the struggling alternative health industry.

WHERE ARE YOUR RENAL REFLOXOLOGY PRESSURE POINTS?

The researchers asked more than 700 people to look at outlines of both a male and female ear and identify which of several shaded areas corresponded to particular organs.

Those asked included apparently healthy members of the public and then people undergoing CAM treatment for blocked chi within specific organs.

Even those for whom the organ was particularly relevant often performed poorly - more than half of those with renal problems did not correctly identify the kidney’s auricular acupuncture points.

"We thought that the improvements in Sunday Supplement health bollocks seen since then, coupled with an increased media focus on quackery and growing access to the internet as a source of daft medical information, might have led to an increase in patients' pseudo-anatomical knowledge," said lead researcher John Warlock.

"As it turns out, there has been no significant improvement in the intervening years."

There was little difference between men and women, although women did perform better in knowledge of made up chemical names for skin and hair products.

Unsurprisingly, given the raft of pseudoscience degrees in Universities, the better educated identified more nutritional supplements correctly.

Communication concerns

Don Dumb, head of policy at the Pixey Institute Europe, a pretend research group, agreed.

"There is a real problem with alternative health literacy - people's ability to unquestioningly accept and process bullshit health information - which this study is indicative of.

"It really does matter, particularly as we look ahead to an NHS where NICE are starting to promote nonsense back pain treatments, like chiropractic and acupuncture.

"If people are going to use the NHS Royal London Homeopathic Hospital in an effective way they need to be able to understand just how important it is to keep their vital force in balance.”

Ellen Fluffhead, from the British Mountebank Foundation, said: "Ideally the public would have a better knowledge of the location of their crystal meditation balancing points than this study suggests.”

"This would hopefully produce a more meaningful dialogue with their high street charlatan when they start to feel vaguely in need of some self-centred, indulgent, nonsensical affirmation of their illusory sense of control in their otherwise completely vacuous lives.”

"However, it is ultimately more important to for us to know how to take money out of their wallets than for them to know any of this made-up rubbish."

(With thanks to the BBC - Basic anatomy 'baffles Britons' )

Labels: fun

Of Lordly acquaintance you boast,
And the Dukes that you dined with yestreen;
Yet an insect's an insect at most,
Tho' it crawl on the curl of a Queen!

But what wonderful words: toadying and sycophancy. Where do they come from?

One dictionary definition gives this delightful word history:

The earliest recorded sense (around 1690) of toady is "a little or young toad," but this has nothing to do with the modern usage of the word. The modern sense has rather to do with the practice of certain quacks or charlatans who claimed that they could draw out poisons. Toads were thought to be poisonous, so these charlatans would have an attendant eat or pretend to eat a toad and then claim to extract the poison from the attendant. Since eating a toad is an unpleasant job, these attendants came to epitomize the type of person who would do anything for a superior, and toadeater (first recorded 1629) became the name for a flattering, fawning parasite. Toadeater and the verb derived from it, toadeat,influenced the sense of the noun and verb toad and the noun toady, so that both nouns could mean "sycophant" and the verb toady could mean "to act like a toady to someone."

I am not sure if this is true. But if it is, am an appalled that such techniques for quackery promotion do not go on today. The quacks of today have lost their bottle. Who would not delight in seeing a homeopath getting their Saturday intern doing a floor demonstration in Boots the Chemist by eating a live toad and then taking some Nux Vom to ensure she does not throw up. There would be queues around the block to see that, and I would be so impressed I would buy the sugar pills. And, of course, Roger Daltry on stage eating toads in front of Prince Charles whilst singing a medley of hits from Tommy would have really hit the headlines.

The etymology of sycophant may be a little harder and require some Latin and Greek.

My own personal favourite usage of the word appears in the film “101 Dalmatians” when Glenn Close’s Cruella de Vil berates her manservant by saying “What sort of sycophant do you think you are?”. To which he replies, “What sort of sycophant would you like me to be?”

We are told that the word is derived from συκος sykos, "fig", and φανης fanēs, "to show” so basically sycophant is someone who shows figs. Not a lot of sense there. One explanation is that,

the Greek suko-phantes, "fig-blabbers." The men of Athens passed a law forbidding the exportation of figs; the law was little more than a dead letter, but there were always found mean fellows who, for their own private ends, impeached those who violated it; hence sycophant came to signify first a government toady, and then a toady generally.

