A bad take from Alan Freestone though not his first - undercover reporting and Trading Standards on homeopathy and autism claims

Summary: in addition to writing nonsense on Twitter about incels Alan Freestone has been investigated by Trading Standards for claiming to cure autism with homeopathy and CEASE therapy. The post below includes links to articles in The Times and The Telegraph about his claims, and to his listing on a page of people referred for their persistent misleading claims to Trading Standards by the Advertising Standards Authority.

I've added a bit at the end about homeopathy societies in the UK. Two have since publicly distanced themselves from his statements.

Update: his awful tweet was taken down on 14 August between 22:56 and 23:14pm. I can be that accurate as I sent a tweet when I got home bemoaning that it was still up then it disappeared, so I sent another. I've added a copy below.

See also, this thread
https://twitter.com/robertsproggit/status/1426501423718617089

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

This post is for the benefit of people following up on Alan Freestone's particularly bad tweet from Friday 13 August 2021, in response to the horrendous incident in Plymouth. He muted me (and presumably others) several years ago after I / we challenged him on his claims to treat / cure autism using CEASE therapy and homeopathy. 

Pic 1. Tweet from Alan Freestone sent on 7 June 2018 (still live at time of writing) which says "Jo, your endless attempts to try & stifle positive homeopathy stories are very telling. You attempt to use social media to suppress views you disagree with. That's not an ethical past time. You should reflect on that. P.S. I have cured autism. I'll continue to cure autism."

 

This tweet is still up. Quite surprised. He's added a few more in similar vein, some bleating about how badly received his intended nuance-ing was. pic.twitter.com/Gk67lBLGzt

— Jo Brodie (@JoBrodie) August 14, 2021

Pic 2., Pic 3. w are screenshots which were taken 11 hours apart, Pic 4. (embedded Tweet) was taken at 23:56 on 14 August. These are all copies of the same tweet (sent on 13 August 2021 and still live at time of writing) which says said "I hope the women of Plymouth collectively take some responsibility for this. Misandry & the anti-man rhetoric from teachers causes incels. Young men without hope, without a path, without anything meaninfgul to strive for become dangerous to the societies around them." The earlier screenshot shows 1.5k replies, 890 retweets ( and 15 likes, the later one has 3.1k replies, 1.8, retweets and 49 likes. At time of writing his tweet has 28 retweets and 1,865 quote tweets.

Not surprisingly he's received a remarkable amount of pushback in the replies to the tweet which you can find indirectly here (until he wisely deletes it, but screenshots will remain).

In early 2019 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) took compliance action on at least three homeopaths claiming to treat autism with homeopathy / CEASE therapy and referred them to Trading Standards (TS) in November, one (Paula Lattimer) has now made their marketing material compliant but Alan Freestone and Carolyn Stevens are still on the list. The ASA wrote a post in March 2019 outlining their position on CEASE "Why so-called CEASE Therapy claims to 'cure' autism really have to stop".

Here is the list of Trading Standards Referrals (you'll need to scroll down and click 'see more' to see everyone that the ASA has referred to TS). I don't know if Trading Standards are still investigating him or if the pandemic has made that harder.

Pic 5. shows the list of homeopaths who've been referred to Trading Standards, two are still making misleading claims.

In April 2019 Alan Freestone was the sole subject of an article in The Times about his wild claims to treat autistic children with homeopathy "Homeopaths ‘treat’ autistic children with rabid dog saliva". 

"...claims to have treated 1,185 autistic patients with remedies such as carcinosinum, made from cancerous breast tissue; lyssin, made with rabid dog saliva; and medorrhinum, made from the discharge of a man with gonorrhoea." Note that you can buy these products (which are HEAVILY diluted you'll be relieved to hear!) from Helios UK, see the links.

In November that year he, along with another homeopath, were caught by an undercover reporter for The Telegraph (see video below) offering advice to a parent (reporter) about how to evade vaccination and what to do about schools requiring children to be vaccinated (fib, basically): "Homeopaths warning mothers not to have children vaccinated, investigation reveals". The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) expressed concern that consumers were buying dangerous unauthorised treatments from him but I don't know if any further investigation was made.

Additional info on homeopathic societies in the UK
Several people on the thread created from Alan's tweet have CCed in the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) or asked if he's a member. Alan is not a member of the SoH and to the best of my knowledge I don't think he has ever been. I also don't think he's a member of Homeopathy UK (formerly known as the British Homeopathic Association, BHA) but I think he used to be a member of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) but I don't think he is now. 'Homeopath' is not a protected term in the UK so anyone can call themselves that and can "practise" without being registered. There is a fourth society, the Faculty of Homeopathy, which is reserved for qualified healthcare professionals (hcp) who have also trained in homeopathy. As he's not a doctor or allied hcp he wouldn't be able to join that one anyway. 

