In the past I have done a number of posts on CranioSacral Therapy (CST)  covering the claims made and the lack of evidence to support those claims.

http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/category/craniosacral/

On a number of occasions I have also mentioned a PAT Hughes, a CranioSacral Therapist who works in my local area.  She has repeatedly made misleading claims regarding the use and effectiveness of CranioSacral Therapy.    Pat Hughes must be a very slow learner!

2010:  Pat Hughes was the source of  a CST leaflet that was the subject of an ASA adjudication and I covered here in What is CranioSacral Therapy.

2011:  Pat Hughes was distributing leaflets (via health food stores) in my local area, these leaflets were making the same misleading claims that craniosacral could treat a number of medical conditions.  This was covered here:  CranioSacral Challenged and ASA action  resulted in in an Informal Adjudication published  on 30 Mar 2011.  At the same time Mrs Hughes website which repeated the claims made on the leaflet went off  line ….. But it’s back!

2012:    Her website is currently making the same claims as before:  Dynamic Treatments

http://www.dynamictreatments.com claims 13 Dec 2012

Prevention is better than cure!  (CST can do neither!)

Her current claims are certainly no better than at any time in the past and if anything they could be classed as actually being worse!

She is now claiming that CST can actually ‘prevent‘ conditions such as ear infections and colic as well a ‘treating‘ more serious conditions such as cerebral palsy and autism.  These are both conditions that require properly qualified, long term supervision.

She also advertises her treatments and repeats her claims at other locations, including:

The Natural Health Centre (Nottingham)

“Cranio Sacral Therapy can help many conditions e.g. migraine, neck and back tension, bone and joint problems, menstrual problems, TMJ and jaw problems, tinnitus, arthritis and stress. It is also useful for people who have experienced trauma, e.g. accidents, operations, shock, emotional & physical stress; as CST can calm and settle the nervous system.

CST also plays a special role in treating babies. It can prevent common problems such as colic, sleeplessness, irritability and help more serious conditions such as cerebral palsy, autism and hyperactivity.”

Optimum Health Centre (Nottingham)

“CST aids deep relaxation and calms the nervous system. CST is known for its work with babies and children – many childhood conditions can be traced back to stress at birth. For babies CST improves colic, eases pain and sleep problems, and increases in energy and well being. It is also helpful for a number of other conditions in people of all ages.

Conditions that this therapy can help include:
Birth Trauma, Chronic Fatigue, Colic, Anxiety and Depression, Emotional problems, Headaches”

Easthgate Health Centre (Leicester).

“CST has a calming effect on the nervous system and can prove helpful in cases of anxiety, shock, trauma and post operative conditions. Other conditions often seen include, TMJ dysfunction, headaches & migraines, ME, and pain.

CST is also effective in helping pregnant women to relax and ease back pain & nausea. It is especially effective in supporting babies recovering from birth, with symptoms such as colic, sleep problems and excessive crying. Please talk to the Pat Hughes for more information.”

Like many CST therapists, Mrs Hughes has no formal medical training she is not qualified to properly diagnose, treat or prevent any of the conditions she makes claims for.  I can see no mention of her advising people seek properly qualified medical advice for any of the conditions she lists.

And for that reason  Mrs Hughes current claims are now back with the ASA !

I suppose I should really pop into a certain local health food shop to see if her leaflets are back!

A little over 3 weeks ago I did a post on Homeopathy Awareness Week where I looked at some of the website claims being made by homeopaths who are members of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) and how these claims breached their own Code of Ethics and Practice.  Awareness should cover all aspects of homeopathy, not just the propaganda!

This is not primarily about ASA/CAP regulations, this is about their own professional codes.  The introduction to these codes state:

SoH:  The aim of the Code of Ethics and Practice is to encourage integrity and responsibility in the practice of homeopathy. Homeopaths should conduct themselves with truthfulness and dignity at all times in relation to their dealings with patients, and colleagues.

ARH:  This Code of Ethics and Practice describes the standards of conduct and practice the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) expects of its registrants.

Ethics, integrity, responsibility and truthfulness – Fine words indeed.

Both the SoH and ARH call these codes a code of Ethics and Practice.  So we should question the professionalism and ethics of any homeopath who deliberately and repeatedly breaks these rules and we should also ask the same questions of any organisation that knowingly permits members to  act in this way.

