Simon's posterous

Suggested CNHC action against misleading claims

Hi Maggy,

We clearly disagree on many points here.  If you do believe reflexology to be effective for any known condition, please provide me with the evidence and I will change my mind.  If you are unable to provide robust evidence, I do hope you will change yours.

Regardless, I do believe we can work together to ensure the public is better protected.  

Can I suggest that the CNHC urgently contact their members to convey the following information:
  • That many CNHC members have been found to be breaking ASA guidance by making misleading health claims.
  • That the CNHC strongly recommends that their members urgently review their advertising materials and remove:
    • Any claims to treat disease without robust evidence.
    • Any claims that their service has any other health benefits unless these claims can be justified with robust evidence.
    • Any other claims not backed up by evidence (for instance that specific areas of the foot are somehow connected to various organs)
  • That starting on the 20th June a review of all CNHC member websites will be conducted and any misleading claims reported to the Advertising Standards Authority and Trading Standards.  Complaints will also be submitted to the MHRA if relevant.
  • That this review will cover misleading claims made about all therapies, and not just the therapies for which they are regulated by the CNHC.
I recommend that the CNHC work with the ASA's copy advice team to ensure that any advice is consistent with their code.

While I do not expect all CNHC practitioners to take action, I hope that the communication you send out will significantly reduce the number of misleading claims made by the practitioners, and therefore the number that receive ASA adjudications or investigations by Trading Standards.  Swift action from the CNHC will also greatly reduce the burden on the regulators.

You may also like to add in addition to the ASA and Trading Standards, CNHC will be taking regulatory action against any member not complying with the ASA's CAP code.

I also believe that the reputation of the CNHC will be higher amongst its membership if it sends this warning message than if the CNHC knew about the forthcoming advertising review and said nothing.

Do you see this as a sensible way forward?

Many thanks,

Simon

On 20 May 2011 08:54, Maggy Wallace <Maggy.Wallace@cnhc.org.uk> wrote:

 

Thanks for your quick response, Simon.

 

Clearly there are things on which we are not going to agree. As a regulator you cannot honestly expect us to support a position as stated by you to the effect that ‘...........Genuine, honest training on reflexology must cover the simple truth that reflexology is not known to be effective for any condition.’

 

This is your opinion and in our view, is unsupportable as a statement. If we believed what you say to be true, and continued to regulate reflexology, we could be accused of misrepresentation and acting without integrity, both of which would be serious accusations indeed.  

 

CNHC is working with practitioners to ensure that they do not over-represent the efficacy of their therapies and do not make misleading medical claims. This will take some time owing to the numbers involved and the work and expense (and time lag) associated with changing web sites and advertising material.

 

Clearly you will proceed as you wish. We fail to see however, how driving people from our register - which will undoubtedly be the effect of further complaints - can be seen to be in any way acting in the interests of the public. The individuals will merely continue to practise without any  means of calling them to account.  Please tell me how you think this serves the public interest?

 

Do we have no common ground on which we can come together?

 

With best wishes

 

Maggy

 

Maggy Wallace MA BA DipEd DipN

Executive Chair

Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC)

83 Victoria Street

London   SW1H OHW

 

Tel 0203 178 2196

Email: maggy.wallace@cnhc.org.uk

General enquiries: info@cnhc.org.uk

Visit our website at http://www.cnhc.org.uk

 

Company name: The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council 

Place of registration: Companies House 

Registered number: 6643004 

 

 

- - Disclaimer - -

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are

not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure,

copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited

and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify

the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently

delete what you have received.

 

 

 

From: Simon Perry []
Sent: 12 May 2011 09:16
To: Maggy Wallace
Cc: Maggie Dunn
Subject: Re: FW: Maggie Dunn & Maggy Wallace, CNHC

 

Hi Maggy,

 

Thanks for your reply.  

 

I'm struck by your suggestion that the CNHC shares the my goal of wanting practitioners to stop misleading the public.  Over a year after my original complaints, there is still widespread lack of compliance throughout your membership as a quick search aptly demonstrates.  The CNHC wishes to give the appearance of regulation without actually implementing it - otherwise how do you explain why the exact people I originally complained about were still making exactly the same claims month after the CNHC had promised to clean things up?

