Recently I've been keeping a closer eye on the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) list of non-compliant online advertisers. I spotted one name had been taken off the list (LadyCare Lifetime Ltd) and was surprised to find that they hadn't been moved to the Referrals page, where persistently non-compliant advertisers are referred to Trading Standards for further action (which may include criminal proceedings). Where have they gone? I asked the ASA and they indicated that they were focusing on other things and I've not pushed it further yet.
LadyCare make magnets which are claimed to help symptoms of menopause
but there doesn't appear to be a record of strong evidence to support
that.
The company had received an adjudication against their claims back in 2009 becaue of a misleading advert appearing in a newspaper. Adjudications remain on the ASA's website for five years, but in 2014 they'd additionally been added to the more serious non-compliant list.
I googled to see if I could find more information and discovered that Woman and Home magazine had, coincidentally more or less on the same day, published a reasonably favourable article about the product: The LadyCare Menopause Magnet: What is it, and does it actually work? (11 January 2019) Woman & Home
So I decided to email them and let them know about the ASA's investigation.
I found archived copies* of the first adjudication (2009) and of the non-compliant advert and sent them to the editor outlining my concerns that their article was a bit more favourable than might have been warranted, and highlighted the ASA's concerns about the marketing claims. (To be fair this product is unlikely to be particularly harmful to women - other than spending money on a product that may be unnecessary, I'm not sure it discourages people from seeing their doctor either).
Happily the editor took my concerns seriously and they've made quite a lot of changes to the article which I was pleased about. Thanks Woman and Home! They included some of the ASA's comments as well as comments from Dr Jen Gunter's blog (she was very unconvinced by the claims made for the product). They also had a couple of consumer comments, from people who'd found it ineffective but also from people who'd found a benefit.
I think it's worth sending a polite email to editors to ask them to add or amend something, it doesn't always work (but you can blog about it either way to let others know about the problem).
*The way the ASA's website is now set up means that it's not possible for the Internet Archive / Wayback Machine to archive its later content, though earlier content is searchable. This means that you need to save copies yourself if you need to monitor a page. The link to the 'first adjudication' from 2009 is saved to the Wayback Machine whereas the second link to the 'non-compliant advert' from 2014 is just a link to the most recent cached copy that Google has. It will soon fade as the page is now gone so the next time Google checks it will find it empty and clear its own cache. I've saved a copy for my records though.
Showing posts with label alternative medicine - miscellaneous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternative medicine - miscellaneous. Show all posts
Friday, 18 January 2019
Wednesday, 15 November 2017
Alternative medicine conferences and events - a guide for hotels and conference centres
tl;dr is it a good idea to produce a checklist for hotel event bookers so that they can avoid hosting out and out quackery? What would go in the checklist?
Edit 30 Jan 2018
I could have saved myself writing the post below if I'd remembered these :) Here are two clear guides on things to think about, and things to watch out for, when considering the suitability of a topic or speaker for an event.
A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science (3 October 2013)
10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science (8 November 2012)
Occasionally skeptically-minded people* will learn that a hotel's conference rooms are to be used for a health-related event on a topic that is quackery and which has the potential to be harmful and costly to customers ('patients'). Occasionally such talks take place at universities or on hospital trust grounds too.
Universities and hospitals generally don't want to be associated with quackery, particularly dangerous stuff, and tend to be pretty amenable to cancelling the event or having it moved off-site. That's not always the case with hotels. Many of us would prefer that these events were cancelled completely but as long as the event is legal then there's not much we can do.
Cancer-related alternative health events, however, may be in danger of breaching the Cancer Act 1939 and it may be more appropriate to cancel them. Of course it's entirely possible that someone wants to talk about complementary support for people with cancer with no problematic mentions of stopping their treatment and no advice given about undertaking unevidenced treatments - despite the treatment being quackery it's probably fairly hairmless and I suspect we don't really have much of a valid objection.
This example below though - where a speaker encouraged audience members who had cancer to give up their medication (or avoid taking it in the first place) - that took place at a hotel in Liverpool would seem to be one of the ones that should not have gone ahead. The report, from Michael Marshall of the Good Thinking Society, is a startling read: Cancer ‘Cure’ is Quackers Skeptical Magazine, November 2017, by Michael Marshall
Hotel event bookers might not know that a health-related talk (perhaps badged as a 'wellness' event) is unevidenced quackery or how to tell it apart fom something useful that everyone should know about - and that's where the skeptical-minded community might be able to help.
I wondered if we skeptics might put together a short checklist to help people appraise whether events are likely to cause problems. Does this idea have 'legs' as they say?
For example I might include things like
Skepticism-based clearing houses
Any of these organisations would possibly be able to field, or forward on, enquiries from hotels or other event-conference-centres about potentially problematic health events.
Example of events not yet cancelled or moved
Examples of events being cancelled or moved
Manchester United cancel David Icke show at Old Trafford after backlash (17 November 2017) The Guardian - the cancellation possibly more to do with alleged antisemitic remarks than quackery per se but an interesting example of social media backlash causing a venue to investigate further.
Homeopathic College Pays Heavy Price for Helping to Screen VAXXED (17 February 2017) Quackometer blog - in this case the screening of the film 'Vaxxed' was not able to be prevented and it was shown at the Centre for Homeopathic Education within Regent's University in London. When it transpired that the university had not been properly informed of the film's contents they cancelled the contract with the Centre (in reality I think they'd hired a few rooms) rendering them homeless. The film was moved from the Curzon Soho screening after it had been cancelled.
A Cinema In London Has Pulled A Documentary By A Disgraced Anti-Vaccine Activist (January 2017) Buzzfeed - Vaxxed, an anti-vaccination film directed by Andrew Wakefield, was to be screened at Curzon Soho but an outcry from scientists and the public stopped that. The film had previously been removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.
UCL cancels homeopathy event by Indian docs after complaints (2 February 2016) The Wire - see background to this story in Andy Lewis' blog Indian Homeopaths come to UK to Lecture on Treating Cancer (comment: “Event cancelled. Booking made by junior sec unaware of issues. Lessons learnt process set up. New instructions on booking in IoN now in place.”)
Cancelled: Man who claims to have cured cancer will not be speaking in Ireland (16 June 2015) The Journal - one event was scheduled to take place at the Clayton Hotel in Galway but was moved to another hotel, which later cancelled once the organisers learned how controversial the speaker's views were, a second event in Dublin was also cancelled. More info at Cork Skeptics' page (they led the campaign).
The fake cancer cure conference the 'healers' tried to keep secret (25 May 2015) - this event (the 'Spirit of Health Congress 2015') went ahead after having been moved twice. Delegates were told to attend a meeting point where they were given train tickets and further instructions, video footage (not shown in link) was obtained of the event.
A cancer-related event, due to take place in June 2014 in Bristol attracted concern from Trading Standard and the organiser of the event first cancelled it then later moved it to Exeter (9 Mar 2014)
[Event initially cancelled][Move to Exeter]
Totnes cancer conference forced underground by Trading Standards (23 March 2012) Josephine Jones' blog - a cancer event was due to take place in Totnes at the Civic Centre. The local MP supported efforts to get the event moved off council property or ideally cancelled and Trading Standards intervened. The event was initially cancelled but later went ahead at a different venue.
The supramolecular chemistry of the homeopathic remedy (1 October 2010) - amazingly this event was scheduled to take place at the University of Cambridge (!) but people managed to get it cancelled by mid-September.
Other responses to quackery
Sandra Hermann-Courtney's strange behaviour...
The homeopathy enthusiast Sandra Hermann-Courtney (@BrownBagPantry and @OnFluff on Twitter) is not happy at all about my post above. She stole its entire content and republished it on her own blog, with no attribution. After I tried several attempts at getting her to add commentary ('fair use') or remove the post she finally took it down. Then she replaced it with her own post bleating about this one and complaining that I'd threatened her with a DMCA takedown notice. Mmm, not quite but you can enjoy seeing how duplicitious she's been here.
She has form on using people's content without permission and also behaving abominably to someone who lost a child to sepsis (it started badly when she suggested they might have saved the child if they'd tried homeopathy, and somehow managed to get worse). This blog post above isn't 'against' homeopathy per se, it's against misleading promotions or wrong health advice. Non-misleading homeopaths etc are probably perfectly nice people, I've no argument with them :)
@SLSingh is there much scope for an article in one of the hotel trade magazines about the iffy use of hotel conference facilities?— Jo Brodie #WouldPreferThatYouBanNazis (@JoBrodie) June 15, 2015
Edit 30 Jan 2018
I could have saved myself writing the post below if I'd remembered these :) Here are two clear guides on things to think about, and things to watch out for, when considering the suitability of a topic or speaker for an event.
A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science (3 October 2013)
10 Questions To Distinguish Real From Fake Science (8 November 2012)
Occasionally skeptically-minded people* will learn that a hotel's conference rooms are to be used for a health-related event on a topic that is quackery and which has the potential to be harmful and costly to customers ('patients'). Occasionally such talks take place at universities or on hospital trust grounds too.
Universities and hospitals generally don't want to be associated with quackery, particularly dangerous stuff, and tend to be pretty amenable to cancelling the event or having it moved off-site. That's not always the case with hotels. Many of us would prefer that these events were cancelled completely but as long as the event is legal then there's not much we can do.
Cancer-related alternative health events, however, may be in danger of breaching the Cancer Act 1939 and it may be more appropriate to cancel them. Of course it's entirely possible that someone wants to talk about complementary support for people with cancer with no problematic mentions of stopping their treatment and no advice given about undertaking unevidenced treatments - despite the treatment being quackery it's probably fairly hairmless and I suspect we don't really have much of a valid objection.
This example below though - where a speaker encouraged audience members who had cancer to give up their medication (or avoid taking it in the first place) - that took place at a hotel in Liverpool would seem to be one of the ones that should not have gone ahead. The report, from Michael Marshall of the Good Thinking Society, is a startling read: Cancer ‘Cure’ is Quackers Skeptical Magazine, November 2017, by Michael Marshall
Hotel event bookers might not know that a health-related talk (perhaps badged as a 'wellness' event) is unevidenced quackery or how to tell it apart fom something useful that everyone should know about - and that's where the skeptical-minded community might be able to help.
I wondered if we skeptics might put together a short checklist to help people appraise whether events are likely to cause problems. Does this idea have 'legs' as they say?
Edit 10 January 2018 - one of the topics I wasn't envisaging a university having many problems with, in terms of finding they've unwittingly said yes to room bookings, is conferences by white supremacists on eugenics with a side order of anti-Semitism. Today UCL found itself in this unfortunate position after a story uncovered that such a conference has been hosted at their site for the last four years. UCL has acted quickly to distance themselves from it, suspend future bookings from the staff member involved and are seeking an explanation from them.
- Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links (London Student)
- University probes eugenics conference with links to white supremacists (Jewish Chronicle) The London Conference on Intelligence has connections to a number of controversial racial theorists
- UCL statement on the London Conference on Intelligence (UCL)
For example I might include things like
- if it mentions cancer at all ask them to assure you (the hotel booker) how they will ensure that the content of the presentation and any responses to questions don't breach the Cancer Act 1939 (Trading Standards can veto these events, or bring criminal proceedings against the speaker - I've never heard of venues being prosecuted though, anyone know?)
- if it talks about curing or treating (or 'helping with') any health condition beware - this may fall within misleading advertising (overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority in general, anything relating to the use of medicines would fall under the MHRA [Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority]
- also be wary of any "that doctors don't want you to know about" hyperbole
- be aware that skeptically-minded people often attend these events for monitoring purposes, and general interest (there is always new quackery to discover)
- the possibility of the whole social media backlash thing, though I think hotels can probably weather that!
- the very real possibility of doing harm to members of the public either by them paying out money for a duff event, or a duff treatment (or them failing to follow better treatment advice) - this is not a good look.
- a list of 'treatment modalities' known to be unevidenced twaddle (eg homeopathy, MMS aka Master Mineral Solution or Miracle Mineral Solution, it goes by other names too)
- a list of treatments for which the evidence is not very good
- how the skeptic-minded community can help beforehand
- (afterwards is probably a bit late!)
- links to other 'how to spot quackery' checklists including these red flags, or this rough guide to spotting bad science.
Skepticism-based clearing houses
Any of these organisations would possibly be able to field, or forward on, enquiries from hotels or other event-conference-centres about potentially problematic health events.
- Good Thinking Society
- Nightingale Collaboration
- Sense About Science
- Skeptics in the Pub (various around the UK)
- Are there any good skeptic-monitored hashtags? (Beyond #homeopathy and #Burzynski?).
- Do we have examples of successes (from our point of view) where an event has been cancelled or moved?
Example of events not yet cancelled or moved
Hi @ucl Can you say why UCL School of Pharmacy is hosting a homeopathy conference in April 2018? https://t.co/344rKyNyku cc @GoodThinkingSoc @david_colquhoun @claire6thompson— (((Alan Henness))) (@zeno001) December 19, 2017
Examples of events being cancelled or moved
Manchester United cancel David Icke show at Old Trafford after backlash (17 November 2017) The Guardian - the cancellation possibly more to do with alleged antisemitic remarks than quackery per se but an interesting example of social media backlash causing a venue to investigate further.
Homeopathic College Pays Heavy Price for Helping to Screen VAXXED (17 February 2017) Quackometer blog - in this case the screening of the film 'Vaxxed' was not able to be prevented and it was shown at the Centre for Homeopathic Education within Regent's University in London. When it transpired that the university had not been properly informed of the film's contents they cancelled the contract with the Centre (in reality I think they'd hired a few rooms) rendering them homeless. The film was moved from the Curzon Soho screening after it had been cancelled.
A Cinema In London Has Pulled A Documentary By A Disgraced Anti-Vaccine Activist (January 2017) Buzzfeed - Vaxxed, an anti-vaccination film directed by Andrew Wakefield, was to be screened at Curzon Soho but an outcry from scientists and the public stopped that. The film had previously been removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.
UCL cancels homeopathy event by Indian docs after complaints (2 February 2016) The Wire - see background to this story in Andy Lewis' blog Indian Homeopaths come to UK to Lecture on Treating Cancer (comment: “Event cancelled. Booking made by junior sec unaware of issues. Lessons learnt process set up. New instructions on booking in IoN now in place.”)
Cancelled: Man who claims to have cured cancer will not be speaking in Ireland (16 June 2015) The Journal - one event was scheduled to take place at the Clayton Hotel in Galway but was moved to another hotel, which later cancelled once the organisers learned how controversial the speaker's views were, a second event in Dublin was also cancelled. More info at Cork Skeptics' page (they led the campaign).
The fake cancer cure conference the 'healers' tried to keep secret (25 May 2015) - this event (the 'Spirit of Health Congress 2015') went ahead after having been moved twice. Delegates were told to attend a meeting point where they were given train tickets and further instructions, video footage (not shown in link) was obtained of the event.
A cancer-related event, due to take place in June 2014 in Bristol attracted concern from Trading Standard and the organiser of the event first cancelled it then later moved it to Exeter (9 Mar 2014)
[Event initially cancelled][Move to Exeter]
Totnes cancer conference forced underground by Trading Standards (23 March 2012) Josephine Jones' blog - a cancer event was due to take place in Totnes at the Civic Centre. The local MP supported efforts to get the event moved off council property or ideally cancelled and Trading Standards intervened. The event was initially cancelled but later went ahead at a different venue.
The supramolecular chemistry of the homeopathic remedy (1 October 2010) - amazingly this event was scheduled to take place at the University of Cambridge (!) but people managed to get it cancelled by mid-September.
Other responses to quackery
In response to recent tour by anti-vas activists promoting Vaxxed movie @LightForRiley donated 50,000 vaccinations to UNESCO #skepticon— Irma Gherd (@maureenchuck1) November 18, 2017
Sandra Hermann-Courtney's strange behaviour...
The homeopathy enthusiast Sandra Hermann-Courtney (@BrownBagPantry and @OnFluff on Twitter) is not happy at all about my post above. She stole its entire content and republished it on her own blog, with no attribution. After I tried several attempts at getting her to add commentary ('fair use') or remove the post she finally took it down. Then she replaced it with her own post bleating about this one and complaining that I'd threatened her with a DMCA takedown notice. Mmm, not quite but you can enjoy seeing how duplicitious she's been here.
She has form on using people's content without permission and also behaving abominably to someone who lost a child to sepsis (it started badly when she suggested they might have saved the child if they'd tried homeopathy, and somehow managed to get worse). This blog post above isn't 'against' homeopathy per se, it's against misleading promotions or wrong health advice. Non-misleading homeopaths etc are probably perfectly nice people, I've no argument with them :)
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Cellfood DNA RNA, for when you're feeling undermethylated
Tesco have taken leave of their senses. Not only have they returned the 'health' magazine What Doctors Don't Tell You to their shelves but they've partnered with NutriCentre to sell all manner of supplements for no good reason.
One of the products - Cellfood RNA / DNA - claims that it can help your DNA become remethylated, based on the assumption that demethylation is behind aging and that this supplement can extend your life.
The claims are pretty outlandish, here's what I've done about it.
1. Complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (see below)
2. Written to Tesco to #askforevidence:
http://askforevidence.org/ask-for-evidence/5476516073657237d31e0000
3. Written this blog post to contribute to raising awareness about odd products being sold by Tesco via NutriCentre
4. Added the relevant sales page to ChangeDetection.com - this will let me see whenever a change is made to the page (it may be a while before I hear back from ASA or Tesco but this lets me know if the page is amended):
https://www.changedetection.com/log/tesco/287-0280_log.html
Original post
I'm putting together a complaint which I'll send to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) later tonight about a particular product, which just seems to be quite silly.
It's also been suggested that in addition to the ASA complaint I do an 'Ask for Evidence' thing via Sense About Science. Who knows, perhaps a vial of methyl groups is exactly what I need. That would be ironic as one of the things I did in my past life as a lipid biochemist was in fact methylate things (turning fatty acids into fatty acid methyl esters 'fames' for analysis).
Had I known at the time how good methylation was for me I'd have tipped a bit more of the reagents over myself for good measure.
Edit 10pm
--- What I sent after doing a bit more research (red bits are what differs from earlier post) ---
I'm sorry to say I think this product is absolute nonsense and seems to have no redeeming features at all. I don't think it has any value as a health supplement, I don't know if it's likely to be particularly harmful though. It just seems pointless.
Claim 1
"CELLFOOD DNA RNA is the worlds first cellular regenerating formula combining nucleic acid bases (the essential building block on DNA and RNA) Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP - the master energy molecule) methyl groups (regulators and programmers of the aging process)and Cellfood."
- these are apparently the contents of the 30ml vial but I have no idea what form they'll be in once they're absorbed into the bloodstream (assuming that they are) or how they are transported into the nucleus where they might interact with DNA. Is the product supposed to increase methylation specifically or just methylate anything it comes into contact with? Were this product to really work then I think Tesco would be selling something that interacts with the genome - I can't help thinking this is quite a serious situation to be in. I suspect it doesn't really do anything though.
Claim 2
"Anti-aging - Clinical research indicates that biological aging is regulated and programmed by the gradual loss of specific DNA markers known as methyl groups. At the age of 25 most of us have already lost 10% of our DNA methyl groups. When there is a 40% loss degenerative death typically occurs."
- while changes in methylation do have a role in the aging process this text implies that insufficient methylation of DNA is 'game over' and that a grisly death will occur for want of methyl groups. I have some doubts that things are quite that bleak, and I also have serious doubts that the product will do anything to help.
Claim 3
"Longevity studies have shown that no single therapeutic method has increased lifespan more than nucleic acid (DNA RNA) supplementation."
- quite a bold claim, I'd be surprised if this is true or even that it's been demonstrated in human trials.
I'm prepared to consider that nucleic acid supplementation might be therapeutically beneficial in some cases (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178290, from 1997 - though very little information is given in that abstract), eg where a person is undergoing intravenous feeding, but I don't think this product does anything to extend life in otherwise normal healthy people. I'd also assume that this product would need to be administered under the care of a doctor.
NB: Prof David Colquhoun is of the very reasonable opinion that this paper is also hooey, but I've not looked into the matter beyond searching for potentially feasible articles on nucleic acid supplementation.
Claim 4
"CELLFOOD DNA RNA provides the most important nutrient factors for improving DNA methylation which slows or stops the loss of methyl groups."
- Assuming this product can deliver methyl groups to the right spot (doubtful) does remethylating DNA prolong life or increase health? I am extremely doubtful on this and suspect that 'more research is needed' before claims like this can be added to supplement packs.
I'm honestly not sure if Tesco is joking with this product, but I don't think they're able to support these claims.
Thank you,
Jo
One of the products - Cellfood RNA / DNA - claims that it can help your DNA become remethylated, based on the assumption that demethylation is behind aging and that this supplement can extend your life.
The claims are pretty outlandish, here's what I've done about it.
1. Complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (see below)
2. Written to Tesco to #askforevidence:
http://askforevidence.org/ask-for-evidence/5476516073657237d31e0000
3. Written this blog post to contribute to raising awareness about odd products being sold by Tesco via NutriCentre
4. Added the relevant sales page to ChangeDetection.com - this will let me see whenever a change is made to the page (it may be a while before I hear back from ASA or Tesco but this lets me know if the page is amended):
https://www.changedetection.com/log/tesco/287-0280_log.html
Original post
I'm putting together a complaint which I'll send to the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) later tonight about a particular product, which just seems to be quite silly.