I said I would contact the SoH and ARH to see what action, if any, they would take to ensure their members acted in accordance with their respective codes.    In both cases they were informed that this was NOT a formal complaint and that I was simply making them aware of the situation and giving them an opportunity to resolve the matter informally.

I did point out that should they fail to uphold the integrity of their own code then it may leave their members exposed to the possibility of further action (Trading Standards).  I also stated that I would revisit the websites concerned on or around the 1 July.

Society of Homeopaths:  The SoH were contacted about the claims being made on the websites of  Doy Dalling  and Madeline Grove.  The initial response from the SoH was encouraging, even if it didn’t really acknowledge the main issue:

“Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, I will contact the homeopaths and advise them to have their copy checked by the CAP.”

The homeopaths would be contacted - Good!     Advised to have their advertising checked by the CAP – Good!.   All very positive stuff, but there was something missing (at least in their response to me) and that was any mention of their own code. I replied to the SoH that I welcomed this advice:

“However, I do feel that in addition to simply offering advice, the SoH are in a position to insist that your member also complies with the Code to which they are professionally committed to abide by.”

 There was no response to this email.   I have no idea exactly what the SoH said to its members, but let’s have a look at the results:

Doy Dalling’s website remains unchanged, the site still lists a everything from headaches and autism to depression and dyslexia. Should we be questioning her ethics or the professionalism of the SoH ….. or both!

Before: http://www.freezepage.com/1339768766JRZHRBDZZB (15 June 2012)

Current: http://www.homeopathyworks.org.uk/homeopathy.html  (Checked 6 July 2012)

Madeline Grove on the other hand did make some changes.  She took the opportunity to remove claims for a number of named conditions and also the statement that homeopathy can be used as an alternative to vaccination, however she failed to remove the reference to malaria in her homeopathic travel kit.  Perhaps this was just an oversight and will be corrected shortly.

Before: http://www.freezepage.com/1339768869CBBKAQJITM (15 June 2012)

“People seek treatment for various conditions including asthma, eczema, fertility, menopause and menstrual problems, M.E., arthritis, headaches, anxiety. It is used by many as an alternative to vaccination”

After: http://madeleinegrove.com/?page_id=2 (Checked 6 July 2012)

Alliance of Registered Homeopaths:   I will admit that I wasn’t sure if I’d even get a response from the ARH, but a couple of days after contacting them Karin Mont (ARH Chair) replied. Despite me clearly stating that I wished this matter to be dealt with informally, she said:

Please note that any concern raised by a member of the public in relation to a registered member of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths must be made in writing, on letter headed paper, and sent via the post.

Well at least I could be sure that they had read my email, but I wanted to make my reasons for contacting them perfectly clear. I told them that I would take her reply as confirmation that the ARH were aware of my concerns and that if I wanted to raise the matter as a formal complaint I would indeed submit it in the manner suggested, however ….

In the meantime, I will leave you to act in a manner that best fits the professionalism of the ARH (with respect to compliance with your Code) and in a way that represents the best interests of your member.

A friendly phone call or the forwarding of my emails may be all that is required. You may feel that the interests of the ARH are best served by doing nothing, this would be unfortunate as it leaves you member exposed to the possibility of a complaint, a situation that is totally avoidable.

Initially I heard nothing back from this email, however eventually I was told that Wenda Holland had been informed of my communication.  At around the same time Wenda Holland made changes to her website, removing the conditions listed on both of the pages I highlighted:

Before: http://www.freezepage.com/1339768587HHSISLLZOZ   & http://www.freezepage.com/1339768720MRTQEVIGFV

After: http://www.wendahomeopathy.co.uk/ & http://www.wendahomeopathy.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/3875?opendocument&part=2  (Checked 6 July 2012)

Gone are all the ADHD, Eczema and Threatened Miscarriage claims, gone are the claims to treat Alzheimer’s, Autism, Thyroid and Addiction problems.

There is little doubt that the removal of these claims is a positive step,  this raises a number of associated issues.

Some of the claims made by SoH members have not been removed (particularly Doy Dalling).   Both the SoH and the individual homeopaths are aware that there are still breaches to their Code of Ethics and Practice.  So how will the SoH deal with this ?  Will they simply allow this to go on or will they do what any professional body would do and insist on adherence to the code ( I will be contacting them shortly to ask)

On a wider scale, there is the fact that both the ARH and SoH are aware that many of their members are making claims that breach their respective codes, yet they seem to turn a blind eye unless contacted directly about each individual case.  This sets a very poor example for a profession that constantly seeks wider acceptance, accreditation and even ‘regulation’.