 

Practitioners who are pseudo-regulated by the CNHC are a reasonable target for the simple reason that the CNHC's logo gives the public confidence while not in reality providing regulation.  You also mention training.  The CNHC allows its members to take psuedo-training courses - this is not in the public interest.  If you remember, you dismissed my complaints on the grounds that the practitioners were trained to believe in the misleading statements they made on their adverts.  Genuine, honest training on reflexology must cover the simple truth that reflexology is not known to be effective for any condition.  While you continue to allow registrations from practitioners who have been taught the opposite, you are only requiring pseudo-training.

 

What I am trying to to do with my previous email and this one is to embarrass the CNHC into regulating its membership.  The ASA now regulates web sites - and they will take firm action against your members if they continue to make misleading medical claims.  

 

Large numbers of ASA adjudications against your membership base will clearly demonstrate that the CNHC is not an effective regulator.  It will also clean up the widespread lack of compliance.  

 

It's easy to do.  Not only do we have an easy way of finding which of your members are making false claims, but we also have an extremely effective method of reporting them.  FishBarrel (a software tool - see http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/04/fishbarrel-easy-way-to-report.html) allows ASA and Trading Standards complaints to be put in within seconds.  One person can easily put 10 complaints in within an hour.

 

I've also got help.  Last time I asked for help in reporting people, I had 100 volunteers within a few days.  100 people using FishBarrel would likely be able to report your entire membership within a couple of days.

 

I'd rather CNHC cleared up it's membership instead.  That's why I'm giving a month's notice before these complaints go in.  All that is really required is for the CNHC to urgently contact its membership and ensure these websites are changed quickly and misleading health claims removed.

 

I'm happy to assist in any way with a joint activity, and I'm happy to meet (though I'd be unable to do so in London due to my schedule).

 

Many thanks,

 

Simon

 

 

On 12 May 2011 08:22, Maggy Wallace <Maggy.Wallace@cnhc.org.uk> wrote:

 

 

Greetings Simon

 

It seems long time since we’ve heard from you. Thank you for the heads-up on your latest initiative.

 

Reading your proposed activity, I am struck again by the fact that you as an individual and we as an organisation appear to have many of the same objectives, namely that of not wishing the public to be misled with regard to inappropriate claims of efficacy of certain treatments. It is in our methods of achieving those objectives that we differ: CNHC preferring to work with practitioners, for example, with regard to changing their advertising, and you by complaining against them.

 

It seem ironical to us that those individuals who have chosen to be registered with CNHC - thereby demonstrating that they take a responsible approach to their work and have undertaken relevant education and training and have signed up to a code of conduct - should be targeted. Surely it is those who have not made such a commitment to professional standards who should be the subject of your activity.

 

We now ask you, in all seriousness, whether there is not some joint activity that could be undertaken to achieve our objectives more effectively? We’d be happy to meet to discuss this.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

With kind regards

 

Maggy Wallace MA BA DipEd DipN

Executive Chair

Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC)

83 Victoria Street

London   SW1H OHW

 

Tel 0203 178 2196

Email: maggy.wallace@cnhc.org.uk

General enquiries: info@cnhc.org.uk

Visit our website at http://www.cnhc.org.uk

 

Company name: The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council

Place of registration: Companies House

Registered number: 6643004

 

 

- - Disclaimer - -

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are

not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure,

copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited

and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify

the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently

delete what you have received.

 

 

 

From: Simon Perry [mailto:]
Sent: 08 May 2011 23:28
To: Maggie Dunn; Maggy Wallace
Cc: Posterous
Subject: FAO: Maggie Dunn & Maggy Wallace, CNHC

 

Hi Maggie & Maggy,

 

I've set up a custom search that allows me to easily see which of CNHC's practitioners are making claims to treat various diseases on their website (see it here).  For instance, this link shows a simple search for "arthritis" and it returns hundreds of your member's web pages.

 

In your role as a professional regulatory body, I'm sure you're every bit as concerned as I am about 100s of your practitioners exploiting the public's credulity in this way.

 

I'm planning on going through this list next month and reporting these people to the Advertising Standards Authority and also to Trading Standards.  Is there a way I could easily copy the complaints into CNHC too?

 

I eagerly look forward to your response.

 

Many thanks,

 

Simon Perry.

 

 

 

 

 

Maggie Dunn & Maggy Wallace, CNHC

Hi Maggy,

Thanks for your reply.  