It's also been suggested that in addition to the ASA complaint I do an 'Ask for Evidence' thing via Sense About Science. Who knows, perhaps a vial of methyl groups is exactly what I need. That would be ironic as one of the things I did in my past life as a lipid biochemist was in fact methylate things (turning fatty acids into fatty acid methyl esters 'fames' for analysis).
Had I known at the time how good methylation was for me I'd have tipped a bit more of the reagents over myself for good measure.
Edit 10pm
--- What I sent after doing a bit more research (red bits are what differs from earlier post) ---
I'm sorry to say I think this product is absolute nonsense and seems to have no redeeming features at all. I don't think it has any value as a health supplement, I don't know if it's likely to be particularly harmful though. It just seems pointless.
Claim 1
"CELLFOOD DNA RNA is the worlds first cellular regenerating formula combining nucleic acid bases (the essential building block on DNA and RNA) Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP - the master energy molecule) methyl groups (regulators and programmers of the aging process)and Cellfood."
- these are apparently the contents of the 30ml vial but I have no idea what form they'll be in once they're absorbed into the bloodstream (assuming that they are) or how they are transported into the nucleus where they might interact with DNA. Is the product supposed to increase methylation specifically or just methylate anything it comes into contact with? Were this product to really work then I think Tesco would be selling something that interacts with the genome - I can't help thinking this is quite a serious situation to be in. I suspect it doesn't really do anything though.
Claim 2
"Anti-aging - Clinical research indicates that biological aging is regulated and programmed by the gradual loss of specific DNA markers known as methyl groups. At the age of 25 most of us have already lost 10% of our DNA methyl groups. When there is a 40% loss degenerative death typically occurs."
- while changes in methylation do have a role in the aging process this text implies that insufficient methylation of DNA is 'game over' and that a grisly death will occur for want of methyl groups. I have some doubts that things are quite that bleak, and I also have serious doubts that the product will do anything to help.
Claim 3
"Longevity studies have shown that no single therapeutic method has increased lifespan more than nucleic acid (DNA RNA) supplementation."
- quite a bold claim, I'd be surprised if this is true or even that it's been demonstrated in human trials.
I'm prepared to consider that nucleic acid supplementation might be therapeutically beneficial in some cases (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178290, from 1997 - though very little information is given in that abstract), eg where a person is undergoing intravenous feeding, but I don't think this product does anything to extend life in otherwise normal healthy people. I'd also assume that this product would need to be administered under the care of a doctor.
NB: Prof David Colquhoun is of the very reasonable opinion that this paper is also hooey, but I've not looked into the matter beyond searching for potentially feasible articles on nucleic acid supplementation.
Claim 4
"CELLFOOD DNA RNA provides the most important nutrient factors for improving DNA methylation which slows or stops the loss of methyl groups."
- Assuming this product can deliver methyl groups to the right spot (doubtful) does remethylating DNA prolong life or increase health? I am extremely doubtful on this and suspect that 'more research is needed' before claims like this can be added to supplement packs.
I'm honestly not sure if Tesco is joking with this product, but I don't think they're able to support these claims.
Thank you,
Jo
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
It seems the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' doesn't like me
I was surprised to discover this afternoon that I've now made it into yet another* Facebook rant from the people behind What Doctors Don't Tell You (there have been many rants though this is my first inclusion). They've been escalating their rants about skeptic activists (while unironically noting how few of us there are) ever since Tesco decided to stop stocking their magazine. The reason Tesco gave was that the magazine wasn't selling^ - I've no idea if this is true or if Tesco really did listen to the complaints against the magazine's content (or possibly they just read it and drew the relevant conclusions themselves).
*https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/770960436257904
^https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152543438997767&set=p.10152543438997767&type=1&theater - this link might take you to a picture shared on WDDTY's public page, it's a screenshot of an email from Tesco saying that they'd removed it in response to feedback.
Anyway, What Doctors Don't Tell You is now blaming skeptics for the withdrawal of the magazine and is now reduced to publicising personal and work information about us. To me this is very telling. Each of us has blogs where we've criticised the magazine's content or the framing of its content. If they think we're wrong it would be better to point out where we've missed something. The fact that the chosen tactic relies on personal attacks speaks volumes.
Remember that a number of the advertisers in the magazine have been found to be in breach of the advertising standards guidelines and in one particularly amusing case, someone whose research was written about in the magazine pointed out that the author had got it wrong.
Here's what WDDTY would like you to know about me... or at least someone whose name rhymes with mine (I have spelled it as Jo Brodie for... ooh, forever).
The bits that are accurate are fine. The bits that are inaccurate are quite wrong (surprise!) and it ropes in another Jo Brodie who might be a bit miffed to find herself (himself? Jo can be a man's name too) connected with this, so my post here is published to clarify my own 'involvement' in the list of skeptical activists. At the end of this post I'm including links to any other relevant blog posts that clarify the misinformation in the WDDTY Facebook post.
My work / volunteering
I do indeed work two days a week (2.5) for the CHI+MED project, yes. It's funded by the EPSRC (one of seven research councils) which are funded by the taxpayer. We are not paid by the pharmaceutical industry or, for that matter, the medical devices industry. We do work with medical device companies - we're trying to reduce the harm that can happen when complicated devices are used under stressful conditions.
My job is partly to update the website and expand the project's online presence - fair enough. I also give talks about our research, in particular the work we've done on public (& stakeholder) engagement and science communication.
For the rest of the week I do not work at Diabetes UK and haven't done since June 2012. Diabetes UK made the entire Science Information Team redundant then (5 people affected) but I'm on friendly terms with them, they do good stuff and I learned a lot while there.
I have never worked for Prof Wharton and until today had never heard of him. If you google his name and add mine you'll find that he does have a secretary with my name (spelled -ie not -y) but it isn't me. There are a surprising number of people called Jo Brodie who aren't me in fact. Prof Wharton's based in Sheffield, I'm in London. I'm sure I'd do quite a good job if I did work for him though as I have a Masters degree in Neuroscience and he seems to work in that sort of area.
For the rest of the week I actually work (1.5 days) on the Teaching London Computing project - supporting computing teachers who'll be delivering the new subject / curriculum. I also volunteer one day a week (1d) at JDRF (the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) so that I can put my diabetes statistics knowledge to good use.
"I'm not medically trained"
The reason I freely admit that I'm not medically trained is because it's true and some of the things I post here touch on health and medical topics. I think it's important to state this so that people aren't misled - I am not qualified to give advice, in much the same way that this magazine isn't qualified to give medical advice. To be honest even if I was medically qualified I'd still not be acting appropriately in giving advice because I don't have access to your medical records and might give advice that isn't relevant to you.
This concept was made very clear to me while working at Diabetes UK. We took calls from the public, explained that we were science information officers and then hopefully did a competent job of explaining complex topics simply. Quite a few people referred to us as 'doctor' (of course we corrected them) and many callers maintained the belief that we were medically trained, some were surprisingly quite deferential. That bothered me because we were trying to signpost them to information, not give them medical advice, and we certainly didn't want to misrepresent ourselves. I hope to make it clear from the outset (in the blog bio bit at the top) that I'm not medically qualified and I also re-mention it in relevant posts too.
Qualifications and competence
The post mentions several other people, largely to try and imply that we're a bunch of un-medically-qualified folk who are not fit to assess the content in the magazine. By contrast, their own advisors include:
I'm amused by the bit pointing out that a fact checker worked for the pharmaceutical industry - the magazine often criticises Pharma for distorting evidence so I'm not sure what to make of that. Also if the magazine is called What Doctors Don't Tell You it seems odd to tout the fact that you're taking editorial advice from them.
While I am not a medical science writer I've done a fair bit of it (only 8 years, so I can see immediately how my qualifications fall dramatically short of theirs) and am not too bad at critical appraisal. Really, anyone who's been trained as a scientist is reasonably competent to critically appraise scientific or medical information - and we can all improve with practice.
WDDTY's message is that we're not qualified to comment on their magazine. While I maintain that anyone who can make sense of evidence is qualified to do this, it's not at all clear who WDDTY would accept as suitable:
Others have shared the Facebook status, taking WDDTY's message that we're not qualified to comment -
Personally I think the first line should read "Thisimportant magazine is being written by people who have no credentials whatsoever to give opinions on medical issues..." my criticism is not about anyone's qualifications but based on the evidence of the magazine's published output.
I'm a little bit miffed about the last line of course because my qualifications and experience are all about the health and medical field, just not as a doctor.
They end with:
Unfortunately for WDDTY I (and the others mentioned) have both the training and experience to evaluate the information in their pages, and that's why they're a bit mean about us.
Others' take on being included in the list (will add as more are written)
Skepticat aka Maria
http://forum.thinkhumanism.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=6604
Guy Chapman's blahg
WDDTY goes "the full Errol"
WWDDTYDTY (What What Doctors Don't Tell You Don't Tell You)
Meet the people who would dictate your health care
*https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/770960436257904
^https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152543438997767&set=p.10152543438997767&type=1&theater - this link might take you to a picture shared on WDDTY's public page, it's a screenshot of an email from Tesco saying that they'd removed it in response to feedback.
Anyway, What Doctors Don't Tell You is now blaming skeptics for the withdrawal of the magazine and is now reduced to publicising personal and work information about us. To me this is very telling. Each of us has blogs where we've criticised the magazine's content or the framing of its content. If they think we're wrong it would be better to point out where we've missed something. The fact that the chosen tactic relies on personal attacks speaks volumes.
Remember that a number of the advertisers in the magazine have been found to be in breach of the advertising standards guidelines and in one particularly amusing case, someone whose research was written about in the magazine pointed out that the author had got it wrong.
Here's what WDDTY would like you to know about me... or at least someone whose name rhymes with mine (I have spelled it as Jo Brodie for... ooh, forever).
The bits that are accurate are fine. The bits that are inaccurate are quite wrong (surprise!) and it ropes in another Jo Brodie who might be a bit miffed to find herself (himself? Jo can be a man's name too) connected with this, so my post here is published to clarify my own 'involvement' in the list of skeptical activists. At the end of this post I'm including links to any other relevant blog posts that clarify the misinformation in the WDDTY Facebook post.
My work / volunteering
I do indeed work two days a week (2.5) for the CHI+MED project, yes. It's funded by the EPSRC (one of seven research councils) which are funded by the taxpayer. We are not paid by the pharmaceutical industry or, for that matter, the medical devices industry. We do work with medical device companies - we're trying to reduce the harm that can happen when complicated devices are used under stressful conditions.
My job is partly to update the website and expand the project's online presence - fair enough. I also give talks about our research, in particular the work we've done on public (& stakeholder) engagement and science communication.
For the rest of the week I do not work at Diabetes UK and haven't done since June 2012. Diabetes UK made the entire Science Information Team redundant then (5 people affected) but I'm on friendly terms with them, they do good stuff and I learned a lot while there.