Do we believe that? The Oxford English Dictionary disputes this explanation and instead offers that it comes from an obscene gesture of “sticking the thumb between two fingers” in the shape of a fig. We are told that “The story goes that prominent politicians in ancient Greece held aloof from such inflammatory gestures, but privately urged their followers to taunt their opponents.”

Why this is obscene may be reflected in the fact that sykon has an alternative meaning of vulva.

On that note, I think we had better leave it there.

Labels: fun

This letter has been issued from the McTimoney Association to all its members…

Date: 8 June 2009 09:12:18 BDT

Subject: FURTHER URGENT ACTION REQUIRED!

Dear Member

If you are reading this, we assume you have also read the urgent email we sent you last Friday. If you did not read it, READ IT VERY CAREFULLY NOW and - this is most important – ACT ON IT. This is not scaremongering. We judge this to be a real threat to you and your practice.

Because of what we consider to be a witch hunt against chiropractors, we are now issuing the following advice:

The target of the campaigners is now any claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research. The safest thing for everyone to do is as follows.

1. If you have a website, take it down NOW.

When you have done that, please let us know preferably by email or by phone. This will save our valuable time chasing you to see whether it has been done.

1. REMOVE all the blue MCA patient information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice. The MCA are working on an interim replacement leaflet which will be sent to you shortly.

1. If you have not done so already, enter your name followed by the word ‘chiropractor’ into a search engine such as Google (e.g. Joe Bloggs chiropractor) and you will be able to ascertain what information about you is in the public domain e.g. where you might be listed using the Doctor title or where you might be linked with a website which might implicate you. We have found that even if you do not have a website yourself you may still have been linked inadvertently to a website listing you or your services.

CHECK ALL ENTRIES CAREFULLY AND IF IN DOUBT, CONTACT THE RELEVANT PROVIDER TO REMOVE YOUR INFORMATION.

CHECK OUR PREVIOUS EMAILS FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE AND KEY WORDS TO AVOID.

KEEP A LOG OF YOUR ACTIONS.

1. If you use business cards or other stationery using the ‘doctor’ title and it does not clearly state that you are a doctor of chiropractic or that you are not a registered medical practitioner, STOP USING THEM immediately.

5. Be wary of ‘mystery shopper’ phone calls and ‘drop ins’ to your practice, especially if they start asking about your care of children, or whiplash, or your evidence base for practice.

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE, YOU MAY BE AT RISK FROM PROSECUTION.

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE, THE MCA MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU WITH ANY PROCEEDINGS.

Although this advice may seem extreme or alarmist, its purpose is to protect you. The campaigners have a target of making a complaint against every chiropractor in the UK who they perceive to be in breach of the GCC’s CoP, the Advertising Standards Code and/or Trading Standards. We have discovered that complaints against more than 500 individual chiropractors have been sent to the GCC in the last 24 hours.

Whatever you do, do not ignore this email and make yourself one of the victims. Some of our members have not followed our earlier advice and now have complaints made against them. We do not want that to happen to you.

Even if you do not have a website, you are still at risk. Our latest information suggests that this group are now going through Yellow Pages entries. Be in no doubt, their intention is to scrutinise every single chiropractor in the UK.

The MCA Executive has worked tirelessly over the last week keeping abreast of development and contacting at risk members. We have decided that this is our best course of action to protect you and the Association at this time of heightened tension. This advice is given to you solely to protect you from what we believe is a concerted campaign, and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part or the part of the Association. We believe that our best course of action is simply to withdraw from the battleground until this latest wave of targeting is over.

Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients, Firstly it would not be ethical to burden patients with this, though if they ask we hope you now have information with which you can respond.

Most importantly, this email and all correspondence from the MCA is confidential advice to MCA members alone, and should not be shared with anyone else.

Please be aware that the office phone lines are likely to be busy, so, if you need our help, please send an email to the office and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

Yours,

Berni Martin

MCA Chair.