But this isn't the Society of Homeopaths' fault. Since I'm often the first to criticise them, and celebrated their accreditation with the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) being withdrawn* earlier this year, I think it's only fair to point out that they have nothing to do with the nonsensical pronouncements by Alan Freestone, being more than capable of emitting their own nonsensical pronouncements.

Update 1: The Society of Homeopaths (he's not a member) have distanced themselves from Freestone's statements, the same also appears on their Facebook page.

Update 2: Freestone is a member of Homeopathy International (HINT) and they have distanced themselves more vaguely (website statement).

Update 3: (Fri 24 Sep 2021) - I've just noticed that HINT's Steering Committee met to discuss the matter on 17 August and decided that as the tweet was made in a 'personal capacity' that was the end of the matter. 

HINT previously published (April 2019) a guide for its members advising them not to worry to much about letters from the ASA (May 2018, made public March 2019) which told them to "make no direct or implied efficacy claims for CEASE therapy".

Further reading
* The Society of Homeopaths, and the issues with regulating healthcare in the UK (6 August 2021) By Michael Marshall (project director of The Good Thinking Society, writing in The Skeptic - the PSA suspended the SoH's accreditation in January 2021 and, presumably unable to address the problems (and citing cost), the SoH later withdrew from the accredited register scheme in July 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Misleading website health claims - anyone can send a cease and desist letter

    Photo credit: aitoff on Pixabay (CC0-licence)

I have discovered something which I think I really should have known about, and which has astounded me.

Anyone can send a Cease and Desist letter to a trader who is making misleading claims. For me this would largely relate to misleading health claims, as that's my area of interest, but it would apply to anyone. This would seem to be of particular interest to scientists, doctors, skeptic activist / bloggers and so on.

My recommendation is to proceed very cautiously and politely though :)

The letter itself has no legal weight on its own, the trader doesn't have to respond. However it may be in their interests to do so.

If you subsequently report them to Trading Standards your ignored letter (keep a copy) is potential evidence against them, for persisting in being misleading after you had pointed out the problem.

My surprise discovery happened while reading this paper "Testing the Effectiveness of Consumer Legislation for Health-Related Claims" from HealthWatch. The paper follows the path of a series of complaints made to the UK's (National) Trading Standards about websites' health claims for which there's no (or unlikely to be) robust evidence. HealthWatch's web page accompanying the paper puts things into context:

• Pursuing a complaint is cumbersome and lengthy
• Most complaints do not result in enforcement
• Approaches to enforcement vary widely between trading standards offices

The paper reports on the actions of several volunteers who followed a protocol for asking traders for evidence and, if none forthcoming (or not of suitable, robust quality) a cease and desist letter was sent before the complaint was escalated to Trading Standards.

"Volunteers asked traders to provide evidence for their claims. None did, but three removed their claims from their websites. Volunteers then sent the remaining traders a 'cease and desist' letter, warning them that failing to comply would trigger a complaint to the authorities. One further trader removed claims at this stage." [from page 3 of the 54 page PDF].   The template for the Cease and Desist letter is on page 50.

Regrettably Trading Standards was only able to investigate a handful of cases (they are understretched) which highlights the importance of bloggers writing about misleading claims in an attempt to stem the flow of nonsense on the web by providing better information.

Even before you get to that point it's not always obvious who you should be complaining to about a misleading health claim. In its March 2018 report, the Westminster Commission on Autism found that it was difficult and confusing for people to report misleading and harmful 'cures' for autism^§ to the relevant authorities.

Their report recommended that the relevant regulatory bodies (Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Trading Standards, Food Standards Agency, Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA)) etc could help by determining who has responsibility for what - this is not always clear in the case of food products (Food Stds Agency remit) which are sold with medical claims (MHRA or Trading Stds remit).

"It is currently far too difficult to determine which agency is responsible for the regulation of the manufacture, promotion, distribution, sale and use of harmful physical, medicinal, psychological or social interventions for autism. Establishing the remit of each agency listed on page 3, identifying potential gaps between them and suggesting possible ways to close the gaps is highly complex. The Commission recommends that the Government urgently convenes the agencies listed alongside others to thoroughly consider the current gaps and look for solutions.

The agencies must produce a publicly available flowchart of their remit and establish a single reporting mechanism for any concern. The Government should reassess the appropriate remit of each organisation and assess the benefits and drawbacks of legislation similar to the Cancer Act 1939." [page 5 of the Westminster Commission on Autism's report, 'A Spectrum of Harmful Interventions for Autism: a short report']

Previously I have blogged about how I would like to be able to have a quiet word with people selling quackery instead of reporting them to the Advertising Standards Authority or Trading Standards, in the hope that they make amendments without 'getting into trouble' and saving everyone time.

Giving people the opportunity to remove their misleading claims without reporting them to any authority seems a friendly way to proceed. However, from experience such attempts have not been well received (or are just ignored). It's a bit fraught - I don't think there's any way of broaching the subject with a trader that doesn't come across a bit threateningly (how could it not, given that the subtext must always be 'if you don't amend this, I will report your site to the regulatory body').