I have never worked for Prof Wharton and until today had never heard of him. If you google his name and add mine you'll find that he does have a secretary with my name (spelled -ie not -y) but it isn't me. There are a surprising number of people called Jo Brodie who aren't me in fact. Prof Wharton's based in Sheffield, I'm in London. I'm sure I'd do quite a good job if I did work for him though as I have a Masters degree in Neuroscience and he seems to work in that sort of area.
For the rest of the week I actually work (1.5 days) on the Teaching London Computing project - supporting computing teachers who'll be delivering the new subject / curriculum. I also volunteer one day a week (1d) at JDRF (the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) so that I can put my diabetes statistics knowledge to good use.
"I'm not medically trained"
The reason I freely admit that I'm not medically trained is because it's true and some of the things I post here touch on health and medical topics. I think it's important to state this so that people aren't misled - I am not qualified to give advice, in much the same way that this magazine isn't qualified to give medical advice. To be honest even if I was medically qualified I'd still not be acting appropriately in giving advice because I don't have access to your medical records and might give advice that isn't relevant to you.
This concept was made very clear to me while working at Diabetes UK. We took calls from the public, explained that we were science information officers and then hopefully did a competent job of explaining complex topics simply. Quite a few people referred to us as 'doctor' (of course we corrected them) and many callers maintained the belief that we were medically trained, some were surprisingly quite deferential. That bothered me because we were trying to signpost them to information, not give them medical advice, and we certainly didn't want to misrepresent ourselves. I hope to make it clear from the outset (in the blog bio bit at the top) that I'm not medically qualified and I also re-mention it in relevant posts too.
Qualifications and competence
The post mentions several other people, largely to try and imply that we're a bunch of un-medically-qualified folk who are not fit to assess the content in the magazine. By contrast, their own advisors include:
"seven medical doctors on its editorial panel, plus several PhDs and highly qualified practitioners of a number of alternative disciplines. Thousands of doctors and health practitioners of every persuasion regularly read WDDTY and comment enthusiastically. The two editors of our magazine have been medical science writers for 25 years, and every word in our pages is checked by a science editor with a an extensive history of writing and editing medical studies for the pharmaceutical industry."You might be interested in the background of these doctors...
I'm amused by the bit pointing out that a fact checker worked for the pharmaceutical industry - the magazine often criticises Pharma for distorting evidence so I'm not sure what to make of that. Also if the magazine is called What Doctors Don't Tell You it seems odd to tout the fact that you're taking editorial advice from them.
While I am not a medical science writer I've done a fair bit of it (only 8 years, so I can see immediately how my qualifications fall dramatically short of theirs) and am not too bad at critical appraisal. Really, anyone who's been trained as a scientist is reasonably competent to critically appraise scientific or medical information - and we can all improve with practice.
WDDTY's message is that we're not qualified to comment on their magazine. While I maintain that anyone who can make sense of evidence is qualified to do this, it's not at all clear who WDDTY would accept as suitable:
- Not the eight of us because we're not medically trained
- Not doctors because they are medically trained...
- ... except some doctors who agree with them.
Others have shared the Facebook status, taking WDDTY's message that we're not qualified to comment -
Personally I think the first line should read "This
I'm a little bit miffed about the last line of course because my qualifications and experience are all about the health and medical field, just not as a doctor.
They end with:
"...write to Tesco today and ask them to re-stock What Doctors Don’t Tell You. And tell them a bit more about the people who fire off ‘complaints’ – that they are neither true customers nor people with either the training or experience to evaluate the information in our pages: customer.service@tesco.co.uk"
Unfortunately for WDDTY I (and the others mentioned) have both the training and experience to evaluate the information in their pages, and that's why they're a bit mean about us.
Others' take on being included in the list (will add as more are written)
Skepticat aka Maria
http://forum.thinkhumanism.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=6604
Guy Chapman's blahg
WDDTY goes "the full Errol"
WWDDTYDTY (What What Doctors Don't Tell You Don't Tell You)
Meet the people who would dictate your health care
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
If you've received an #askforevidence tweet or email from me it might mean the following
Hello
You might have received a message from me asking for some evidence for a claim you've made in your marketing material. My request might have taken you by surprise and you might be rather annoyed to be challenged in this way. I expect I would be a bit surprised if someone contacted me too, so I've written this post to try and explain what it is that I'm trying to do.
I regularly report what I believe to be misleading marketing claims to the Advertising Standards Authority. Many (by no means all) have resulted in an adjudication being upheld against the marketer with the details listed on the ASA's website. In fact even if the case doesn't get as far as an adjudication (usually because the marketer agrees to the ASA's request to amend the claims) the marketer's trading name will still appear on the ASA's pages in the 'informally resolved' section.
It seemed like a good idea, in terms of saving time and effort and avoiding names being listed, for me to try asking people if they will amend their claims before reporting them to the ASA. If claims are amended then there's nothing to report to the ASA. It may not work of course but I thought I'd give it a go.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm not convinced by the claim(s) that you've made on Twitter or on your website (or leaflet). The claims are possibly in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) and Committe for Advertising Practice's (CAP) advertising codes and it may be advisable for you to think about changing your wording.
Please have a look at the CAP's AdviceOnline database or browse the Advice Index to search for your treatment to find out what you can say about it in your advertising material. You can also browse this alphabetic list of therapies for information.
Don't forget that the ASA aren't just interested in evidence for your claims. If you mention serious conditions or diseases (the sort that anyone would expect to be under the care of a doctor) and you don't have a doctor at your clinic or place of treatment then the ASA may want to know more about this. From previous adjudications they tend to take a dim view of people or companies claiming that they can treat a long 'shopping list' of diseases and they have frequently mentioned their concerns about a website failing to encourage people to visit a doctor for essential treatment. A medical disclaimer is not sufficient to get around this and it is generally inadvisable to say anything that could be understood as you offering to diagnose, treat or cure any disease - unless you have robust evidence.
You may very well think that I am wrong or that your treatment is fantastic, and of course I am easy enough to ignore. But if the evidence doesn't satisfy CAP's requirements for 'robust evidence' then the ASA may well ask you to amend claims made on your website.
If you decide not to amend your advert (and a number of people are standing their ground and defying the ASA) then a number of potentially annoying things can happen -
1. Listed on ASA's informally resolved page
Even if you do amend your ad I think your company will probably still be listed on the 'informally resolved' section of their website. That is what has happened in the past (and precisely why I thought "wouldn't it be great to avoid this by asking people to change their claims before getting the ASA involved?").
2. ASA investigations and adjudications
The ASA might undertake a more formal investigation which can result in an adjudication. These are listed on individual pages on the ASA's website, tweeted by the ASA and usually a few others and occasionally picked up by mainstream media, more frequently by science / skeptic bloggers. The adjudication may be upheld (against you) or not upheld (that is, it's actually in your favour) but either way it's on their website.
3. ASA's list of non-compliant advertisers
If an adjudication is upheld and you still do not amend your website then the ASA may add you to its list of noncompliant online advertisers. These events are tweeted by the ASA and by a number of other people. To be honest it doesn't look good to people who are searching online for information about your company, though some people seem to treat these citations as a sort of 'badge of honour', and as proof that the ASA is oppressing them in some way.
There's also quite a high chance that bloggers will write about the listing and a low to medium chance that it will be picked up by the mainstream press. The ASA also do proactive press work, speaking on radio as well as being invited to comment in written pieces too.
The ASA can take further action against you though. They can take out an advert that is critical of your marketing claims, they can also work with search engines to remove your paid-for advertising. Their adjudications seem to feature prominently in search results too.
Although the ASA has no legal sanction over you itself (that I'm aware of) their activities and the follow-on results of those (including blogging), might damage your reputation online.
4. Trading Standards, courts, fines, trading restrictions
The most annoying thing that the ASA can do though is refer you to Trading Standards. Because there are trading laws and acts in place Trading Standards can use the power of a court to stop you trading, or fine you for continuing to make misleading claims (ie trading unfairly). If you are making claims about curing cancer then you are probably also in breach of the Cancer Act of 1939. It is likely that you will get a fine and nothing more, though if you continue I think the next fine will be larger and I believe that after that (certainly in the case of the Cancer Act) you may be looking at a prison sentence. These are definitely picked up by the mainstream press, bloggers etc.
The ASA recently announced that they'd strengthened the processes involved in working with Trading Standards: Trading Standards becomes ASA’s legal backstop power (21 November 2013).
See also
Disclaimer
It's a bit tedious when people assume that anyone who reports misleading health claims is a secret member of some group of people paid by 'Big Pharma', rather than someone who is simply a bit annoyed to see potentially dangerous claims made on the back of poor quality evidence. However I am happy to state that I do not receive any money or other benefits from the pharmaceutical industry either directly or indirectly, nor do I have any stocks and shares in any of the pharmaceutical industries.
I am not a member of the Nightingale Collaboration (no-one is, they do not have members, though I do read their newsletter and am supportive of their aims and sometimes their campaigns). I am not a member of Sense About Science (don't think they have members either) but I have donated money to them and will happily do so again - not large amounts of money either.
My interest in taking action on misleading claims arose from reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Guardian column, his blog and the forum he created and coincided with hearing about crazy adverts for diabetes cures when I used to work at the health charity Diabetes UK. As part of my (then) job I received a number of enquiries from people who'd come across miracle cures and wanted to know more about them. I wanted to know how it was possible that such claims could be made, discovered that they couldn't and began reporting them.
You might also argue that there are more important things to worry about, however I might well be worried about them too, or I might not - it's not actually relevant. I do worry that the pharmaceutical industry has not been transparent about the effects of drugs and I have signed the #AllTrials petition to make it harder for them to keep hidden what they want to keep hidden. It would be great if you did the same. The petition comes from Sense About Science, Ben Goldacre and others that you might not approve of - however the aim of the petition is to make Big Pharma publish ALL of its clinical trial data and not just the bits they like. I think we'd all agree that that's a good idea even if you don't like who's calling for it to happen. Hope so.
You might have received a message from me asking for some evidence for a claim you've made in your marketing material. My request might have taken you by surprise and you might be rather annoyed to be challenged in this way. I expect I would be a bit surprised if someone contacted me too, so I've written this post to try and explain what it is that I'm trying to do.
I regularly report what I believe to be misleading marketing claims to the Advertising Standards Authority. Many (by no means all) have resulted in an adjudication being upheld against the marketer with the details listed on the ASA's website. In fact even if the case doesn't get as far as an adjudication (usually because the marketer agrees to the ASA's request to amend the claims) the marketer's trading name will still appear on the ASA's pages in the 'informally resolved' section.
It seemed like a good idea, in terms of saving time and effort and avoiding names being listed, for me to try asking people if they will amend their claims before reporting them to the ASA. If claims are amended then there's nothing to report to the ASA. It may not work of course but I thought I'd give it a go.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm not convinced by the claim(s) that you've made on Twitter or on your website (or leaflet). The claims are possibly in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) and Committe for Advertising Practice's (CAP) advertising codes and it may be advisable for you to think about changing your wording.