During my contact with the SoH and ARH they seemed willing to do little more than ‘advise’ about CAP compliance whilst totally failing to address the fact that many members routinely fail to uphold their own standards of ethics and professionalism!

The Codes of both organisations contain wording that clearly states that each member has:

“agreed to observe and be bound by and observe the Code of Ethics and Practice”

I guess that for individual homeopaths and the trade associations alike, it’s all a question of  Ethics !

More to the point, there is a widespread failure of CAM regulators (voluntary & statutory) and CAM trade associations to get members to adhere to these ‘professional’ codes.  The aim of these CAM Codes is to promote ‘professionalism‘ and ‘protect the public‘, if they are not enforced then they are worthless !

Most of these organisations have at some point issued advertising guidance, encouraging members to ensure their websites comply with the ASA/CAP codes, and yet breaches of their own codes are often ignored.   It is probably easier for these bodies to point to the CAP codes and say “we’ve issue guidance to our members” than it is for them to actively enforce their own code and risk a back lash from unhappy members!

This brings me on to some related activity on twitter…

On 23 June 2012 (@TheAgadaClinic) The Agada Clinic in Loughton Essex tweeted about a special offer they were running for reflexology sessions.

On this page was a list of conditions that it was claimed that might benefit from reflexology.  The list included some serious medical conditions, that need more than just a foot massage as treatment.

Homeopathy Awareness – It just doesn’t work!

I don’t plan on explaining all the reasons why homeopathy doesn’t work, I’ll simply point you in the direction of the excellent 1023 website.   Homeopathy has been around for a long time, if it actually worked then it would be classed as ‘actual medicine’ and not ‘alternative medicine’.

Other than the fact that homeopathy just doesn’t work,  there are a number of other issues surrounding homeopathy that are certainly  worthy of increased awareness and this week seems like a perfect opportunity to do so.

Homeopaths put much effort in trying to establish a level of credibility for their profession and this is perfectly understandable,  how else are you going to convince people that a drop or water or a sugar pill will cure them of serious illness or protect them from the  dangers of tropical diseases.   Often this quest for credibility involves membership of some form of trade association, this usually permits them to state that they work to a Code of conduct or ethics  and can get them listed on a voluntary register, all of which is designed to convince people that this quackery has a place in modern healthcare.

In the UK the two biggest of these trade associations are the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), both of these organisations have a ‘Code of Ethics and Practice’ that (it is claimed) members must abide by.

The Codes maintained by the both the SoH and ARH contain rules covering the advertising of members services.  Under both of these codes members are required to comply with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and British Code of Advertising Practice (BCAP) regulations.  The wording is almost identical and easy to understand, there can be little doubt about the requirements of these sections of the Codes.

SoH:  Code of Ethics and Practice.

Item 38: All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to (the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice).

Item 39: Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims.

ARH: Code of Ethics and Practice

Item 36: All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice.

Item 37 Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims.

Unfortunately for the public both of these homeopathy trade associations seem to exist only to promote the use of homeopathy.  Both  organisations are well aware of the claims being made by those who are supposed to live up to the standards laid down in their respective Codes and both continually fail to take action against those who break these codes.  This leaves us with individual homeopaths who deliberately or otherwise, breach their own code, trade organisations who fail to enforce that code and a code that is in effect worthless!

The people responsible for ensuring compliance with these codes can be found here:

Society of Homeopaths Board or Directors

Alliance or Registered Homeopaths Board or Directors

I can only assume that these are the same people responsible for any failure to comply….

For any members of the SoH, ARH, homeopath or members of the public who are in any doubt over the sort of claims deemed acceptable by the ASA, you should take a few minutes to read this homeopathy specific guidance.  Guidance for Advertisers of Homeopathic Services

So we’ve seen what is required of homeopaths from both trade associations and the ASA, perhaps now a couple of examples of what is actually being claimed will help raise ‘awareness’ of this failure on the part of the homeopathy profession in the UK.  There are many more homeopaths making similar claims and the SoH and ARH should be taking action against those members.

Homeopathy Awareness.