For that reason my preference is probably just to continue reporting misleading claims directly, however if you want to give traders the opportunity to amend claims without involving authorities (until you have to, because they've ignored you) then here's a recommended sequence of events to follow, or 'flowchart'. This assumes you're fairly confident in assessing health evidence.

1. Ask for (robust) evidence (this would not include testimonials) and give them a reasonable time to respond ('please reply by X').
2. If no response, or if evidence is poor, send a polite cease and desist letter - keep copies.
3. If nothing happens you can report them to Trading Standards and the letter may be used as evidence.

Note that the authors and volunteers involved in the HealthWatch paper were acting following legal advice - I am not a lawyer and while a cease and desist letter is unlikely to be a legal document on its own I recommend conducting this sort of business super-professionally. Remember you are probably dealing with someone who genuinely believes in their 'treatment' and may be terrified by receiving what looks like an official document. While they are misleading people, and may potentially cause harm, don't be unkind in your dealing with them.

With thanks to @Majikthyse for additional help :)

^§Further reading
A number of skeptics' complaints to the Society of Homeopaths over concerns that their members were touting CEASE therapy for children with autism apparently fell on deaf ears (the SoH were very polite when I contacted them, however no changes to the problematic websites were made). These complaints were then escalated to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) which accredits the SoH's register of homeopaths, and the PSA has taken action. They have re-accredited the SoH (review panel decision) but with a number of provisos, effectively putting the Society of Homeopaths into 'special measures' - maintenance of their accreditation is dependent on fulfilling certain criteria. This is encouraging as it  shows that skeptic complaints can be very effective in getting regulatory bodies to act.

• The Society of Homeopaths - Fruits of Hubris (3 March 2018) UK Homeopathy Regulation blog 
• Better monitoring of homeopaths advertising CEASE therapy for autism in the UK - hooray (28 Feb 2018) this blog

I've had it up to here with homeopaths marketing CEASE therapy quackery for autism

CEASE stands for 'Complete Elimination of Autistic Spectrum Expression' - a name that belies its intention, despite advertising regulations.

— Jo Brodie (@JoBrodie) November 6, 2017

Marketers cannot claim #homeopathy can treat or help w autism but they can link to official websites that do, & write acronyms out in full.

— Jo Brodie (@JoBrodie) November 6, 2017

UK homeopaths are not allowed to make misleading claims about homeopathy (no marketer is allowed to make misleading claims about any product or service). We have a fairly strange situation with the marketing of CEASE therapy in the UK though, which I have written about before, in passing, in October 2016 and July 2015.

CEASE stands for 'Complete Elimination of Autistic Spectrum Expression' - a name that belies its intention despite advertising regulations. As marketers are allowed to write out acronyms in full they are able to strongly (and wrongly) imply that the treatment can help people (typically children) who have autism.

I shan't link to it but there's an official CEASE therapy website which has recently been strongly criticised by the Dutch equivalent of the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). However that website, not being hosted in the UK, is more able to ignore the ASA's requirements for advertising. Homeopaths around the world who have completed the CEASE training can also have a page about them in the practitioners section of the website.

UK homeopaths can therefore bypass advertising regulations while still obliquely promoting CEASE as a treatment for autism by
(i) avoiding making direct claims about homeopathy, CEASE and autism on their websites (some of them instead say that the ASA forbids them from making certain claims, or that the ASA has told them to remove certain claims etc)
(ii) spell out the acronym CEASE in full
(iii) link to the official CEASE page which is currently free-er to make claims. That is, defer the actual marketing to another site
(iv) leave page visitors to draw the hoped-for conclusion

Basically it's "I can't say anything about this treatment (or I'll get in trouble with the ASA) but go and have a look at this website that can say stuff and then come back here and make an appointment." As an added bonus the sites often talk about detoxing from vaccinations, thereby maintaining the background anxiety that autism and vaccinations are linked in some way (they're not).

I would like to see the term 'CEASE' ceased and no longer used in marketing, also no more linking to the 'cease-therapy' website. Ideally the homeopathy professional societies would sanction their members for implying any treatment was useful for autism.

~oOo~    •••    ~oOo~

Teddington Homeopathy (Melissa Wakeling) has been on the ASA's non-compliant list of online advertisers since August 2015 for failing to make all the required corrections to her marketing of CEASE therapy. She did make a few changes, but the website still makes misleading claims.

Interestingly one of the criticisms in the original adjudication was that Teddington Homeopathy linked to two websites which contained problematic phrases in their URLs (web addresses). Here's what the ASA said -

"The page also contained links to external websites containing "homeopathy-for-autism" and "homeopathy-and-autism-faq" in the visible URLS..."

and

"We welcomed Teddington Homeopathy's decision to remove the testimonial and other material from the page, but considered that the information about Tinus Smits and the URLs still implied a benefit for homeopathy and CEASE therapy for autism, and that the intention of CEASE therapy was to treat autism."