Please have a look at the CAP's AdviceOnline database or browse the Advice Index to search for your treatment to find out what you can say about it in your advertising material. You can also browse this alphabetic list of therapies for information.
Don't forget that the ASA aren't just interested in evidence for your claims. If you mention serious conditions or diseases (the sort that anyone would expect to be under the care of a doctor) and you don't have a doctor at your clinic or place of treatment then the ASA may want to know more about this. From previous adjudications they tend to take a dim view of people or companies claiming that they can treat a long 'shopping list' of diseases and they have frequently mentioned their concerns about a website failing to encourage people to visit a doctor for essential treatment. A medical disclaimer is not sufficient to get around this and it is generally inadvisable to say anything that could be understood as you offering to diagnose, treat or cure any disease - unless you have robust evidence.
You may very well think that I am wrong or that your treatment is fantastic, and of course I am easy enough to ignore. But if the evidence doesn't satisfy CAP's requirements for 'robust evidence' then the ASA may well ask you to amend claims made on your website.
If you decide not to amend your advert (and a number of people are standing their ground and defying the ASA) then a number of potentially annoying things can happen -
1. Listed on ASA's informally resolved page
Even if you do amend your ad I think your company will probably still be listed on the 'informally resolved' section of their website. That is what has happened in the past (and precisely why I thought "wouldn't it be great to avoid this by asking people to change their claims before getting the ASA involved?").
2. ASA investigations and adjudications
The ASA might undertake a more formal investigation which can result in an adjudication. These are listed on individual pages on the ASA's website, tweeted by the ASA and usually a few others and occasionally picked up by mainstream media, more frequently by science / skeptic bloggers. The adjudication may be upheld (against you) or not upheld (that is, it's actually in your favour) but either way it's on their website.
3. ASA's list of non-compliant advertisers
If an adjudication is upheld and you still do not amend your website then the ASA may add you to its list of noncompliant online advertisers. These events are tweeted by the ASA and by a number of other people. To be honest it doesn't look good to people who are searching online for information about your company, though some people seem to treat these citations as a sort of 'badge of honour', and as proof that the ASA is oppressing them in some way.
There's also quite a high chance that bloggers will write about the listing and a low to medium chance that it will be picked up by the mainstream press. The ASA also do proactive press work, speaking on radio as well as being invited to comment in written pieces too.
The ASA can take further action against you though. They can take out an advert that is critical of your marketing claims, they can also work with search engines to remove your paid-for advertising. Their adjudications seem to feature prominently in search results too.
Although the ASA has no legal sanction over you itself (that I'm aware of) their activities and the follow-on results of those (including blogging), might damage your reputation online.
4. Trading Standards, courts, fines, trading restrictions
The most annoying thing that the ASA can do though is refer you to Trading Standards. Because there are trading laws and acts in place Trading Standards can use the power of a court to stop you trading, or fine you for continuing to make misleading claims (ie trading unfairly). If you are making claims about curing cancer then you are probably also in breach of the Cancer Act of 1939. It is likely that you will get a fine and nothing more, though if you continue I think the next fine will be larger and I believe that after that (certainly in the case of the Cancer Act) you may be looking at a prison sentence. These are definitely picked up by the mainstream press, bloggers etc.
The ASA recently announced that they'd strengthened the processes involved in working with Trading Standards: Trading Standards becomes ASA’s legal backstop power (21 November 2013).
See also
- Asking for evidence when companies make misleading claims - but whom should we ask? #askforevidence (22 September 2013)
This post is basically me deciding not to ask people first, because it's never gone down well in the past! However on reflection while there are certainly cases that I'll just report directly I still want to try out a bit of negotiation first.
Here's a bit of what I wrote there -
"A question for fellow skeptic bloggers / activists... and perhaps for 'quacks'
I've always thought that it would seem to be a kindness to give a company an opportunity to avoid a citation on the ASA's website by seeing if it's possible to resolve the misleading claims before snitching on them.
However I'm yet to find the right way to do this - and wondered if anyone had any ideas or if we've all agreed to just get on and report it. I wonder if people who are (let's charitably assume they're doing it unwittingly) making misleading claims would rather skeptics 'had a quiet word' before bringing things to the ASA's attention.
I've tried face to face, telephone conversations and emails but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way of communicating to someone that their advert is misleading without getting their hackles up. Or if there is I've not managed it (and I'm always Britishly polite about it even if they aren't).
Worse, I feel that I do have to tell them that if they don't change the advert I'm going to report it to the ASA and that just sounds threatening. So, much as I'd like to, I'm afraid I don't bother with the preliminaries and just report the misleading claims."
Disclaimer
It's a bit tedious when people assume that anyone who reports misleading health claims is a secret member of some group of people paid by 'Big Pharma', rather than someone who is simply a bit annoyed to see potentially dangerous claims made on the back of poor quality evidence. However I am happy to state that I do not receive any money or other benefits from the pharmaceutical industry either directly or indirectly, nor do I have any stocks and shares in any of the pharmaceutical industries.
I am not a member of the Nightingale Collaboration (no-one is, they do not have members, though I do read their newsletter and am supportive of their aims and sometimes their campaigns). I am not a member of Sense About Science (don't think they have members either) but I have donated money to them and will happily do so again - not large amounts of money either.
My interest in taking action on misleading claims arose from reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Guardian column, his blog and the forum he created and coincided with hearing about crazy adverts for diabetes cures when I used to work at the health charity Diabetes UK. As part of my (then) job I received a number of enquiries from people who'd come across miracle cures and wanted to know more about them. I wanted to know how it was possible that such claims could be made, discovered that they couldn't and began reporting them.
You might also argue that there are more important things to worry about, however I might well be worried about them too, or I might not - it's not actually relevant. I do worry that the pharmaceutical industry has not been transparent about the effects of drugs and I have signed the #AllTrials petition to make it harder for them to keep hidden what they want to keep hidden. It would be great if you did the same. The petition comes from Sense About Science, Ben Goldacre and others that you might not approve of - however the aim of the petition is to make Big Pharma publish ALL of its clinical trial data and not just the bits they like. I think we'd all agree that that's a good idea even if you don't like who's calling for it to happen. Hope so.
Sunday, 24 November 2013
ASA's list of therapies and what may be claimed for them
This page is likely to be of use to doctors, scientists and skeptic bloggers, complementary health practitioners and consumers.
It comes from the Committee of Advertising Practice who set the guidelines that the Advertising Standards Authority uses in determining if marketing and advertising material are OK, or not. Since a large number of complaints are made about misleading websites promoting alternative or complementary health treatments the section on 'Therapies' is now quite extensive, reproduced below.
I like to think of this as a handy list of itemised nonsense. It is not illegal to sell any of these treatments, as far as I'm aware, but it is not fair to make claims for them that cannot be defended.
In each there are two aspects to consider (1) health-condition-specific concerns and (2) treatment-specific evidence.
(1) Health-condition-specific concerns
If an advertiser is making claims about treating really serious health conditions (asthma, cancer, diabetes, depression, high blood pressure etc) but isn't medically trained themselves or doesn't have access to a doctor in their clinic then the ASA is more immediately concerned about the customer not having appropriate medical care. The evidence for the actual therapy becomes a secondary concern in this situation. The ASA has also expressed concern if it thinks that customers may be discouraged from seeking appropriate medical care.
(2) Treatment-specific evidence
This covers all the claims that are made for the treatment and the ASA appear to want 'robust evidence' - generally the sort of thing that's published in peer-reviewed journals, ideally a meta-analysis of smaller trials. Evidence from individual small trials is more of a compass bearing than an agreement that you're in a particular place and not generally seen as robust, it depends on the study of course. Testimonials don't count.
Full alphabetic index: AdviceOnline index
Searchable index: AdviceOnline database
The relevant T section including all therapies currently listed, I added Testimonials as a bonus.
It comes from the Committee of Advertising Practice who set the guidelines that the Advertising Standards Authority uses in determining if marketing and advertising material are OK, or not. Since a large number of complaints are made about misleading websites promoting alternative or complementary health treatments the section on 'Therapies' is now quite extensive, reproduced below.
I like to think of this as a handy list of itemised nonsense. It is not illegal to sell any of these treatments, as far as I'm aware, but it is not fair to make claims for them that cannot be defended.
In each there are two aspects to consider (1) health-condition-specific concerns and (2) treatment-specific evidence.
(1) Health-condition-specific concerns
If an advertiser is making claims about treating really serious health conditions (asthma, cancer, diabetes, depression, high blood pressure etc) but isn't medically trained themselves or doesn't have access to a doctor in their clinic then the ASA is more immediately concerned about the customer not having appropriate medical care. The evidence for the actual therapy becomes a secondary concern in this situation. The ASA has also expressed concern if it thinks that customers may be discouraged from seeking appropriate medical care.
(2) Treatment-specific evidence
This covers all the claims that are made for the treatment and the ASA appear to want 'robust evidence' - generally the sort of thing that's published in peer-reviewed journals, ideally a meta-analysis of smaller trials. Evidence from individual small trials is more of a compass bearing than an agreement that you're in a particular place and not generally seen as robust, it depends on the study of course. Testimonials don't count.
Full alphabetic index: AdviceOnline index
Searchable index: AdviceOnline database
The relevant T section including all therapies currently listed, I added Testimonials as a bonus.
- Testimonials and endorsements
- Therapies: Acupuncture
- Therapies: Alexander technique
- Therapies: Anthroposophical medicine
- Therapies: Aromatherapy
- Therapies: Art therapy
- Therapies: Autogenic training
- Therapies: Autologous blood therapy
- Therapies: Ayurvedic medicine
- Therapies: Bach and other flower remedies
- Therapies: Bowen technique
- Therapies: Chelation therapy
- Therapies: Chinese herbal medicine or traditional Chinese medicine
- Therapies: Chiropractic
- Therapies: Colon hydrotherapy
- Therapies: Craniosacral Therapy
- Therapies: Crystal therapy
- Therapies: Eastern medicine
- Therapies: Enzyme therapy
- Therapies: Flotation therapy
- Therapies: General
- Therapies: Healing
- Therapies: Herbal medicine
- Therapies: Homeopathy
- Therapies: Hypnotherapy
- Therapies: Iridology
- Therapies: Kinesiology
- Therapies: The Lightning process
- Therapies: Live Blood Analysis
- Therapies: Magnetic field therapy
- Therapies: Maharishi ayurvedic medicine
- Therapies: Massage and body work
- Therapies: Meditation
- Therapies: Naturopathy
- Therapies: Nutritional Therapy
- Therapies: Osteomyology
- Therapies: Osteopathy
- Therapies: Oxygen therapy
- Therapies: Phototherapy
- Therapies: Physiotherapy
- Therapies: Polarity therapy
- Therapies: Radionics
- Therapies: Reflexology
- Therapies: Shiatsu
- Therapies: Tai Chi
- Therapies: Yoga
- Therapies: Reiki
Monday, 14 October 2013
I don't understand the supposed benefits of "boosting your immune system"
Update 19 December 2014
Here's a really good explanation in Slate: You don't actually want to boost your immune system (19 December 2014) Slate
"Natural remedies that claim to “boost your immune system” don’t work, and it’s a good thing they don’t."