ARH member Wenda Holland-MARH, claims to treat a large range of conditions, some minor and some far more serious.  Needless to say the majority of the following claims are not permitted by the ASA.

http://www.wendahomeopathy.co.uk/

I particularly enjoy meeting children, who respond very well to homeopathy. I now run a baby and toddler clinic in Hythe, supporting parents-to-be with fertility issues as well as a wide range of pregnancy problems, including morning sickness, heartburn, constipation, indigestion and threatened miscarriage.

Threatened miscarriage is not something that should be treated with ineffective sugar pills!

She goes further, listing conditions for which there is no good evidence to support the use of homeopathy …….

Flu and Migraine, Asthma, depression, Hay Fever, IBS, PMT, fertility issues, children with ADHD and other behavioral problems, recurring ear infections, broken bones and poor recovery from injury, Eczema, Psoriasis and other skin conditions as well as more chronic conditions such as ME and Chronic Fatigue, MS, Arthritis, Alzheimers Disease and addictions.

Acne – Eczema – Asthma – Psoriasis – Arthritis – Muscle pain – Childhood illness – Flu – Headaches and Migraine – IBS – Chest Infections – Tiredness and Lethargy – High Blood Pressure – Thyroid Problems – Autism – Behavior Problems – ADHD – Bed Wetting – Depression – Allergies.      The list is endless

Problems with blood pressure, thyroid, Alzheimer’s and addictions cannot be helped by soothing words and sugar pills!

Homeopathy Awareness.

SoH member Doy Dalling – RSHom, is quite typical of many homeopathy websites, listing a mix of minor and serious medical conditions.  Actually you don’t even need to have any recognisable medical condition, even those unknown conditions  ’without a name‘ can be treated!

http://www.homeopathyworks.org.uk/homeopathy.html

The range of conditions that can be treated is limitless, including those without a name or known cause.

There is no robust evidence that supports the use of homeopathy for a single one of the conditions listed on her website and they all breach the advertising regulations …… and therefore the SoH Code to which she subscribes.

I have successfully treated patients for a vast array of different ailments some are included below. 

Allergies, Persistent infections, such as Ear infections, Tonsillitis & Sinusitis, Asthma or Persistent Coughs, Glue Ear, Migraines & Headaches, Eczema, Psoriasis & other Skin Disorders, IBS & other stomach related problems, Menopause & PMT, Fertility problems, Ailments during Pregnancy & Childbirth, Sleep problems & Panic Attacks, Depression, Stress & Anxiety, Post Viral Syndrome & ME, ADHD, Autism & Dyslexia

Clearly conditions such as allergies, depression, ADHD, autism should be treated under proper medical supervision and yet I can find no advice to potential patients to seek proper medical care or advice from a GP.  In fact she appears to be suggesting that homeopathy should be used instead of conventional medicine, particularly worrying in the case of children and babies.

It can be used for both adults, children and babies who would normally be treated with drugs, e.g. antibiotics, antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, broncholdilators and steroid creams, to name but a few.

Homeopathy Awareness.

Another SoH member worth being ‘aware’ of is Madeline Grove.  Her website lists many of the same claims we have already seen and like all the others these break the advertising guidance and also the Code of Ethics and Practice of her own association.

http://madeleinegrove.com/?page_id=2

People seek treatment for various conditions including asthma, eczema, fertility, menopause and menstrual problems, M.E., arthritis, headaches, anxiety. It is used by many as an alternative to vaccination.

Of course homeopaths will use the argument that the wording ‘people seek treatment‘ is different to offering to treat.  The ASA view that differently!  But it is Madeline’s Homeopathic Travel Kits that present the greatest threat to the safety of anybody relying on it.

Along with a Nux Vomica (strychnine) remedy for  ’Over-indulgence‘  she lists “China / China sulph  Malaria” – yes that’s right, sugar pills being sold to protect against a disease that kills over 1 million people every year.

However I am also reminded that in some sectors there is still much work to be done!

In particular online advertising by Complementary & Alternative health practitioners is still very problematic when it  really shouldn’t be, the rules are quite clear.   On 1st March 2011 the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority was extended to cover:

1. Advertisers’ own marketing messages on their own websites.
2.  Marketing communications in other non-paid-for space under the advertiser’s control, such as social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
3. Marketing communications on all UK websites, regardless of sector, type of businesses or size of organisation.