Comparing what the page was like on 23 December 2013 and currently (screenshots below) shows that some changes have indeed been made, though the current version is at pains to imply that they haven't.

Teddington Homeopathy's page on CEASE therapy in 2013 before the ASA made them change it.

Teddington Homeopathy's page on CEASE therapy after amendments were made, in line with ASA's requirements. As not all the amendments have been made yet the site has been listed as a non-compliant online advertiser.

The Society of Homeopaths has noted in their 2016 annual report that CEASE therapy was something that a lof of their members were keen to learn about, as part of their continuing professional development... obviously I'd prefer that they take to task their members who are promoting a non-therapy to vulnerable families.

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

What is a misleading homeopathy claim, and how to report it to the ASA

by @JoBrodie, brodiesnotes.blogspot.com

This post is written for people who might not have made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority before. 

If you're irritated by homeopaths making misleading claims on Twitter, Facebook or on their websites (or in-shop leaflets or any other marketing) you can complain about those claims to the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA).

See part 4 below for info on just how busy the ASA is in general, and why, and note that your complaint about homeopathy will probably not be handled as a full complaint but be handled as a compliance issue. Also see part 6b for some reasons on why you may (or may not) want to blog about your complaint.

1. Make a complaint in the UK
This is the page on the ASA's website where you can make a complaint (you give your name and address but it isn't published): http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx 

If you are a private individual complaining as a member of the public your name and address is not given to the person or organisation you're complaining about and is not made public at any stage of the investigation - you are completely anonymous (unless you choose to make your complaint public in your blog etc). If you are complaining as a company (eg a company selling the second-best-selling face cream complaining about an advert by the best-selling face cream) then your company may be named in the adjudication.

2. Make a complaint in other countries too
The ASA deals with claims made on UK websites or leaflets but, thanks to its cross-border agreements, it will liaise with the relevant advertising standards authority in the following countries too -

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and of course the United Kingdom.

And that's it.

There's some background information below too.

---

3. What happens next?
It used to be that any complaint to the ASA would result in them asking the homeopath for evidence and then considering each case. If the marketer agreed to amend their website then the case was closed and it appeared on the ASA's website as an 'informally resolved' case. If the marketer argued their case then the complaint went to the Board for an adjudication. Either the case was upheld against the marketer or it wasn't, and these were listed on the ASA's weekly adjudications. Persistent web marketing offenders find themselves on the non-compliant list of online advertisers.

4. Things changed in 2011
However after it became possible to complain about marketing material on websites too (from March 2011) the number of complaints about misleading homeopathy claims increased dramatically.

The ASA handled so many complaints about homeopathy in 2011 that it undertook a review of the evidence and, finding none of good quality, appears to have simplified the complaints procedure - it seems that the ASA no longer asks homeopaths for evidence for their claims but instead passes the complaint directly to the Compliance team (they're the ones that ask the marketer to remove the claims for which there's no evidence).

Because the Compliance team don't report on their work directly you may not hear about the outcome of your complaint in quite the same way but you can follow @NightingaleC on Twitter to see published lists of adjudications / rulings and informally resolved cases.

5. What can you complain about?
It is perfectly legal to sell homeopathy pills or consultations / treatment. Most homeopaths comply with advertising regulations and their websites talk about how they support people's health (which is true). The Society of Homeopaths has worked with the ASA to encourage their members to ensure that their marketing material is acceptable, see their guidance document for more info: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mktg-Prom-guidance2014.pdf


However, if a homeopath is not medically trained and their website...

(a) claims that homeopathy is effective in treating various conditions for which there's no good evidence or
(b) refers to serious medical conditions

...then they may be in breach of the advertising recommendations. Following the 2011 review the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP code) produced a set of guidelines for what is / isn't permitted in homeopathy marketing, it's worth a read. Note this sentence in particular:

"Those practitioners who are not medically qualified should not make claims about the efficacy of their treatments and should not refer to serious medical conditions..."

5a) for which conditions is homeopathy already known to lack evidence?
From a look at several adjudications in which complaints were upheld against homeopathy sites the following conditions were listed as being of concern. That is, the ASA asked a homeopath to remove reference to one or more of these conditions from their website after finding the evidence was insufficiently good.

acne, anxiety, arthritis, Candida, cataracts, cold flushes, dengue fever (prevention of), depression
diphtheria prevention, genital warts, hot flushes, exhaustion, heavy periods, influenza (prevention of)
irregular periods, irritability, Japanese encephalitis prevention ('homeoprophylaxis'), loss of libido, low mood, malaria prevention, menopausal symptoms, meningitis prevention, mood swings, mosquito bites, night sweats, other skin problems, PMS, PMT, polio prevention, psoriasis, serious medical conditions (this could include asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure etc), side-effects of the Pill, tetanus prevention, tick-borne encephalitis prevention, tiredness, typhoid prevention, vaginal dryness, yellow fever prevention.