Best wishes,

Nicki

The McTimoney web site itself now just reads:

For all enquiries regarding McTimoney chiropractic, please contact :

McTimoney Chiropractic Association
Crowmarsh Gifford
Wallingford OX10 8DJ
admin@mctimoney-chiropractic.org
Tel : 01491 829494

The most stunning admission is that Chiropractors are told:

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE, YOU MAY BE AT RISK FROM PROSECUTION.

****************************************************************************************************

Update:

All the missing websites have been archived here: http://yaxu.org/tmp/chiros.html

Smashing job yaxu

PS Dont forget to sign the Simon Singh support campaign.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

Labels: British Chiropractic Association, chiropractors, McTimoney, Simon Singh

The British Chiropractic Association do not appear to be too hot on evidence. Given that they are suing Simon Singh, a science writer, for saying that they promoted treatments for children's ailments, such as asthma and colic, when there was no good evidence, you would have thought that they would have been quick to publish any evidence that existed. In fact, despite the BCA telling us that there is a plethora of evidence for the chiropractic treatment of these conditions, they have still failed to make their case public. Strangely, they have made that alleged evidence available to the court. Some of us are beginning to doubt that the evidence will stand up to much scrutiny.

Two of the central criticisms of chiropractic are that they promote improperly evidenced treatments and that they attempt to enrol customers on lengthy, expensive and unnecessary treatment plans. Furthermore, they market themselves as ‘wellness’ therapists where you should attend your chiropractor even when you feel fine for ‘corrective’ adjustments. My investigations of the BCA reveal that they are deliberately targeting children with an unevidenced chiropractic message.

Every year the BCA hold a Chiropractic Awareness Week. For the past few years, they have been promoting themselves with a campaign called “Straighten Up UK”. The idea of this campaign is to suggest to people that they should be performing a daily exercise programme “to help strengthen the spine and improve posture.” They are specifically targeting children by introducing a couple of cartoon characters, Abbey and Jake, and suggesting some exercises that kids can do to keep them in shape.

The exercises are divided into three parts and given kid friendly names - ‘stars’, ‘flying friends’ and ‘core balance’. The idea is that children can do a simple three minutes that can be incorporated into their ‘daily routine’ – whatever that means for kids. You can look at the video of the exercise here.

Now, anything that helps kids lead active lives ought to be good. But the campaign is not just about getting kids to bend and stretch – it is closely linked to the idea that chiropractic for kids is a ‘good thing’. Some chiropractors advertise that they would like you to “visit your chiropractor as you would your dentist”. There is no evidence to suggest this is necessary or beneficial. The BCA say in their Straighten Up UK (SUUK) campaign,

As children grow, chiropractic can help not only with the strains caused by the rough and tumble of life but also with some of the problems that children can suffer in their first years:

A BCA chiropractor will carry out a full examination and take a thorough history before advising an appropriate treatment programme for you or your children. Treatment consists of specific adjustments done by hand to free stiff joints and remove spinal nerve irritation.

We have previously seen how chiropractors are taught that birth introduced trauma to the bones of children can be corrected by manipulation. Again, there is no decent evidence for this.

So, where did this campaign come from and where is the evidence that their exercise programme benefits children?

Well, a PR Company looks like it is taking the credit. Publicasity, who describe themselves as ‘brand alchemists, have the BCA as a case study. Publicasity take the credit for creating the “three minute exercise called “Straighten Up UK” and using it is a tool for creating “clear ROI” for the BCA. (For my gentle readers not engaged in marketing activities, ROI is ‘Return on Investment’).

Publicasity also undertook some ‘research’ by conducting a survey to look at “ who was suffering from back pain and attitudes towards bad posture”. Dutifully, the market research showed that “50% of 16-24 year olds were currently suffering back pain and that the UK was indeed a nation of ‘Slouch Potatoes’.” Press releases were then issued and obediently picked up by Jenny Hope and Sarah Stacey of the Daily Mail for verbatim publication.

Indeed, in the Daily Mail, we are given a quote,

Mr Hutchful [Tim Hutchful, BCA spokesperson] said the BCA has launched a three-minute exercise programme called Straighten Up UK, which is designed to help strengthen the spine and improve posture.