Note: I am not medically trained. I am not an expert in immune systems nor in autoimmunity nor in immune suppression. Feel free to argue with me on any of the points below but please do not take my thoughts as being suitable 'advice' for matters relating to your own immune system or health in general. You want a doctor for that (a real one).
In the world of pseudomedicine someone always seems to have the idea of finding natural ways to boost the immune system.
I have to assume that this thinking arises because the immune system is a good thing and so more of it must also be a good thing. It doesn't follow that more of a good thing is still a good thing though.
There might be "things that can 'boost' the immune system" - presumably this means increasing the number of a particular type of cells that make up the circulating immune system. If so, I suspect that would be a controlled substance that would fall under the control of the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) so perhaps it's not allowed to be sold without some sort of marketing authorisation. I'd always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the correct treatment for a compromised immune system is to keep the patient safe while the immune system recovers by itself - are there actually things that really can boost the immune system?
Assuming that there are things that can do this then, wouldn't using them (outside of a proper hospital monitoring system) risk over-boosting the immune system, perhaps leading to some sort of autoimmune response? I think I'm probably being a bit oversimplistic in implying that 'more immune system' = 'autoimmunity' of course, but autoimmune disorders arise from the immune system attacking the person's own cells and tissues. I'd not want to boost that sort of thing, nor increase the likelihood that it might happen.
I'm all for keeping things natural, which includes leaving my immune system at whatever pre-sets have kept me alive thus far. Where nature has briefly got the better of me I've been ridiculously, almost tearfully grateful for antibiotics, but I've worked out an arrangement with my immune responses that I get a cold once a year (about now in fact) and I leave it alone for most of the rest of the year. And I try not to scratch mosquito bites.
Clearly if I was suffering from neutropenia or some other catastrophic problem in the cells that contribute to my immunity then yes, I'd probably want a bit of boosting. Given that it's a medical emergency I think I'd be in hospital, perhaps in a clean-room, with everyone having to wear gowns and be all sterile if they came near me.
Presumably people who have autoimmune disorders don't want further boosting, but are the rest of us supposed to be living with sub-par immune systems? What aspects of it are low? Is the marker for it 'more colds'?
It just seems like the one part of my homeostatic mechanisms I'd probably want to leave well alone. A happily working immune system is a good thing, but 'more' of it doesn't imply 'more good thing' at all. I'm guessing it would be quite the opposite.
And of course if someone has had an organ transplant and is on medication to suppress the immune system (to stop it rejecting the organ) then surely they definitely don't want their immune system boosted.
Presumably breathing is good - are there any natural ways to increase breathing rate to get more oxygen in? I'm not familiar with the medical benefits of hyperventilation (generally, negative I think) but if we're trying to boost stuff... [I am being sarcastic here, just breathe normally].
Here's a really good explanation in Slate: You don't actually want to boost your immune system (19 December 2014) Slate
"Natural remedies that claim to “boost your immune system” don’t work, and it’s a good thing they don’t."
Note: I am not medically trained. I am not an expert in immune systems nor in autoimmunity nor in immune suppression. Feel free to argue with me on any of the points below but please do not take my thoughts as being suitable 'advice' for matters relating to your own immune system or health in general. You want a doctor for that (a real one).
- Can you boost your immune system?
- Is it something you'd actually want to do if you could?
In the world of pseudomedicine someone always seems to have the idea of finding natural ways to boost the immune system.
I have to assume that this thinking arises because the immune system is a good thing and so more of it must also be a good thing. It doesn't follow that more of a good thing is still a good thing though.
There might be "things that can 'boost' the immune system" - presumably this means increasing the number of a particular type of cells that make up the circulating immune system. If so, I suspect that would be a controlled substance that would fall under the control of the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) so perhaps it's not allowed to be sold without some sort of marketing authorisation. I'd always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the correct treatment for a compromised immune system is to keep the patient safe while the immune system recovers by itself - are there actually things that really can boost the immune system?
Assuming that there are things that can do this then, wouldn't using them (outside of a proper hospital monitoring system) risk over-boosting the immune system, perhaps leading to some sort of autoimmune response? I think I'm probably being a bit oversimplistic in implying that 'more immune system' = 'autoimmunity' of course, but autoimmune disorders arise from the immune system attacking the person's own cells and tissues. I'd not want to boost that sort of thing, nor increase the likelihood that it might happen.
I'm all for keeping things natural, which includes leaving my immune system at whatever pre-sets have kept me alive thus far. Where nature has briefly got the better of me I've been ridiculously, almost tearfully grateful for antibiotics, but I've worked out an arrangement with my immune responses that I get a cold once a year (about now in fact) and I leave it alone for most of the rest of the year. And I try not to scratch mosquito bites.
Clearly if I was suffering from neutropenia or some other catastrophic problem in the cells that contribute to my immunity then yes, I'd probably want a bit of boosting. Given that it's a medical emergency I think I'd be in hospital, perhaps in a clean-room, with everyone having to wear gowns and be all sterile if they came near me.
Presumably people who have autoimmune disorders don't want further boosting, but are the rest of us supposed to be living with sub-par immune systems? What aspects of it are low? Is the marker for it 'more colds'?
It just seems like the one part of my homeostatic mechanisms I'd probably want to leave well alone. A happily working immune system is a good thing, but 'more' of it doesn't imply 'more good thing' at all. I'm guessing it would be quite the opposite.
And of course if someone has had an organ transplant and is on medication to suppress the immune system (to stop it rejecting the organ) then surely they definitely don't want their immune system boosted.
Presumably breathing is good - are there any natural ways to increase breathing rate to get more oxygen in? I'm not familiar with the medical benefits of hyperventilation (generally, negative I think) but if we're trying to boost stuff... [I am being sarcastic here, just breathe normally].
Sunday, 22 September 2013
Asking for evidence when companies make misleading claims - but whom should we ask? #askforevidence
The charity Sense About Science has a rather good campaign called Ask For Evidence which I'm fully behind. I think if someone makes claims they should expect to be asked for their evidence and I applaud a campaign that raises awareness of this, both in terms of reminding people that they're perfectly entitled to ask for evidence, and in reminding organisations that they should expect to be asked. We should all be a bit more skeptical about claims that seem too good to be true.
Actually, when I ask for evidence I'm usually not asking the company or marketer directly, I'm asking one of several regulatory authorities (such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Trading Standards or the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) to investigate on my behalf.
In fact my strategy has generally been to research the claims myself and put forward a fairly detailed explanation of why I think something's not quite right. I don't put in a huge number of complaints but I have a fairly high 'success' rate (in that the material is amended, or an adjudication is upheld) though occasionally my complaint doesn't get taken forward.
Another thing I typically do is blog about the topic I'm complaining about, or the company itself. This means that people searching for information about it / them might find a blog post that is critical of the intervention and explains why the claims are misleading. This changes the Google landscape a tiny bit and an explanation of the reasons why a claim is misleading might put someone off wasting money on a treatment.
Complaining about misleading adverts
Whenever the ASA gets a complaint it contacts the marketer and asks for evidence or, if the claims clearly breach the advertising code it'll ask them to amend the ad. Either the organisation has evidence or it hasn't but in any case the outcome will end up on the ASA's website.
The basic publication is on a list of 'informally resolved' cases where the organisation amends the claims and no further action is taken. In more complex cases it goes to adjudication and is either upheld or not upheld (a good outcome for the organisation). In more extreme cases where the marketer refuses to amend claims they will end up on the ASA's non-compliant online advertisers list - this can lead to further problems including being passed on to Trading Standards (who can instigate criminal proceedings and shut organisations down) and having their site downgraded in Google search results).
Sense About Science have a series of guides to help people ask for evidence effectively, depending on who they're asking and what it is they need to ask for.
The guide covers asking
I've always thought that it would seem to be a kindness to give a company an opportunity to avoid a citation on the ASA's website by seeing if it's possible to resolve the misleading claims before snitching on them.
However I'm yet to find the right way to do this - and wondered if anyone had any ideas or if we've all agreed to just get on and report it. I wonder if people who are (let's charitably assume they're doing it unwittingly) making misleading claims would rather skeptics 'had a quiet word' before bringing things to the ASA's attention.
I've tried face to face, telephone conversations and emails but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way of communicating to someone that their advert is misleading without getting their hackles up. Or if there is I've not managed it (and I'm always Britishly polite about it even if they aren't).
Worse, I feel that I do have to tell them that if they don't change the advert I'm going to report it to the ASA and that just sounds threatening. So, much as I'd like to, I'm afraid I don't bother with the preliminaries and just report the misleading claims.
Actually, when I ask for evidence I'm usually not asking the company or marketer directly, I'm asking one of several regulatory authorities (such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Trading Standards or the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) to investigate on my behalf.
In fact my strategy has generally been to research the claims myself and put forward a fairly detailed explanation of why I think something's not quite right. I don't put in a huge number of complaints but I have a fairly high 'success' rate (in that the material is amended, or an adjudication is upheld) though occasionally my complaint doesn't get taken forward.
Another thing I typically do is blog about the topic I'm complaining about, or the company itself. This means that people searching for information about it / them might find a blog post that is critical of the intervention and explains why the claims are misleading. This changes the Google landscape a tiny bit and an explanation of the reasons why a claim is misleading might put someone off wasting money on a treatment.
Complaining about misleading adverts
Whenever the ASA gets a complaint it contacts the marketer and asks for evidence or, if the claims clearly breach the advertising code it'll ask them to amend the ad. Either the organisation has evidence or it hasn't but in any case the outcome will end up on the ASA's website.
The basic publication is on a list of 'informally resolved' cases where the organisation amends the claims and no further action is taken. In more complex cases it goes to adjudication and is either upheld or not upheld (a good outcome for the organisation). In more extreme cases where the marketer refuses to amend claims they will end up on the ASA's non-compliant online advertisers list - this can lead to further problems including being passed on to Trading Standards (who can instigate criminal proceedings and shut organisations down) and having their site downgraded in Google search results).
Sense About Science have a series of guides to help people ask for evidence effectively, depending on who they're asking and what it is they need to ask for.
The guide covers asking
- companies about their product claims,
- politicians about things they've said
- and how to respond to articles in newspapers and magazines.
There are also examples given where people have asked for evidence, and whether or not they're still waiting for it or the advert has been withdrawn (I'm not sure if there are any where evidence has actually been forthcoming but that would be nice).
I've always thought that it would seem to be a kindness to give a company an opportunity to avoid a citation on the ASA's website by seeing if it's possible to resolve the misleading claims before snitching on them.