It's not an exhaustive list.

5b) what are serious medical conditions?
Any condition where you'd reasonably expect someone to be under the care of a qualified medical doctor might include hypertension, asthma or diabetes and they're generally bit of a no-no on websites. Obviously there's no good evidence that homeopathy's of any use but the ASA is additionally concerned if, by mentioning serious conditions, consumers may be discouraged from seeking appropriately qualified advice.

5c. A note on cancer
In the UK it's actually illegal to make any claims to treat cancer - there is a separate act for this (the Cancer Act 1939) - very few homeopaths mention cancer on their website for obvious reasons.

6. What else can you do?
a) ask marketers to amend their website directly and / or
b) blog about misleading claims 

The ASA has to deal with a lot of enquiries, some of them much more problematic than minor misleading claims on homeopaths websites, so don't assume that your complaint will be a priority unless it's a seriously dodgy claim. So what else can you do?

a) Ask them yourself to amend their website
There's nothing to stop you from contacting a marketer directly and asking them for evidence for their claims or pointing out that you have concerns about what their website says. But go carefully. You are not there to tell people what they can and can't advertise (that's what the ASA is for) and it's a bad and unpleasant idea to go around threatening people and generally being a jerk. It's fine to contact people politely and express reservations about their adverts but let's not be mean-spirited about it. I've seen comments on some skeptic blogs that make me a little worried about people's motivation - it really comes down to the fact that people should be advertising their wares responsibly.

In general I'm not hugely in favour of contacting people directly though I do do it on occasion (politely) to see what happens (not much). You might think that discussing it informally (ie without involving regulatory bodies, saving everyone time) might be a positive thing but it can easily be misinterpreted and relations between skeptic bloggers / activists and homeopaths are at an all time low. So don't be surprised if your approach is not met with enthusiasm. Proceed with caution. I've written more on the 'ethics' of contacting misleading advertisers directly.

a) Blog about misleading claims and good evidence
Blogging is just a way of increasing the amount of information about a topic. You may not be able to remove bad information from the internet but you can slightly increase the amount of better information. When people search for a topic there' s a chance that they'll read your information instead of something worse. Blogging also raises awareness of a topic and connects you to a network of people who are trying to improve online information about health.

Do be careful about how you phrase things if you are naming a homeopath or company - it is fine to point out that their website contains information that has previously been shown to be in breach of the CAP code or that the information could be misleading. It is not fine to imply that anyone is being deliberately underhand and intending to deceive punters by telling them that homeopathy can cure things that it can't - avoid libelling people. From many years' immersion in homeopathy websites I'm genuinely convinced that, with the majority of homeopaths (and other alternative practitioners), there is no intention to deceive and that people truly believe the claims that they make - they are mistaken, not liars.

Be aware of nuance too. Although there's literally nothing in the homeopathy pills (because they dilute the starting material so much, to the point that the final remedy is 'empty') there is something in the 'theatre' of buying and taking pills, or the time spent with customers and kindness offered to them in a treatment setting. This has value to people and let's not assume that all homeopaths are idiotic moneygrabbers, they're not.

This list of health conditions should not be on homeopathy websites

Homeopaths have to be a bit careful about mentioning conditions on their websites, particularly conditions that would be considered serious and that would typically be under the care of a qualified doctor.

Advertising Standards in the UK do not permit homeopaths (the ones that aren't medically trained at any rate) to make claims about treating anything if they do not have any evidence (and let's face it, their evidence is uniformly poor) - they should not "make claims about the efficacy of their treamtents..."

But, and this is an important but, the authority that regulates advertising and marketing claims additionally does not permit homeopathy marketers to "refer to serious medical conditions" (this is irrespective of any evidence) if the marketer is not medically trained or if there's no doctor working at the clinic.

They can't mention conditions like asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure etc. In the UK cancer is always an extremely unwise thing for a homeopath (or anyone for that matter) to claim to treat as there is actually an Act that makes doing so a criminal offence (the Cancer Act 1939), most people do not mention cancer treatments on their website for that reason.

If a homeopath lists on their website one or more serious medical conditions then they are going beyond the limits of what is possible for them to mention in their marketing material.

There are two separate things here
(1) evidence, or not and
(2) merely mentioning serious healthcare conditions

To the best of my knowledge the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) are no longer seeking evidence about homeopathy because they did a massive investigation into it a couple of years ago. This resulted in guidance which informs their future decisions about misleading marketing claims.

Additionally, my experience has been that where a homeopath has listed conditions the approach has been to focus on (2) rather than asking them for any evidence.