It gives instructions for three quick sets of movements designed to warm up muscles, and advice on posture care and balance.

He said that although chiropractors can assist in diagnosis and treatment of painful joints, ligaments and the spine, they are more concerned with prevention.

"It's like looking after your teeth," he said. "It doesn't take long to brush your teeth every day but it pays dividends for life.

"We want people to take that amount of time to care for their backs."

PR job done.

Well, not quite. A ‘call to action’ is also important in marketing terms. Being ‘with it’ Publicasity made sure there were some ‘flash events’ and ‘stunts’ in ‘high footfall’ locations (English translation: train stations and shopping centres). They also made sure they interfered with Fern and Phil on ITV’s This Morning. Publicasity also made sure that ‘press toolkits’ were available to BCA chiropractor members so that they could get people into their premises for ‘free posture check ups’.

Joy.

A pretty slick operation. Publicasity state they had a reach of 53,998,551 people. I think that figure pretty much sums up their attitude to relevance, accuracy and precision.

And what does this say about the BCA? Well, they like their stunts. This is typical of the ‘cash for’ stories that Ben Goldacre documents so well. We may expect cheap PR stunts from a fish oil pill peddler or a fluff headed shampoo maker, but a regulated health profession?

True colours are shining through.

Labels: British Chiropractic Association, chiropractors, publicasity

Are you a journalist or presenter looking for someone to discuss Homeopathy Awareness Week? Then please get in touch.

The Society of Homeopaths are promoting “Homeopathy - a natural approach for the symptoms of hay fever”

Did you know there is no convincing evidence that homeopathy can help with hayfever, or for any other condition?

Did you know that homeopaths do not just treat mild self-limiting conditions such as hayfever, but they believe that they can treat serious diseases around the world such as malaria and HIV?

Did you know that the charity Sense About Science has recently called on the World Health Organisation to condemn the use of homeopathy in the developing world for life threatening disease?

In a letter to the World Health Organisation today, early career medics and researchers are calling for the body to issue a clear international communication about the inappropriate use of homeopathy for five serious diseases. They say they are frustrated with the continued promotion of homeopathy as a preventative or treatment for HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea. The Voice of Young Science network has joined with other early career medics and researchers working in developing countries to send the letter, in advance of a 'Homeopathy for Developing Countries' conference in the Netherlands on 6th June.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/331/

Did you know that Founder Members, current or former Directors, Fellows and other senior figures within the Society of Homeopaths have been actively engaged in promoting or using homeopathic sugar pills to treat or prevent malaria and HIV in Africa and other developing areas?

Did you know that homeopathy organisations fail to condemn dangerous uses of homeopathy for children and serious illnesses even when terrible harm is done?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,25613668-5006009,00.html

Here is a sensible factsheet about Homeopathy, its principles and the evidence base for it.

I can put you in contact with researchers, medics and campaigners who care that the public is fully aware of what homeopathy is and what its limitations are. Let’s have the debate.

Labels: Homeopathy Awareness Week

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

“The law has no place in scientific disputes”

Simon Singh is to appeal the absurd and astonishingly illiberal ruling made by Sir David Eady in the libel case brought about by the British Chiropractic Association. This is a brave decision by Simon, but an important one as there are issues at stake that go well beyond one case.

Today, the charity Sense about Science is launching a campaign to highlight the issues raised by the Simon Singh libel case. I am very please to support this campaign and be one of the first signatories to the following statement:

We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Please visit the campaign web site at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate and give your own support. As you can see, there are one or two names on the list who are even more eminent and famous than me. Every one from the Poet Laureate to Harry Hill has signed. (I believe that Harry has suggested there is only one way to settle this – FIGHT!)

Sign the Support Statement.

Also, download the campaign button and add it to your website.

The Quackometer wishes Simon Singh all the best in his appeal. He may still yet lose. The legal shenanigans involved are tough. What is quite clear though, in that appealing, the absurdity of the chiropractic position will be made public, and the injustice of the law brought to the full attention of the media. The BCA could still do the best thing and back down. At the very least they could publish the scientific evidence that they believe they have to support their position. Their silence on the matter of evidence is damning.

Good luck and here’s to greater public awareness of chiropractic absurdity and even a change in the law.