I'm struck by your suggestion that the CNHC shares the my goal of wanting practitioners to stop misleading the public.  Over a year after my original complaints, there is still widespread lack of compliance throughout your membership as a quick search aptly demonstrates.  The CNHC wishes to give the appearance of regulation without actually implementing it - otherwise how do you explain why the exact people I originally complained about were still making exactly the same claims month after the CNHC had promised to clean things up?

Practitioners who are pseudo-regulated by the CNHC are a reasonable target for the simple reason that the CNHC's logo gives the public confidence while not in reality providing regulation.  You also mention training.  The CNHC allows its members to take psuedo-training courses - this is not in the public interest.  If you remember, you dismissed my complaints on the grounds that the practitioners were trained to believe in the misleading statements they made on their adverts.  Genuine, honest training on reflexology must cover the simple truth that reflexology is not known to be effective for any condition.  While you continue to allow registrations from practitioners who have been taught the opposite, you are only requiring pseudo-training.

What I am trying to to do with my previous email and this one is to embarrass the CNHC into regulating its membership.  The ASA now regulates web sites - and they will take firm action against your members if they continue to make misleading medical claims.  

Large numbers of ASA adjudications against your membership base will clearly demonstrate that the CNHC is not an effective regulator.  It will also clean up the widespread lack of compliance.  

It's easy to do.  Not only do we have an easy way of finding which of your members are making false claims, but we also have an extremely effective method of reporting them.  FishBarrel (a software tool - see http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2011/04/fishbarrel-easy-way-to-report.html) allows ASA and Trading Standards complaints to be put in within seconds.  One person can easily put 10 complaints in within an hour.

I've also got help.  Last time I asked for help in reporting people, I had 100 volunteers within a few days.  100 people using FishBarrel would likely be able to report your entire membership within a couple of days.

I'd rather CNHC cleared up it's membership instead.  That's why I'm giving a month's notice before these complaints go in.  All that is really required is for the CNHC to urgently contact its membership and ensure these websites are changed quickly and misleading health claims removed.

I'm happy to assist in any way with a joint activity, and I'm happy to meet (though I'd be unable to do so in London due to my schedule).

Many thanks,

Simon

On 12 May 2011 08:22, Maggy Wallace <Maggy.Wallace@cnhc.org.uk> wrote:

 

 

Greetings Simon

 

It seems long time since we’ve heard from you. Thank you for the heads-up on your latest initiative.

 

Reading your proposed activity, I am struck again by the fact that you as an individual and we as an organisation appear to have many of the same objectives, namely that of not wishing the public to be misled with regard to inappropriate claims of efficacy of certain treatments. It is in our methods of achieving those objectives that we differ: CNHC preferring to work with practitioners, for example, with regard to changing their advertising, and you by complaining against them.

 

It seem ironical to us that those individuals who have chosen to be registered with CNHC - thereby demonstrating that they take a responsible approach to their work and have undertaken relevant education and training and have signed up to a code of conduct - should be targeted. Surely it is those who have not made such a commitment to professional standards who should be the subject of your activity.

 

We now ask you, in all seriousness, whether there is not some joint activity that could be undertaken to achieve our objectives more effectively? We’d be happy to meet to discuss this.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

With kind regards

 

Maggy Wallace MA BA DipEd DipN

Executive Chair

Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC)

83 Victoria Street

London   SW1H OHW

 

Tel 0203 178 2196

Email: maggy.wallace@cnhc.org.uk

General enquiries: info@cnhc.org.uk

Visit our website at http://www.cnhc.org.uk

 

Company name: The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council

Place of registration: Companies House

Registered number: 6643004

 

 

- - Disclaimer - -

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are

not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure,

copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited

and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify

the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently

delete what you have received.

 

 

 

From: Simon Perry [mailto:]
Sent: 08 May 2011 23:28
To: Maggie Dunn; Maggy Wallace
Cc: Posterous
Subject: FAO: Maggie Dunn & Maggy Wallace, CNHC

 

Hi Maggie & Maggy,

 

I've set up a custom search that allows me to easily see which of CNHC's practitioners are making claims to treat various diseases on their website (see it here).  For instance, this link shows a simple search for "arthritis" and it returns hundreds of your member's web pages.

 

In your role as a professional regulatory body, I'm sure you're every bit as concerned as I am about 100s of your practitioners exploiting the public's credulity in this way.

 

I'm planning on going through this list next month and reporting these people to the Advertising Standards Authority and also to Trading Standards.  Is there a way I could easily copy the complaints into CNHC too?