However these days the ASA no longer seems to be adjudicating on homeopathy claims and they don't appear to be taking them on as individual cases. Instead they seem to be simply asking the homeopath to remove the misleading claims. Failure to do so can result in the website being listed on the ASA's non-compliant online advertisers page and may also result in removal of any paid-for search-engine ads and in addition the ASA may publish an advert to appear in search engine results, warning consumers of the organisation's advertising status.

When I put in a homeopathy ASA complaint now I no longer get updates on how it's going because the case is immediately passed to the Compliance team, who do not report directly to the public. I generally hear only if the website is added to the non-compliants list (eg Islington Homeopathy)

With that in mind, it's entirely possible that I won't hear anything much about the outcome of my complaint about the website below, which I've recently submitted.

The web address is embedded here http://www.donotlink.com/bahk

There is sliding scale of fees for a consultation, depending on its length and costs for individual remedies so this site is marketing a service for which people pay.

Here is the list of conditions, apparently "just a small selection". Oh dear.

The ones that particularly concern me include asthma, bronchitis and depression but 'hormonal imbalances' should clearly have support of a doctor or endocrinologist. There are plenty others listed that worry me but those were the ones I highlighted in my complaint to the ASA.

Amazingly and amusingly there's also a seminar listed on that site, all about endocrinology. Clicking through to the seminar's own page (on another site) suggests that discussions about chakras will feature.

Things #homeopathy websites have been told not to claim by the ASA - a small collection

This is not exhaustive, but if you are a homeopath or marketing homeopathic remedies or treatment on your website it's perhaps best to be aware of what is and isn't permitted.

I spotted a new ASA adjudication about claims made on a website called 'Happy Homeopathy' which had a bit at the end listing the health conditions for which claims of 'treatment' should not be made. Here it is in screenshot form.

The following, then, is an alphabetical listing of information taken from ASA adjudications and probably the CAP code too, and I'll add to it as time passes and I hear about more things. Best way to find a word in the list is to use Ctrl+F or Command+F for Mac users.

Thanks to input from others, let me know if you find something else (remember it must be in an ASA adjudication or known about from informally resolved activities).

The ASA tends to ask homeopaths not to claim or imply that they can treat these conditions or people suffering from, or at risk from (eg homeoprophylaxis) them:
acne
anxiety
arthritis
Candida
cataracts
cold flushes
dengue fever (prevention of)
depression
diphtheria prevention
'flu (see influenza)
genital warts
gosh it's quite a long list isn't it!!
hot flushes
exhaustion
heavy periods
influenza (prevention of)
irregular periods
irritability
Japanese encephalitis prevention ('homeoprophylaxis')
loss of libido
low mood
malaria prevention
menopausal symptoms
meningitis prevention
mood swings
mosquito bites
night sweats
other skin problems
PMS
PMT
polio prevention
psoriasis
serious medical conditions (this could include asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure etc)
side-effects of the Pill
tetanus prevention
tick-borne encephalitis prevention
tiredness
typhoid prevention
vaginal dryness
yellow fever prevention

Other iffy claims
People should not claim that "homeopathy (is) accepted as an effective treatment by the UK government and the NHS" and the ASA doesn't seem to be terribly impressed if someone creates a non-selling website with lots of misleading health-related claims but also sells homeopathy from a separate site.

The list above includes claims originally made by the following companies or people (some claims may have now been removed)
Ainsworths 
Comfort Click
Dr Batras' Positive Health Clinic
Happy Homeopathy
Herbal Apothecary (informally resolved) 
Islington Homeopathy Clinic, which is also on the non-compliant advertisers list for persistently failing to remove misleading claims despite being asked
Steve Scrutton homeopathy

Complaining via the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) or European ASA about a non-UK advert

by @JoBrodie

You can complain about adverts appearing in other countries (eg on non-UK websites).

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority is a member of the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) along with 23 other European countries. If an advert appears in another country you can report it to the ASA and they'll pass it on to the EASA while liaising with you, thanks to their cross-border complaints arrangement, or you can also complain directly through the EASA.

I discovered this by accident when complaining about an advert for a diabetes clinic that appeared on Facebook - even though it was based in another country I reported it as it was clearly targeting a UK audience (and making misleading claims). I wasn't sure if there was much that could be done, but there was. The ASA told me they were passing it on to the regulator in that country and they kept me informed throughout - and my complaint was upheld.

The 23 European countries other than the UK are:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

There are also 7 non-European countries that have regulatory links:

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, New Zealand and South Africa.

Some examples of adjudications appearing on the ASA's website where the trading address isn't in the UK.

• A brochure distributed at a timeshare meeting (2011, Spain)
• A diabetes clinic (this one isn't my complaint, though same organisation) (2011, Spain)
• A magnetic 'fuel saver' (2011, France)
• Airliner claiming ecofriendliness (2010, Finland)

South Africa
Consumer code | Complaint form
If advertisers don't play fair then the ASASA will take out an ad-alert.