******************************************************************************************************************

What some people have said about this:

Stephen Fry, Broadcaster and Author:

“It may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilisation. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense. When a powerful organisation tries to silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as ‘humility before the facts’ — it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust.”

Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS, University of Oxford:

“This splendid manifesto hits so many bullseyes, I feel like adding my signature to every line of it. The English libel laws are ridiculed as an international charter for litigious mountebanks, and the effects are especially pernicious where science is concerned.”

Jonathan Heawood, Director, English PEN:

“You know there's something badly wrong with the libel law when a serious scientific writer is dragged through the courts for something he didn't even mean to say! Simon Singh's only mistake was not to distinguish clearly enough between ineffective and fraudulent treatments - both of which might equally be termed 'bogus'. The real culprit here is the rich English language and the arcane law of libel.”

Professor Richard Wiseman, Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, and author:

“England's strict libel laws can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science, even when they have strong evidence for their argument.  Simon's campaign deserves the support of everyone who cares about fighting pseudoscience.”

Diana Garnham, Chief Executive, The Science Council:

“Delivery of professional health care should be based on science, not libel laws.  It goes without saying that all professional health care scientists must be expected to base their professional practice on scientific methodology, encompassing both a rigorous evidence base and open peer review.”

*******************************************************************************************************************

An Impressive List of Signatories:

Science

Professor Jim Al-Khalili OBE Professor of Physics and of Public Engagement in Science, University of Surrey

Dr Sabine Bahn Cambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research, University of Cambridge

Harriet Ball Voice of Young Science network

Professor Michael Baum MB FRCS ChM MD FRCR Emeritus Professor of Surgery and Visiting Professor of Medical Humanities, University College London

Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell FRS University of Oxford and President, The Institute of Physics

Willem Betz Emeritus Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Chair, SKEPP

Susan Blackmore Visiting Professor, School of Psychology, University of Plymouth

Professor Colin Blakemore FRS University of Oxford

Sir Tom Blundell FRS University of Cambridge and President, The Biochemical Society

Jean Bricmont Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Louvain and Honorary President, Association Francaise pour l'Information Scientifique

Tracey Brown Managing Director, Sense About Science

Professor David Colquhoun FRS University College London

Professor David Cope

Professor Brian Cox University of Manchester

Dr Tim Crayford MB BS MSc FFPH FRSA Former President, Association of Directors of Public Health

Professor Richard Dawkins FRS University of Oxford

Professor Edzard Ernst MD PhD FRCP FRCP (Edin) Peninsula Medical School, Exeter University

Professor Elizabeth Fisher FMedSci Institute of Neurology, University College London

Dr Ron Fraser Chief Executive, The Society for General Microbiology

Carlos Frenk Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics, Durham University

Diana Garnham Chief Executive, The Science Council

John Garrow MD PhD FRCP FRCP (Edin) Emeritus Professor of Clinical Nutrition, University of London and Former Chairman, HealthWatch

Professor David Gordon President, Association of Medical Schools in Europe

Professor Hugh Griffiths FREng University College London and Chairman and on behalf of The Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK

Dr John Haigh Former Reader in Mathematics, University of Sussex

Professor Martin Humphries University of Manchester and Chair, The Biochemical Society

Sir Tim Hunt FRS Cancer Research UK

Roland Jackson Chief Executive, The British Science Association

Professor Steve Jones University College London

Dr Stephen Keevil King’s College London

Professor Sir David King FRS Former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Director, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

Dr Chris Kirk Chief Executive, The Biochemical Society

Professor Sir Peter Lachmann FRS FMedSci University of Cambridge and Founder President, Academy of Medical Sciences

Jennifer Lardge Voice of Young Science network

Armand Leroi Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Imperial College London

Dr Robin Lovell-Badge FRS FMedSci MRC National Institute for Medical Research

Daniella Muallem Voice of Young Science network

Professor Dame Bridget Ogilvie FRS FMedSci Former Director, Wellcome Trust

Professor Clive Orchard University of Bristol and President, The Physiological Society

Professor Ole H Petersen CBE University of Liverpool

Lord Rees Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, University of Cambridge