This  isn’t news, it happened over 17 months ago and there was plenty of prior notice that these changes were being implemented.  The ASA’s recent 2011 annual report (published 30 May 2012) shows they have been very busy enforcing this new area of their remit, as this tweet from 30 May 2012 says:

2011: our online remit extension contributed to a 71% increase in cases overall. We dealt with 7,195 online remit complaints about 6,631 ads

— ASA (@ASA_UK) May 30, 2012

So perhaps it’s worth asking why we still have a large number of websites,  twitter accounts and Facebook pages where CAM therapists feel it is acceptable to publish misleading claims.

I don’t believe the problem lies with the ASA, they are a relatively small organisation having to regulate a huge amount of advertising on a variety of media formats.  I do believe the problems lie with the CAM therapist and also with a number or trade bodies and CAM regulatory organisations.

From my own experience the CAM therapists responsible for these lingering claims seem to fall into 3 broad categories.  The Don’t Knows, the  Don’t Understand and the Don’t Cares.

The Don’t Knows.  It is difficult to see how any CAM practitioner who uses the internet could fail to be aware of the rules, however I’ll accept that there may still be some.  Well if you are reading this I can only suggest you follow this link to the ASA’s website and do a little reading:  http://www.asa.org.uk/  This should be enough for you to realise that there are some regulations you need to be aware of.  At this point you may find that you move from being a ‘Don’t Know’ to a ‘Don’t Understand’ ….. If so, read on!

The Don’t Understands.  There will be some who claim that they don’t fully understand what they are allowed or not allowed to say.  To those people I can only suggest they take another look at the easy to understand, free advertising guidance issued on the ASA & CAP websites, it is quite clear on what is and is not permitted.

A quick visit to the CopyAdvice website http://www.copyadvice.org.uk/ should give you all you need to ensure your advertising and website complies with the regulations.  At very least you will see that:

All ads in the UK, wherever they appear, must be legal, decent, honest and truthful in line with the UK Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (The CAP Code). The Copy Advice service is here to help you avoid breaking the rules and potential action by the Advertising Standards Authority by giving you free advice on your non-broadcast marketing communications before they are launched.

The second part of that paragraph is important.  You can contact the Copy Advice service and they will give you free advice on how NOT to break the rules.  There are a number of  industry specific guides, including rules for the ‘health & beauty’ sector and there are a number of clearly written guides for some specific therapies.

One common cry from the CAM practitioners who perhaps don’t understand the rules is that they don’t specifically claim to ‘cure’ a particular condition.  What needs to be remembered is that the ASA look at any claim from the perspective of a member of the general public, not the therapist.  Even listing medical conditions alongside your therapy could be seen as implying some form of benefit from treatment:

Guidance on Health Therapies & Evidence:

“4. I don’t claim to ‘cure’, why can’t I claim to ‘treat’ certain conditions?
Whether you use the words ‘treatment’, ‘treat’ or ‘cure’, all are likely to be seen by members of  the public as claims to alleviate  effectively a condition or symptom. We would advise that they are not used either directly or indirectly, through the use of visuals for example. Of course, if evidence has been shown to support the claims, then these words can legitimately be used.
Marketers should be mindful that merely listing medical conditions could imply their treatment or therapy is effective”

But there are claims you can make, even the ASA’s general guidance for therapies (Therapies: General) lists a number of conditions for which claims may be made:  (I’ve highlighted the bit about evidence, just in case you were tempted to overlook it!)

“Examples of ailments that may be referred to in marketing communications (subject to the marketer being able to prove the efficacy of the product or therapy) include: arthritic pain, IBS, neck ache, feeling down and temporary erectile dysfunction.”

More importantly there are a number of specific conditions for which you cannot make claims. Remember you are responsible for the content of your advertising and  if you want to avoid being the subject of an ASA complaint, you really should make yourself aware of the ones that apply to your particular form of therapy.

Finally we have the worst of the bunch …….

The Don’t Cares.  These are the ones who are aware of the rules and what they are permitted to advertise, but believe that the rules don’t, or more correctly shouldn’t, apply to them!  They are Wrong!

It really doesn’t matter if you are a  homeopath, osteopath, craniosacral therapist,  chiropractor or any other type of therapist.   The list at the top of this post shows (item 3) that the ASA’s remit applies to everybody regardless of whatever industry you are in  ……  but those in the ‘Don’t Care’ category already know this!