"pH miracle" Robert O Young, of live blood analysis fame, arrested and charged in January 2014

Update: 14 March 2016 - Robert O Young is currently in jail after being found guilty on two charges of practising medicine without a licnse. He was acquitted on the third charge, but will now face another six charges (include theft by fraud). He's also being sued by one of his former patients. His activities are catching up with him. Source: pH Miracle author to face new trial

---------

I first came across Robert O Young a few years ago while working at Diabetes UK. My job was to answer people's science-related enquiries and one or two had come in from people wondering about a book by ROY, for which the promotional material had claimed all sorts of weird and wonderful cures. The claims were fanciful, the biochemical information was poor and the evidence was patchy - but I could see why it was popular.

A number of my complaints to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority have been about organisations offering live blood analysis and one or two of the practitioners reference Robert O Young (he runs courses in teaching people how to offer live blood microscopy to their clients). Since these courses don't actually teach much genuine information about either microscopy or making sense of blood smears there are an awful lot of people who have been ripped off to the tune of several thousand pounds, but at least they have a microscope and plenty of willing punters, so the ripping off continues, albeit unwittingly.

Robert O Young arrested and charged on Thursday 23 January 2014

This morning I spotted on Twitter that he had been arrested at his 'avocado ranch', where he has a kind of treatment clinic, and charged with 18 counts of practising medicine (at his clinic) without a license, and also charged with theft.

According to the PDF press release (see below) two people went undercover to find out more about his practices and this led to an investigation and his arrest.

There are at least two UK live blood practitioners who've said in their publicity material that they were trained by Robert O Young, wonder if they'll amend that in light of his recent arrest.

He's been arrested before I believe, and managed to get off so possibly he won't be serving the predicted 15 years and 8 months in prison after all. 

If you know anyone who's spent money being treated by 'Dr' Robert O Young then the District Attorney is keen to hear from them - 619) 531-3507.

He refers to himself as Dr Robert O. Young however his doctorate is not equivalent to the qualification of a medical doctor. He has a PhD (which does entitle him to use the Dr prefix) however he received this from Clayton College, the same unaccredited diploma mill from which Gillian McKeith received her PhD. They also gave him a masters degree, a DSc and a 'Doctor of Naturopathy'. Goodness knows why, these do not appear to be 'real' degrees. For comparison you might enjoy Wikipedia's List of Animals with Fraudulent Diplomas.


Further reading

• Blogger Josephine Jones' posts tagged with Robert O Young.
• Notification of release from jail on Saturday 25 Jan Robert O. Young's Facebook page (25 January 2014)
• Robert O. Young quacks not guilty to felony charges Doubtful News (25 January 2014)
• Internationally renowned naturopathic Dr Robert O. Young was ARRESTED for "practising medicine without a license" !!! Robert O Young's Facebook page (25 January 2014)
• Controversial alternative health provider pleads not guilty to charges CBS8.com (24 January 2014)
  A man accused of going beyond advocating dietary changes and using intravenous treatments on "patients" he housed at his avocado ranch in Valley Center
• "pH Miracle" Author Accused of Practicing Medicine Without a License NBC San Diego (24 January 2014) Robert O. Young is accused of practicing medicine without a license on his avocado ranch north of San Diego
• North County holistic care provider Robert Young pleads not guilty to multiple charges 10 News (24 January 2014) Young runs pH Miracle Center in Valley Center
• Medical Board investigation leads to arrest of a Valley Center Man for the unlicensed practice of medicine [PDF] State of California News release (24 January 2014)
• Valley Center man accused as fake doctor UT San Diego (24 January 2014) Robert Young authored “The pH Miracle” and runs the pH Miracle Center, a health treatment ranch.

"Prosecutors asked that anyone with information, including possible victims, contact the District Attorney’s Office at (619) 531-3507."

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

• 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.

Asking for evidence directly - not sure how well it works: Lyme Regis Reiki

How I heard about Lyme Regis Reiki
I've been taking an occasional glance at the #WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You) hashtag on Twitter, and also seeing exchanges between various people and @_wddty (their Twitter account).

I spotted someone (Lyme Regis Reiki) who'd asked the magazine if they'd published much on reiki then go on to say that they'd had some success in treating someone with epilepsy. They didn't claim that they'd cured epilepsy though, so by itself this isn't much of a big deal.

They also claimed that there was scientific evidence showing that reiki could help with high blood pressure. Again nothing to get too worried about as they are not claiming that *they* can help with this. But I did ask them for their evidence and was pretty much ignored.

Agonies over asking for evidence
I'm not sure what made me ask since I'm of the opinion that it just never comes across well and have written about this before. Whenever you ask someone for evidence, particularly someone that is likely not to take it well, you are putting yourself in a position of (a) aggression and (b) power.