Les Rose Clinical Science Consultant

Dame Nancy Rothwell FRS MRC Research Professor and President, Biosciences Federation

Alan Sokal Professor of Physics, New York University and Professor of Mathematics, University College London

Professor Beda Stadler University of Bern, Switzerland

Dr John Stevens DMS President and on behalf of The Institute of Biomedical Science

Professor Ian Stewart FRS Mathematician and Science Writer

Professor Raymond Tallis FMedSci Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester

Lord Taverne Chair, Sense About Science

Hazel Thornton Independent Advocate for Quality in Research and Healthcare

Sir Mark Walport Director, The Wellcome Trust

Professor Robin A Weiss FRS University College London and President, The Society for General Microbiology

Tom Wells Voice of Young Science network

Robin Wilson Professor of Pure Mathematics, Open University

Richard Wiseman Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire and Author

Journalism and Publishing

David Aaronovitch Columnist, The Times and Author

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Journalist and Columnist

Wendy Barnaby Editor, People and Society

Rosie Boycott Former Editor, The Independent and Independent on Sunday

Geoffrey Carr Science Editor, The Economist

Duncan Campbell Journalist

Dr Philip Campbell Editor-in-Chief, Nature

Sir Iain Chalmers Editor, The James Lind Library

Nick Cohen Columnist, The Observer

Clive Cookson Science Editor, Financial Times

Nick Davies Journalist and Author of Flat Earth News

Kendrick Frazier Editor, Skeptical Inquirer

Professor Christopher C French Head, The Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths University and Editor, The Skeptic Magazine

James Gleick Science Writer and Journalist

Dr Ben Goldacre Writer, Broadcaster and Medical Doctor

Nigel Hawkes Director, Straight Statistics and Former Health Editor, The Times

Mark Henderson Science Editor, The Times

Roger Highfield Editor, New Scientist

Dr Richard Horton FRS FMedSci Editor, The Lancet

Alok Jha Science and Environment Correspondent, The Guardian

Rohit Jaggi Columnist, Financial Times

Barry Karr Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki Author, Broadcaster and Scientist

Sam Lister Health Editor, The Times

Brenda Maddox Journalist and Biographer

Dr Margaret McCartney Columnist, Financial Times and GP

Robin McKie Science Correspondent, The Observer

George Monbiot Journalist

Andrew Mueller Journalist and Author

Steven Novella Editor, Science-Based Medicine; Director of General Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine and Author

Vivienne Parry Science Writer and Broadcaster

John Rennie Former Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

Nick Ross Journalist and Broadcaster

Ian Sample Science Correspondent, The Guardian

Ariane Sherine Comedy, Writer and Journalist

Michael Shermer Publisher, Skeptic Magazine; Columnist Scientific American and Author of Why People Believe Weird Things

Rebecca Smith Medical Editor, The Daily Telegraph

Bill Thompson Technology Journalist

Arts, Humanities and Entertainment

Martin Amis Novelist

Joan Bakewell Broadcaster and Journalist

Antony Beevor Historian

Jo Brand Performer

Derren Brown Psychological Illusionist

Alain de Botton Author

Carol Ann Duffy Poet Laureate

Peter Florence Director of The Guardian Hay Festival

Stephen Fry Broadcaster and Author

Ricky Gervais Writer and Performer

Anthony Grayling Professor of Philosophy, Birkbeck College University of London

Dave Gorman Writer and Performer

Harry Hill Performer

Robin Ince Performer

Tim Minchin Performer

Dara O'Briain Performer

Penn Jillette Illusionist, Juggler and Libertarian

Libby Purves Broadcaster, Journalist and Author

David Starkey Historian

Teller Illusionist, Juggler and Libertarian

Sandi Toksvig Broadcaster, Comedian and Author

Dr Richard Vranch Performer and Ex-physicist

Skeptics and Campaign Groups

Australian Council Against Health Fraud

Australian Skeptics Inc

Peter Bowditch Editor, www.ratbags.com

Neil Denny Little Atoms podcast

Rachael Dunlop Reporter, Skeptic Zone podcast

Jonathan Heawood Director, English PEN

Narisetti Innaiah Chairman, Center for Inquiry, India

Andy Lewis Blogger, quackometer.net

Ronald A Lindsay President and CEO, Center for Inquiry, USA

Simon Perry Founder, Skeptics in the Pub (Leicester)