What all these therapists need to remember is that when it comes to evidence, you are not a ‘special case’, no amount of special pleading will lower the standards required nor will it remove your obligation to comply with the regulations.   If your evidence isn’t up to the required standard, then you are unlikely to be allowed to make the claims and if you continue to do so then you leave yourself vulnerable to complaints.

Sadly there are a large number of therapists in this group who are in professions that have some form of statutory or voluntary  regulation.  Any type of regulation or membership of a trade body usually comes with an obligation to practice in accordance with some form of Code of Practice, Conduct or Ethics.   The majority of these codes contain rules or guidance on advertising, even if this is missing  (or has been deliberately removed, as was the case with the General Chiropractic Council), this does not mean that you are exempt from the ASA regulations.

Since the changes to the ASA’s remit, most of these organisations have issued their own advertising guidance or advice, so those still making claims are now in a situation where they are breaking the ASA/CAP codes as well as their own professional Codes.

In most cases it also means that the various regulators are failing to ensure their members comply with their own codes of practice or conduct, something that I’ve already looked at and will be coming back to in the near future.  Organisations like the General Chiropractic Council and the General Osteopathic Council have certainly issued guidance, they have also made some limited attempts to view members websites and offer advice on CAP compliance as and where needed.

So you would assume that any remaining claims would be difficult to find, or the regulators would have taken some action to remove them.  However many of their members continue to make unsubstantiated claims.

It would be better all round if these were voluntarily removed by the therapists concerned …..  but there are always other methods!

One site that I believe falls into this category is ‘Wellness Homeopathy‘, (based in London) run by Saqib Rashid.

On visiting the Wellness Homeopathy site we find a site that tries to combine a polished, professional looking web presence with the usual homeopathic mix of holistic and natural healing statements.  There is an introduction to homeopathy that tells us that  ’Homeopathy is a holistic science‘ and other similar information that is so typical of the majority of alternative medicine sites.

There is a link to an associated site on  micro-DNAtherapy.  The site is so full of junk-science that it is difficult to know where to start, however there is a claim that

“highly diluted DNA molecules, approximately 5-6C, have the capacity to emit electromagnetic signals, especially when they have been mechanically agitated (succussed).”

Talk of the Human Genome Project and DNA are presented in a pseudo-scientific mix along with ‘Homeovitality‘ and  ’Hybrid Vigour’ , all with an aim of selling 4 homeopathic products they claim will interact at a genetic level to improve your health.  Whilst this is certainly quackery it is not really the subject of this Dangerous Homeopathy post.

Back on the Wellness Homeopathy main site and dangerous quackery is only a mouse click away.  An info box called  ’Homeoprophylaxis’ (also referred to as HP on the site) tells us that no system of immunisation guarantees 100% safety and there is at least some truth in that statement – nothing is 100% guaranteed.   Clicking for more information we are redirected to another Wellness Homeopathy site on ‘Safe Immunisation – Homeoprophylaxis‘.  Here the polished professional look has been replaced by images of children with cartoon teddy bears and fluttering butterflies.  This site is clearly targeting those with children and concerns over vaccinations.

We see statements like:

“Two centuries of medical literature reveals that the homeopathic remedies are effective in epidemic infectious diseases.”

“Homeopathic immunisation – also known as Homeoprophylaxis, is an alternative way to protect you and your family against childhood and other epidemic diseases. The prophylactics (remedies) do not have to be given by a practitioner; they are safe for you to use yourself.”

Lets be clear, homeopathic remedies are NOT an ‘effective‘ protection against infectious diseases and should most definitely NOT be used as an ‘Alternative‘ way to protect against any form of infection.

If we look at their Homeoprophylaxis Program page it starts by giving details of  NHS immunisations before moving on to list the diseases for which Wellness Homeopathy offer homeopathic prophylaxis ……  to children!

By now it should be abundantly clear to everybody that we are way past supplying tiny ineffective sugar pills for seasonal sniffles.  This is Dangerous Homeopathy, for serious diseases and with serious consequences.

But we are not quite done with Dangerous Homeopathy just yet.  The same page tells us that Wellness Homeopathy also offer homeopathic immunisations for pregnant women and travellers.