 

I eagerly look forward to your response.

 

Many thanks,

 

Simon Perry.

 

 

 

 


FAO: Maggie Dunn & Maggy Wallace, CNHC

Hi Maggie & Maggy,

I've set up a custom search that allows me to easily see which of CNHC's practitioners are making claims to treat various diseases on their website (see it here).  For instance, this link shows a simple search for "arthritis" and it returns hundreds of your member's web pages.

In your role as a professional regulatory body, I'm sure you're every bit as concerned as I am about 100s of your practitioners exploiting the public's credulity in this way.

I'm planning on going through this list next month and reporting these people to the Advertising Standards Authority and also to Trading Standards.  Is there a way I could easily copy the complaints into CNHC too?

I eagerly look forward to your response.

Many thanks,

Simon Perry.

I quite like being a nerd. Combining this with #FishBarrel is quite powerful.

It took about 30 minutes to scrape the CNHC register, write a RegEx to
grab all the practitioner URLs, create a Google search and publish it
on this web page:

http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/customsearches.html

You can now search for "Asthma" or "Cancer" or any other disease and
have your search limited to CNHC members. That's pretty powerful when
combined with FishBarrel.

Great reply from Defra's Somerset Animal Health team on the use of Homeopathy.

Dear Mr Perry,

Your e mail of 23rd February has been passed to me, my office in Gloucester has responsibility for livestock farms in North Somerset.

I understand from your e mail that you are not alleging welfare problems at a specific farm, but are concerned at the use of unproven remedies such as homeopathy.

Farm livestock must be kept in accordance with the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 as amended. This  requires that:  Any animals which appear to be ill or injured must be cared for appropriately and without delay; where they do not respond to such care, veterinary advice must be obtained as soon as possible.

Animalhealth does not regard homeopathic remedies as being appropriate for control of disease.

An offence may be committed if appropriate treatment is withheld whilst homeopathic, or other unproven treatments, are given.

I hope this puts your mind at rest.

Yours sincerely

Franceska Drummond

Veterinary Officer

Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)

Animal Health

Gloucester Divisional Office
Saw Mills End

Corinium Avenue

Gloucester

GL4 3DE


Ole0

Maybe I should no longer ski with Guy, having just received this email.

On 3 March 2011 12:56, Guy Coles <> wrote:
Hey 
We could have done with your rope yesterday.
A group of 5 of us hiked up to point Pez in Fornet, forgive me if that is not how it should be spelt. Upon reaching the top we decided not to ski the pitch we planned as it was very steep and looked too slabby and dangerous. Unfortunately one of our group slipped and ended up above a 50 foot cliff with skis above his head. This meant that unfortunately two of us had to commit to rescuing him committing three to an incredibly dangerous pitch. Which then confirmed our suspicions of it not being safe by avalanching properly three times. Thankfully we all managed to avoid these as a result of planning several safe points.

Just as we thought the day could not get much worse a fourth avalanche committed us to skiing the Gorges de Malpasset, something none of us were keen to do. The gorges started ok but we soon go to points that were far to dangerous to even describe. shimmying along edges that were inches wide above fast running freezing water that regularly vanished under snow meaning any one who went in would almost certainly drown. 

As if this was not enough further down the gorge the wall started to collapse and avalanche under our weight dragging us dangerously close to the water. I have never seen any thing like it or been so genuinely convinced that at least one of our party was not going to make it out. We decided that continuing along this path was ridiculous so embarked on a rather perilous rock climb up an incredibly steep face with all our kit. Thankfully we all made it out although there were several tears shed upon our arrival at the top.

Anyway long story short all this could have been avoided if we had a rope to pull the guy who fell back to safety.

Hope your well, and I did not pull the bag.

Guy

 

{By "my bag" he means my ABS bag used for avalanche safety that I leant to him}

New complaint. Am I first?

Hi,

I'd like to complain about claims made on the British Homeopathic Association's website http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/.

They claim the following things, none of which are backed up by evidence.  I have limited my complaint to problems on just one page.

"Homeopathy is a holistic form of medicine where the patient’s symptoms, history, temperament, behaviour and emotional state are considered by the doctor."

-It is not a form of medicine, they are sugar pills.
-Homeopaths are not doctors.

"there is considerable evidence that homeopathic medicines work"
-Not true.

"due to the individualised nature of homeopathy, it is not possible to conduct randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) in the same way as for conventional medicines"
-Not true, it's completely possible and it has been done over 200 times.