Dr Philip Plait President, James Randi Educational Foundation, USA

James Randi CEO, James Randi Educational Foundation, USA

Padraig Reidy Index on Censorship

Sid Rodrigues Chairman, Skeptics in the Pub (London)

Amardeo Sarma Chairman, German Skeptics (GWUP)

Eran Segev President, Australian Skeptics Inc

Law

David Allen Green Solicitor

Jonathan Morgan Fellow in Law, University of Cambridge

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC Barrister and Labour Member of the House of Lords

Labels: chiropractors, Simon Singh, the law

Apologies…

There were two doctors in a bar, spending the evening moaning about the current state of the NHS, government interference, hospital managers, crap IT, abusive patients, litigious patients, rotas, paperwork, overwork, lack of time with patients who need it - you get the picture.

The first says, “You know what? It has got to the state where I want to jack it all in and get into alternative medicine. Frankly, I quite fancy being a chiropractor.”

“A chiroquacktor?” Laughs the second doctor. “You have to be kidding?”

“No, I’m serious.”, says the first. “Think about it. I can keep my “Dr” title and a have brass plaque on the front door of my own private practice. I can see a string of patients with mainly back problems and a few crying babies. Nothing we can really do about either of them, but I can crack their bones, charge them, they will get better anyway, no matter what I do, and they will be eternally grateful to me. I can set my own practice hours. Go home at regular times. Play some golf. It will be fantastic.”

“What’s stopping you then?” Says, the now understanding second doctor.

“Well, unlike the title ‘Dr’, not just anyone can style themselves a chiropractor. You have to have been on a long training course and get a new BSc and then be registered with the GCC. I could just do a part time McTimoney course, but even then it could take years and I would have to listen to all that hogwash about subluxations. I just want to get through all that and start cracking bones.”

“Mmmm”, says Doctor number two. “Maybe I can help you there”.

“How?”

“Well, you know I am a brain surgeon. I have been trialling a new procedure. It’s experimental, but I am having a few successes.” says the brain surgeon.

“The operation will basically instantly transform you from a doctor into a chiropractor.”

“Is that possible?” asks the first.

“Yes, in layman’s terms, what we do is remove half your brain”.

Looking rather alarmed, the first says, “Good grief! That sounds serious. I’m not sure I could go through with that!”

“Well, its not so bad.”, reassures the brain surgeon. “We are very particular about which parts of brain we remove. We shall pick out all those bits that got stuffed full of anatomy and physiology at medical school. Obviously we shall leave some remnants of basic medical knowledge there and let you believe that you have a fully equivalent medical training in such areas. Out will go all that stuff on pharmacology, biochemistry, anaesthesiology, surgery and psychiatry.  Immunology will have to go. You can quickly make stuff up to replace your real knowledge, and before you know it, you will be condemning MMR and the vaccination schedule. No need for medical ethics probably too. Your evidence empathy areas will go, along with any basic understanding of science that may interfere with a belief in ‘innate intelligence’ or ‘subluxations’. “

“We shall obviously leave in the business skills area. That will be very important. Get a car crash victim in and after a few sessions you will be able to sign up his whole family, including children, grandparents and pets into a ‘family wellness’ programme for the next five years.

“Wow! Fantastic!”, says the first.

“I can fit you in this afternoon, if that's OK?” says the second.

And so, the operation was performed. But due to some iatrogenic catastrophe, negligence, arrogance, complacency, mix up, and, possibly some underhand Big Pharma foul play, the operation does not go too well.

As the first doctor starts coming round from the anaesthetic, the surgeon is waiting to break the bad news. “I’m afraid, the operation did not go as planned”, he says.

“What do you mean?” says a rather alarmed and definitely not a chiropractor patient.

“Due to a mix up with some paperwork, we accidentally removed your whole brain. We tried our best, but were unable to restore those areas you will need to become a chiropractor. I am afraid you have no brain”.

“Never mind.”, says the  surprisingly chirpy and optimistic patient. “I think I will just become a homeopath”.

Labels: fun