(a) It can't be nice to be on the receiving end of this, particularly if the line of questioning is graceless and sarcastic but it's extremely difficult to couch the question in polite, professional terms without also sounding a bit threatening. (b) If the marketer doesn't agree to your reasonable demands then presumably you're going to have to follow through and report their website / marketing material to the relevant authority - this can never really come across as anything other than "if you don't amend your website I'll report you to the ASA". I'm not fond of confontation or meannness but if someone's making misleading health claims then this makes me a lot less sympathetic to them.

There are also issues of what people understand as 'evidence' (clue: not testimonials, not books unless they have references to the primary research literature) and if you are constantly telling someone, or a group of someones, that their quality of evidence isn't up to scratch it's hardly a recipe for harmony.

But the fact is that making health claims without good evidence can be dangerous. It can lead unwell and vulnerable people to make health decisions that don't help them, may harm them and will likely waste them money too. So I tend to act quite quickly if I see something that concerns me. Since I'd rather not have a fight I generally just get on with reporting the organisation to the ASA or other regulatory authority, depending on the claims made. Probably I should have done that here but I thought I'd give it another go.

Claims on Twitter mostly harmless
So far what they've claimed on Twitter hasn't really fallen within the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) remit - they've not claimed that they are doing any of this through their service. However they are tweeting about reiki and have a link in their Twitter bio to the website for their commercial practice so being cautious is no bad idea.

The only tweet I've received in reply confirmed that the evidence exists if only I do my own research for it. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it - if evidence clearly exists why not point enquirers towards it? Another person also asked them for evidence and was sent a link to a book. To be fair the book might do a very good job of putting the research evidence in context but what I certainly wanted and what the other enquirer wanted was links to the primary research publication. Perhaps we'll remain disappointed.

Claims on website of concern
Meanwhile, I am disappointed in some of the content of this person's website which has a bulleted list of health conditions whose symptoms they say can be helped by reiki.

lymeregisreiki.vpweb.co.uk/ [clickable version]

Reiki can help improve the symptoms of many illnesses including:

*Depression
*Anxiety
*Insomnia
*Grief
*Pain
*Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and M.E.
*Fybromyalgia
*High blood pressure
*Infertility
*Low self esteem

What the ASA and CAP allow reiki sellers to claim, and what they don't
Unfortunately this type of marketing information isn't permitted by the ASA who are following the guidelines from CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice) on reiki, which say that marketers need robust evidence to claim any physical healing effect, which is basically what you're doing if you claim that reiki can help with symptoms.

"To date, neither CAP nor the ASA has seen evidence to support claims that Reiki can have a physical healing effect on the body.  If marketers claim that it does, they should hold robust evidence (Rule 12.1)."

The ASA is also concerned when marketers list a bunch of quite serious health conditions that need appropriate medical supervision - if the reiki clinic doesn't have an appropriately qualified doctor or similar on staff then they need to be particularly careful how they refer to conditions that need medical supervision.

"Marketers should not discourage essential medical treatment for conditions which should be supervised under a suitably qualified healthcare professional (Rule 12.2)."

Although a half-arsed medical disclaimer doesn't usually wash with the ASA there doesn't appear to be anything encouraging people to check with a proper doctor first on this page.

In one of their rulings the ASA is very clear on what can be said about blood pressure:

"We considered that the serious medical conditions referred to in the ad - high blood pressure, stroke and addictions - and the references to the benefit and help provided by Reiki in treating those conditions, could discourage readers from seeking essential treatment for serious medical conditions from a qualified medical practitioner. "

Next steps
I'll check in a day or so, if the list of conditions is removed (I've asked them to do this) then that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If not, I'll report the site to ASA. I'm aware of at least two other people who are also looking into this, they may well just report anyway.

There's no guarantee the ASA will do anything about this as they've recently dealt with a large number of reiki and websites promoting related therapies through a master-complaint put in by the Nightingale Collaboration (and I wrote about my contribution here). And let's face it there are far worse examples of misleading advertising, but telling someone you can help with depression and high blood pressure without good evidence is not great in my book.

In the last week the ASA has reported on its strengthened relationship with Trading Standards to ensure that misleading advertisers are aware of their legal responsibilities. While the ASA cannot fine or imprison anyone (all they can really do I suppose is embarrass them or cause negative PR to appear on search engine results pages) Trading Standards can take action to stop a company from trading as well as work within the Court system (fine for a first offence and so on) under various trading laws and acts.

ASA rulings against specific reiki sellers

• Christina Moore - 29 June 2011
• Allan Sweeney t/a The Allan Sweeney International Reiki Healing & Training Centre - 20 July 2011

Comments
Please don't be boring. If you are going to come here and tell me how I have misunderstood reiki then please include links to real good quality evidence, the sort that would stand up in an ASA investigation. If you do not have this and are just convinced and believe that reiki's great then bad luck because I'm convinced and believe that reiki is just pleasant hand-waving. People who like that sort of thing will undoubtedly feel better after a session of hand-waving, that's not in doubt. But if you want to claim that it can help with serious medical conditions, show me the (good quality) evidence. Testimonials will be ignored, thanks.