"How does it work?"
This implies homeopathy works.

"All we can say is that the medicines assist the body in responding to symptoms to bring a person back to their own individual state of “wellness”."
-not true

"For first aid treatments"
This implies homeopathy is suitable for first aid.  It is not.

"shock, diarrhoea, flu, stage-fright"
-No evidence.

"However, non-acute conditions like a sprained ankle that has been troubling for a couple of weeks or longer; seasonal allergies; a bad back that gives a rheumatic “twinge” in wet weather; or a troublesome cough following a bout of flu are suitable for homeopathic treatment."
-No evidence

"Sometimes the complementary approach of homeopathy plus conventional medicine works better than either one alone."
-No evidence to suggest both work better than just conventional.

"Because homeopathy takes into account the overall symptom picture, two patients presenting with the same complaint might very well be given different homeopathic medicines. For example, in treating a fever, Belladonna might be recommended in cases of sudden onset, especially if a sore throat is one of the symptoms; whereasFerrum Phos may be more appropriate if onset is gradual. In a patient who has a lot of catarrh which improves outside in the fresh air, Pulsatilla may be useful; but a patient who cannot get warm might be better with Nux Vomica. For the very first symptoms of a cold (sneeze number one) take Aconite and for more established symptoms like headache, shivers, aches and pains, Gelsemium is usually the medicine to take.
"
-No evidence for these conditions.

There is a huge list of other conditions on the page, none of which homeopathy is effective for.

I would like to confirm that I have no commercial interest.

You already have my full address and other contact details.

Many thanks,

Simon Perry

That was easy: I got defra to remove pro-homeopathy advice.

It's amazing how much a simple email can do. Defra got back to me following the email below to let me know they've removed the quack advice.  Easy.

-----------------------------------------

To whom it may concern:

It states on your website here:
 http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/17/pet-remedies/

That you are trying to clamp down on quack remedies such as homeopathy
being used on pets (rightly so).  The text says "Some herbal and
homeopathic products are claiming medicinal benefits without
scientific proof, meaning they may not properly treat or prevent
serious diseases, leaving pets at risk."

But I think you've got some old content on your site here:
 http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/systems/method.htm

that says "The use of homeopathy is also encouraged."

Which is not only inconsistent, but this second statement puts animals at risk.

Is this a mistake?

Thanks,

Simon Perry

Criticism of religion not allowed in Apple's App Store

This is quite a surprise.  From the App Store review guidelines.  Anyone wishing to create an iPhone or iPad app must follow these rules:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the intro

We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store. It may help to keep some of our broader themes in mind:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and.....

19. Religion, culture, and ethnicity

  • 19.1

    Apps containing references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence will be rejected

  • 19.2

    Apps may contain or quote religious text provided the quotes or translations are accurate and not misleading. Commentary should be educational or informative rather than inflammatory

I really admire the CNHC's ability to make clear decisions and take decisive action.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maggie Dunn

Good afternoon Simon,

 

I have now had the opportunity of discussing your email of the 14th January with Maggy Wallace.

Maggy and I agreed that I should email you to thank you for your comments which have been noted.

 

Best wishes

Maggie

 

 

 

From: Maggie Dunn
Sent: 18 January 2011 11:27
To: Simon Perry
Cc: Maggy Wallace
Subject: RE: 4.4 of new advice

 

Good morning Simon,

 

The CNHC guidance was endorsed by CAP, however I will discuss your email with Maggy Wallace on her return from annual leave next week.

 

Best wishes

Maggie

 

From: Simon Perry
Sent: 14 January 2011 18:36
To: Maggie Dunn
Subject: 4.4 of new advice

 

Hi Maggie,

 

I've noticed the following within the new advice:

4.4 You can  quote individuals, with their permission, who have found your 

treatment helpful, in the form of testimonials.  In terms of the CAP Code, 

marketers must hold documentary evidence that ‘..........a testimonial or 

endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is 

 

I think you should probably clarify this.  While you are correct to assert that they can use testimonials, I think you need to be clear that anything said in those testimonials is also subject to the code.

 

So a testimonial that said "treatment x helped reduce the pain of my arthritis" then it can only be used if there is evidence to suggest that treatment x can reduce arthritic pain.

 

This is quite important, because the way the text reads at the moment it doesn't make this clear.

 

Thanks,

 

Simon