However I'm yet to find the right way to do this - and wondered if anyone had any ideas or if we've all agreed to just get on and report it. I wonder if people who are (let's charitably assume they're doing it unwittingly) making misleading claims would rather skeptics 'had a quiet word' before bringing things to the ASA's attention.
I've tried face to face, telephone conversations and emails but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way of communicating to someone that their advert is misleading without getting their hackles up. Or if there is I've not managed it (and I'm always Britishly polite about it even if they aren't).
Worse, I feel that I do have to tell them that if they don't change the advert I'm going to report it to the ASA and that just sounds threatening. So, much as I'd like to, I'm afraid I don't bother with the preliminaries and just report the misleading claims.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Medical research charities, what action do you take against misleading health claims?
I wrote this on the LinkedIn group I moderate for people interested in science communication in the medical research charity sector. Possibly it's more helpful to have it on my blog...
Originally posted here
Of these the latter two are clearly of most obvious relevance to charities that support patients and I wondered if any of you do, or have considered (or 'have rejected the idea of') involving your 'constituency' in scanning the internet for misleading claims and reporting them to the ASA etc?
Yesterday the ASA published an adjudication which was upheld against someone trying to claim that they had a cure for Multiple Sclerosis (MS). I don't know who reported it to the ASA but I'm sure there are many other similar claims that are also in need of reporting.
A couple of weeks ago a different advertiser was told off for claiming to be able to cure Crohn's disease, and almost every week there's an advert for a disease or condition that might be relevant to one or more charities.
These would seem to yield an opportunity for new website content and / or commentary on others' news stories, but also as an opportunity of getting patients and carers involved at the outset.
I see this as being something of multiple potential benefits (though perhaps there are disbenefits that I've not thought of, so you might disagree):
(1) taking action to remove misleading adverts
(2) an opportunity to write a news story about the ASA's actions. My former employer Diabetes UK wrote a news story about Diabetone whose adverts were 'banned' by the ASA for being misleading
(3) an opportunity to go back a step and engage in a mini-campaign with members, getting them (a) to be more aware of the scams that are out there if they're not already and (b) do something about it, perhaps under the umbrella of your charity, perhaps not.
I've reported numerous adverts to the ASA and a couple to Trading Standards and am more than happy to help anyone who wants to put in a complaint themselves. There's also the 'Ask for Evidence' campaign from Sense About Science - they're worth chatting to and they work with many charities already.
Interested to hear if anyone else has tackled bad advertising either individually or as an organisation, and whether or not you've done it internally or involved your supporters.
-----------------
See also The Nightingale Collaboration which "challenges questionable claims made by healthcare practitioners on their websites, in adverts and in their promotional and sales materials by bringing these to the attention of the appropriate regulatory bodies."
Originally posted here
Does your charity take action against misleading health claims? Do you involve members and carers in reporting bad advertising to the ASA?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has just published its annual report and talks about the five things it's focusing on at the moment: free trials, misleading pricing, daily deals, misleading testimonials, misleading health claims.Of these the latter two are clearly of most obvious relevance to charities that support patients and I wondered if any of you do, or have considered (or 'have rejected the idea of') involving your 'constituency' in scanning the internet for misleading claims and reporting them to the ASA etc?
Yesterday the ASA published an adjudication which was upheld against someone trying to claim that they had a cure for Multiple Sclerosis (MS). I don't know who reported it to the ASA but I'm sure there are many other similar claims that are also in need of reporting.
A couple of weeks ago a different advertiser was told off for claiming to be able to cure Crohn's disease, and almost every week there's an advert for a disease or condition that might be relevant to one or more charities.
These would seem to yield an opportunity for new website content and / or commentary on others' news stories, but also as an opportunity of getting patients and carers involved at the outset.
I see this as being something of multiple potential benefits (though perhaps there are disbenefits that I've not thought of, so you might disagree):
(1) taking action to remove misleading adverts
(2) an opportunity to write a news story about the ASA's actions. My former employer Diabetes UK wrote a news story about Diabetone whose adverts were 'banned' by the ASA for being misleading
(3) an opportunity to go back a step and engage in a mini-campaign with members, getting them (a) to be more aware of the scams that are out there if they're not already and (b) do something about it, perhaps under the umbrella of your charity, perhaps not.
I've reported numerous adverts to the ASA and a couple to Trading Standards and am more than happy to help anyone who wants to put in a complaint themselves. There's also the 'Ask for Evidence' campaign from Sense About Science - they're worth chatting to and they work with many charities already.
Interested to hear if anyone else has tackled bad advertising either individually or as an organisation, and whether or not you've done it internally or involved your supporters.
-----------------
See also The Nightingale Collaboration which "challenges questionable claims made by healthcare practitioners on their websites, in adverts and in their promotional and sales materials by bringing these to the attention of the appropriate regulatory bodies."
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Medical device spam, and claims of curing everything
"It cures completely automatically, and can be used by people who know nothing about medicine."
In my line of work I keep an eye on stuff to do with medical devices and having moved the work blog to Wordpress I've discovered the 'aerial view' that Wordpress provides, showing other blogs publishing posts tagged with the phrase 'medical devices', to be rather helpful.
Anyone who's read any of my posts on this blog might have picked up that I'm also quite fascinated by spam, more about the techniques (such as article spinning) used to exploit, or subvert 'SEO' by writing and arranging content that pays as much attention to Google's 'eyeballs' as to human ones.
According to the list of Wordpress.com blogs tagged with 'medical devices' (and note that link will bring up different stuff depending on when you click on it) there's a new device in town. Well it's been around since 2012 but they seem to be gearing up to promote it.
In the last week and one day a video introducing Medicomat products has been posted 37 times on two blogs belonging to "hair61form" and "tray35libra" - and seemingly no other Wordpress blogs (or at least not tagged with medical devices).
The tray35libra blog has published 76 posts about Medicomat's devices and the video features on many of them.
The most recent of their posts is basically a screed of text that isn't particularly relevant to the product but which presumably increases its chance of faring better on Google etc by being natural-looking text which contains lots of searched-for terms.
The title is "Treatment of diabetes - the best equipments" but I think you'd agree that the first paragraph doesn't bear much relation to that.
The company has on its website an expandable picture showing their stamp of 'approval' from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which just lists all of the trademarks the company has on its various products - there are quite a lot.
I've no idea if this product works or if there's any good evidence that it works but I have been struck recently at the lack of trials for medical devices in general.
At the "Medical devices: is the new legislation sufficient to protect patients?" event in Brussels on 14 November 2012 (the video is on the page linked above) one of the delegates (at around 41 mins) quotes from a 2011 BMJ article* highlighting the difference between effectiveness / efficacy:
"... “If a manufacturer wishes to market a laser to incise heart tissue to treat arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm) in the EU, the manufacturer must show that the laser incises heart tissue only. In the US, however, the manufacturers must show that the laser incises heart tissue and also treats the arrhythmia.”"
I also thought this quote, from the same paper, was interesting "Earlier this year, Rita Redberg, editor of Archives of Internal Medicine and a cardiologist, told Congress: “I can’t help but wonder why clinical trials are widely accepted by the pharmaceutical industry as essential to ensure patient safety, but not by the device industry."
Me too.
Anyway here are a few screenshots from the Medicomat video (click to enlarge). They surprised me quite a bit. I wonder if it's going to be promoted over here in the UK, or if it already is.
References
Europeans are left to their own devices
BMJ 2011; 342 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2748 (Published 15 May 2011)
Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2748
The founder of the company has certainly been busy http://www.articledepot.co.uk/article-239653.htm (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_farm, which is relevant to article spinning linked above).
In my line of work I keep an eye on stuff to do with medical devices and having moved the work blog to Wordpress I've discovered the 'aerial view' that Wordpress provides, showing other blogs publishing posts tagged with the phrase 'medical devices', to be rather helpful.
Anyone who's read any of my posts on this blog might have picked up that I'm also quite fascinated by spam, more about the techniques (such as article spinning) used to exploit, or subvert 'SEO' by writing and arranging content that pays as much attention to Google's 'eyeballs' as to human ones.
According to the list of Wordpress.com blogs tagged with 'medical devices' (and note that link will bring up different stuff depending on when you click on it) there's a new device in town. Well it's been around since 2012 but they seem to be gearing up to promote it.
In the last week and one day a video introducing Medicomat products has been posted 37 times on two blogs belonging to "hair61form" and "tray35libra" - and seemingly no other Wordpress blogs (or at least not tagged with medical devices).
- http://hair61form.wordpress.com
- http://tray35libra.wordpress.com
The tray35libra blog has published 76 posts about Medicomat's devices and the video features on many of them.
The most recent of their posts is basically a screed of text that isn't particularly relevant to the product but which presumably increases its chance of faring better on Google etc by being natural-looking text which contains lots of searched-for terms.
The title is "Treatment of diabetes - the best equipments" but I think you'd agree that the first paragraph doesn't bear much relation to that.
"Home Treatment For Sinus and Medicomat Treatment Of Diabetes – Amazing Benefits of Medicomat. Wrist Laser Therapeutic Instrument Therapeutic principle: Our semiconductor laser therapeutic instrument has been developed base on modern laser medicine and clinical practise.It adopts low-level laser with the wavelength of 650nm,through specific parts of irradiation and using light radiation of laser and wavelength relation to change the biological characteristics and peel off the fat layer and cholesterol wrapped in the red blood cells,to improve the activity and oxygen carrying capacity as well as the deformability of cells,reduce the concentration of middle molecules in the blood,improve hem rheological properties and lower triglycerides and cholesterol,in order to effectively treat and prevent heart and brain diseases."It then goes on to talk about endometriosis, sinus infections, ozone generation and a bit about acupuncture - all bases covered.
The company has on its website an expandable picture showing their stamp of 'approval' from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which just lists all of the trademarks the company has on its various products - there are quite a lot.
I've no idea if this product works or if there's any good evidence that it works but I have been struck recently at the lack of trials for medical devices in general.
At the "Medical devices: is the new legislation sufficient to protect patients?" event in Brussels on 14 November 2012 (the video is on the page linked above) one of the delegates (at around 41 mins) quotes from a 2011 BMJ article* highlighting the difference between effectiveness / efficacy:
"... “If a manufacturer wishes to market a laser to incise heart tissue to treat arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm) in the EU, the manufacturer must show that the laser incises heart tissue only. In the US, however, the manufacturers must show that the laser incises heart tissue and also treats the arrhythmia.”"
I also thought this quote, from the same paper, was interesting "Earlier this year, Rita Redberg, editor of Archives of Internal Medicine and a cardiologist, told Congress: “I can’t help but wonder why clinical trials are widely accepted by the pharmaceutical industry as essential to ensure patient safety, but not by the device industry."
Me too.
Anyway here are a few screenshots from the Medicomat video (click to enlarge). They surprised me quite a bit. I wonder if it's going to be promoted over here in the UK, or if it already is.
 |
| No, it doesn't |
References
Europeans are left to their own devices
BMJ 2011; 342 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2748 (Published 15 May 2011)
Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2748
The founder of the company has certainly been busy http://www.articledepot.co.uk/article-239653.htm (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_farm, which is relevant to article spinning linked above).