As you may already have guessed, travellers are not being offered a remedy for travel sickness!  No, Wellness Homeopathy offer homeopathic protection against a number of potentially fatal diseases.

During a holiday or working visit to a country, HP advice and remedies are available for diseases like Cholera, Dysentery, Malaria, Smallpox, Tuberculosis, Typhoid/Typhus, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis (A, B, C), Meningitis, and Jap. B Encephalitis.

And for pregnant women we are told that:

 “If protection against rubella is required during pregnancy. The specific homeopathic nosode will provide protection without the risk of the side effects.“

The information on this page alone puts pregnant women, babies, young children and those travelling abroad at risk of contracting diseases where a lack of proper protection can have serious or potentially fatal consequences.

The disclaimer at the bottom of the page is does nothing to reduce the potential for serious harm to anybody following this immunisation program.

The FAQ page contains a wealth of misleading information.  There are statements that depending on the potency of the remedy, HP protection may last from a few weeks (30C) right up to 10 years (8M).  And for those seeking assurances that this method actually works, we are told:

“it has been proved through world’s largest long term study of parents using this method, that level of protection is either equal or in some cases greater than conventional vaccination, and above all there is no reported damage with the use of HP programme as is the case with conventional vaccination.”

The rest of the site is little better.  There are sections on Vaccine Damage and Post-Vaccine Syndrome (PVS) with a long list of symptoms of PVS along with claims that these symptoms can be treated and reversed with homeopathic remedies.

A WHOIS search shows that Wellness Homeopathy have chosen to use the services of PrivacyProtect.org in Australia to hide their personal details.  However, Saqib Rashid is on Twitter as @wellnesshp and I have asked him how he can justify making these claims any intention of  ensuring his website(s) comply with the CAP codes.  Saqib Rashid claims to be a member of the Complementary Therapists Association CThA and his websites certainly carry their logo.  If that is so then he is in breach of the CThA Code of Practice (Item 26), however I doubt if Mr Rashid or the CThA really care!

I would hope that a site with the potential for this much harm is high on the ASA’s list of sites that need to be challenged, although perhaps Trading Standards might find this interesting.

These course are being run by UK registered osteopath Geoffrey Montague-Smith.  I couldn’t resist having a closer look at what was behind this ‘healing power of sound‘.

First stop was a visit to The Atman Academy (Principle: Geoffrey Montague-Smith DO) where there is a full pdf copy of the course advert: Vibrational Medicine: The Healing Power of Sound.  These 3 day workshop courses are described  as follows:

“For the modern day practitioner the use of musical tuning forks on and off the body offers a diagnostic and therapeutic modality which is safe, reliable and very effective. “

OK so call me skeptical but this guy is talking about musical tuning forks offering a very effective diagnostic method  ….   I wanted to know more!

I soon found myself on the Atman Academy Sound Therapy web page.   Here we find a video of Geoffrey Montague-Smith DO speaking on the subject of Vibrational Medicine at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2009.  The Royal Society of Medicine has a long and impressive history and has had some very distinguished members.  So just maybe there is something worth while in this video, surely it has to be worth a look.  [although I'm guessing that he just hired a room through their venue hire service!]

[The video is over 26 mins long and I've watched it so that you don't have too.   I don't intend to give a full running commentary, but I will highlight a few of the points he covers and that should be enough to give you an idea of what it is all about.  You may, or may not, want to watch the full video for yourself, but if you choose to do so, then it is entirely at your own risk! ]

I try to suppress my initial scepticism a little and and press the play button!

Oh Dear!   The video opens with the words “Our good friend Edgar Cacey quite wisely said that sound is the medicine of the future“.   This isn’t an encouraging start, Edgar Cacey is described as a“Twentieth Century Psychic and Medical Clairvoyant” and immediately any attempts to restrain my scepticism are being put to the test.

Conventional Medicine in 30 seconds.

00:24 – 00:54  These few seconds are all that are used to cover the use of sound in conventional medicine.  It amounts to little more that a brief mention of sound being used to break down (gall) stones and its use in modern physiotherapy departments.  Also the use of sound waves in ultra-sound scans during pregnancy, although he’s not sure that it is ‘such a cool thing to do‘  and questions the effects it has on the foetus.  And then with the words “…so there’s that!” we are done with conventional medicine.

The Ancients, Mozart and Dyslexia.