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Tuning fork therapy - it's not very likely is it?
Update: 25 November 2019
Apparently Marie Kondo (of joy-sparking decluttering fame) has started selling her own range of products, including a miniature tuning fork with a crystal. For $75. The tuning fork alone is $50 and emits a frequency of 4kHz (4,096 Hz) which, according to the Classic FM article pondering the baffling existence of this product, is "about the pitch of the highest note on a piano (C8)."
Update: 15 August 2012
I've noticed a few blog hits coming in along the lines of "does tuning fork therapy work" and "what is tuning fork therapy?". Just to be absolutely clear - it's a made-up therapy and does absolutely nothing of use whatever. I'm sure it will be fun and pleasant to listen to / play with tuning forks but anyone telling you they can use vibrational medicine to 'locate health problems' and then 'correct them' is (a) mistaken and (b) possibly breaking trading laws by making claims about health and diagnosis. There are no such things as chakras, or 'energy blocks'. Reiki is also fanciful nonsense but a kindly chat to someone can sometimes make you feel better anyway so if you want to waste your money, go ahead :)
Tuning forks are great fun and I don't believe there's a person alive who, if they meet one, isn't tempted to whack it on the nearest hard surface and then hold it next to their ear as the vibrating sound decays. You can get ones that are set at different pitches and growing up in a musical household meant I got to play with them fairly regularly. If you don't have one to hand here are some online tuning forks.
Recently there was an advert for a Sunday newspaper which went round the country and got different people to sing "The sun'll come out tomorrow...". I thought this advert could have done with more tuning forks because all the clips were sung at different pitches. Probably it was meant to indicate some homely charm or British eccentricity... but a tuning fork would have sorted that out.
Meanwhile tuning forks have cropped up in this advert I recently saw, for tuning fork therapy with bonus reiki.
I've cut out the contact details but the text reads:
Update 3 June 2014
I've found an example of tuning forks being used to diagnose broken bones http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681212/
"During a field evaluation, a tuning fork and stethoscope can be useful in evaluating potential fractures. However, this method should only be used in conjunction with a thorough assessment and sound clinical judgment."
COMMENTS ARE MOSTLY CLOSED ON THIS ENTRY. Unless they're really comical. So far they've been mostly tedious.
Apparently Marie Kondo (of joy-sparking decluttering fame) has started selling her own range of products, including a miniature tuning fork with a crystal. For $75. The tuning fork alone is $50 and emits a frequency of 4kHz (4,096 Hz) which, according to the Classic FM article pondering the baffling existence of this product, is "about the pitch of the highest note on a piano (C8)."
Update: 15 August 2012
I've noticed a few blog hits coming in along the lines of "does tuning fork therapy work" and "what is tuning fork therapy?". Just to be absolutely clear - it's a made-up therapy and does absolutely nothing of use whatever. I'm sure it will be fun and pleasant to listen to / play with tuning forks but anyone telling you they can use vibrational medicine to 'locate health problems' and then 'correct them' is (a) mistaken and (b) possibly breaking trading laws by making claims about health and diagnosis. There are no such things as chakras, or 'energy blocks'. Reiki is also fanciful nonsense but a kindly chat to someone can sometimes make you feel better anyway so if you want to waste your money, go ahead :)
Tuning forks are great fun and I don't believe there's a person alive who, if they meet one, isn't tempted to whack it on the nearest hard surface and then hold it next to their ear as the vibrating sound decays. You can get ones that are set at different pitches and growing up in a musical household meant I got to play with them fairly regularly. If you don't have one to hand here are some online tuning forks.
Recently there was an advert for a Sunday newspaper which went round the country and got different people to sing "The sun'll come out tomorrow...". I thought this advert could have done with more tuning forks because all the clips were sung at different pitches. Probably it was meant to indicate some homely charm or British eccentricity... but a tuning fork would have sorted that out.
Meanwhile tuning forks have cropped up in this advert I recently saw, for tuning fork therapy with bonus reiki.
I've cut out the contact details but the text reads:
Vibrational Medicine
Our bodies resonate biomagnetic frequencies
Vibrational medicine is a Sound Therapy
using tuning forks to locate health problems
and correct them with the right frequency.
It is effective at cleaning static energy,
releasing energetic blocks, balancing chakras,
healing specific problems.
REIKI
Light-touch or no-touch therapyWhile this is nonsense I did wonder how tuning forks might be used in real medicine, for example I know that they're to be found in clock mechanisms so possibly they feature in some way. No idea what though.
channeling UNIVERSAL LIFE FORCE ENERGY
into the body to enable healing
physically, emotionally and spiritually.
Reiki will bring awareness to where problems lie,
and why they are there.
Update 3 June 2014
I've found an example of tuning forks being used to diagnose broken bones http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681212/
"During a field evaluation, a tuning fork and stethoscope can be useful in evaluating potential fractures. However, this method should only be used in conjunction with a thorough assessment and sound clinical judgment."
COMMENTS ARE MOSTLY CLOSED ON THIS ENTRY. Unless they're really comical. So far they've been mostly tedious.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Is there a way to categorise harm (eg from woo remedies)?
How do we categorise harm?
(i) If I eat some bits of a yew or some iffy fungus I'll be very unwell - this is harm arising because the substance itself is toxic (clearly dose has some impact).
(ii) If I drink a lot of grapefruit or orange juice while taking certain statin drugs I'll reduce the rate at which my body clears the statin from my system, this might cause a problematic increase in the drug - this is harm arising from the grapefruit interacting with the enzyme that's meant to be clearing statins from the body (interactions).
(iii) If I buy some dodgy herbal pills from the internet they might contain prescription-only medicines that I don't know about. The real medicine could have been withdrawn from sale, or could interact with other prescribed meds that I might be taking or something else - this is harm arising from insufficient information and also a bit of (i) and (ii).
(iv) If I have a potentially serious health problem but choose to take treatment from an unconventional healer then by delaying getting appropriate treatment I may become very ill - this is harm arising from failure to act to preserve health.
There are probably other nuanced versions of these - I'm wondering if there's a recognised typology of harm, in the same way that you can have a Type I or Type II error in statistics.
If not, can we make some up ourselves?
Edit 31 August 2014
Just read an interesting post from Edzard Ernst looking more closely at the link between cardiac patients who are taking herbal remedies and their adherence to their prescribed medication. It looks like there may be a link (perhaps not surprising, though possibly not studied in depth before) and it seems that ther'e's a correlation between taking herbals and not taking prescribed medication appropriately. This could be dangerous and relates to (iv) in my imaginary taxonomy above.
A hitherto unknown risk of herbal medicine usage (31 August 2014) Edzard Ernst's blog
----
A project I work on (CHI+MED - making medical devices safer) looks at many aspects of medical safety, including human factors and systems thinking in handling medical errors. Specifically this involves looking at ways of designing into the system or device ways of making unavoidable user error more noticeable so that people can recover from them.
The older 'blame culture' that's been prevalent in many healthcare systems has taken the view that error is because someone's done their job wrongly and the response has been to retrain them. If you've ever poured orange juice in your tea or forgot your umbrella you can see immediately that this isn't a helpful view to take. Human error is pervasive (hence inevitable) and only rarely will training (or worse, sacking and getting in new people) fix it. Much better to learn from error and bolster systems to protect against it.
To a certain extent Google does this everytime you mistype something and it says "did you mean?" and spellcheckers do something similar for Word documents. In both cases the system has a design function that acknowledges the possibility of mistyping and offers an alternative or solution. Similarly most keyboards have a delete key to let you undo and even pencils have an eraser on the end of them.
We've found a really nice way of talking about error that doesn't involve blame - the dumb things we do everyday tend to be quite funny and no-one really seems to mind poking fun at themselves for doing something silly. And lo and behold, the cognitive processes involved in making these everyday errors are pretty much identical to those often involved in medical error - so we can learn from them too - have a look at the #errordiary hashtag and the Errordiary website which explains more.
(i) If I eat some bits of a yew or some iffy fungus I'll be very unwell - this is harm arising because the substance itself is toxic (clearly dose has some impact).
(ii) If I drink a lot of grapefruit or orange juice while taking certain statin drugs I'll reduce the rate at which my body clears the statin from my system, this might cause a problematic increase in the drug - this is harm arising from the grapefruit interacting with the enzyme that's meant to be clearing statins from the body (interactions).
(iii) If I buy some dodgy herbal pills from the internet they might contain prescription-only medicines that I don't know about. The real medicine could have been withdrawn from sale, or could interact with other prescribed meds that I might be taking or something else - this is harm arising from insufficient information and also a bit of (i) and (ii).
(iv) If I have a potentially serious health problem but choose to take treatment from an unconventional healer then by delaying getting appropriate treatment I may become very ill - this is harm arising from failure to act to preserve health.
There are probably other nuanced versions of these - I'm wondering if there's a recognised typology of harm, in the same way that you can have a Type I or Type II error in statistics.
If not, can we make some up ourselves?
Edit 31 August 2014
Just read an interesting post from Edzard Ernst looking more closely at the link between cardiac patients who are taking herbal remedies and their adherence to their prescribed medication. It looks like there may be a link (perhaps not surprising, though possibly not studied in depth before) and it seems that ther'e's a correlation between taking herbals and not taking prescribed medication appropriately. This could be dangerous and relates to (iv) in my imaginary taxonomy above.
A hitherto unknown risk of herbal medicine usage (31 August 2014) Edzard Ernst's blog
----
A project I work on (CHI+MED - making medical devices safer) looks at many aspects of medical safety, including human factors and systems thinking in handling medical errors. Specifically this involves looking at ways of designing into the system or device ways of making unavoidable user error more noticeable so that people can recover from them.
The older 'blame culture' that's been prevalent in many healthcare systems has taken the view that error is because someone's done their job wrongly and the response has been to retrain them. If you've ever poured orange juice in your tea or forgot your umbrella you can see immediately that this isn't a helpful view to take. Human error is pervasive (hence inevitable) and only rarely will training (or worse, sacking and getting in new people) fix it. Much better to learn from error and bolster systems to protect against it.
To a certain extent Google does this everytime you mistype something and it says "did you mean?" and spellcheckers do something similar for Word documents. In both cases the system has a design function that acknowledges the possibility of mistyping and offers an alternative or solution. Similarly most keyboards have a delete key to let you undo and even pencils have an eraser on the end of them.
We've found a really nice way of talking about error that doesn't involve blame - the dumb things we do everyday tend to be quite funny and no-one really seems to mind poking fun at themselves for doing something silly. And lo and behold, the cognitive processes involved in making these everyday errors are pretty much identical to those often involved in medical error - so we can learn from them too - have a look at the #errordiary hashtag and the Errordiary website which explains more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