00:55 – 02:55  Conventional medicine is now well and truly forgotten as the talk moves on to discus  The Ancients, medical & spiritual ‘arts’,  Shamanic rituals and a Powerpoint slide listing Tibetan bowls the Aboriginal didgeridoo and the resonances in the kings chamber in ‘the pyramid’.  I am almost relieved when he says we don’t need to go into that in too much detail.

There is mention of the  ’Mozart effect‘ – and how listening to Mozart helps with dyslexia.  Accompanied by a new slide that says it helps the ear and promotes healing and brain development.

Bible Stories and Holosonic Pseudoscience.

02:55 – 07:25  Now the talk moves on to the subject of ‘Holosonics’ and how there is a bio-resonance into different tissues in the body.  The slide states that every bone, organ and tissue has it’s own frequency.  There is even  a list of frequencies, given in Hz, that the different organs resonate at. [Although the slide is difficult to see the actual frequencies].

The nonsense continues with more talk of resonant frequencies, including a mention of using sound to bring down the walls of Jericho –  [Really, Bible stories as evidence!].  There is pseudoscientific discussion on Dissonance &  Consonance and their effects on  the bodies ‘energy field‘.   Another slide on ‘Holosonics’ that states: “Sound waves are like deep sound massage at an atomic and molecular level“.

[And did he really just say that he is going to show us how he uses aluminium tuning forks to identify dissonance in patients bodies! - Oh I want to see that!]

Time to throw in a quick reference to school days physics lessons with tuning forks.  More Pseudoscience, this time on the subject of  ’Cymatics’ and the work of Hans Jenny   ”‘A natural scientist who perceived the unseen forces of nature”.   He seems to be a big fan of Hans Jenny and his work into the effect of vibration on the physical level and how “different levels of frequency can physically change matter“.   A slide tells us how Jenny’s work investigating the mathematical order of sounds has thrown light on the work of the likes of Pythagoras, Plato, Kepler and others.

SupraDNA, Tuning Forks and a Quantum Consciousness.

07:25 – 08:20   Now he’s talking about the diagnostic and therapeutic use of musical tuning forks and energy fields and another promise that he’s going to show us this in action.  But first, time for a far bigger dose of pseudoscience.   He’s  ”Looking to have an effect on Cell Differentiation from a SupraDNA point of view” and that sound, colour and light and elements in the vibrational spectrum have an effect on DNA and can determine the process of cell division.

[I'm sure you'll understand when I say that any attempt to suppress my natural scepticism has well and truly failed.  But I will persist because I really, REALLY want to see the tuning forks in action! ]

09:26 – 12:45  That’s enough of DNA, we’ve finally reached Musical Tuning Forks and how they offer  ”Simple and effective protocols for the clinician” and are an incredibly powerful tool for Chiropractors, Physiotherapists and Osteopaths to use to work on residual shock and trauma.  There is even a mention of giving out remedies, based on a form of  ‘Sound kinesiology.  There are also repeated references to ‘meridians’, ‘chakras’ and ‘energy fields’.

[At this point I am trying to remind myself that this course was advertised in the GOsC's Journal, the person speaking  is a fully trained and regulated UK osteopath, and his target audience are other statutory regulated therapists !]

As an example, we are told that by using musical tuning forks to treat a ‘big 28 year old prop forward‘ who only understands physicality and not what is going on at the more subtle level, you can have him leaving your clinic with a ‘Quantum Consciousness‘.

[Ahh, Y'see, there's my problem ..... There was a time when I was a big 28 year old prop forward.  No wonder it doesn't make sense, I must be lacking that Quantum element to my consciousness!]

Healing with Tuning Forks!

12:45  At last!  We have video of Musical Tuning Forks in use.  The footage is of  Geoffrey Montague-Smith in action with his tuning forks and was filmed by the BBC.

The clip runs from 12:45 until 17:59. If you watch nothing else, you REALLY should watch that 5 min  segment and marvel at the BBC’s coverage of a man waving various tuning forks above a pregnant woman’s body and that by listening to any ‘wobbles‘ in the sound it can be used as a form of diagnosis.  And how by changing the tuning fork in use to one of a different pitch or frequency it can ‘fix‘ the problem.

Watch the video Here

Watching this segment it is easy to find yourself both laughing and cringing at the display of utter woo.  But it seems far less amusing when you remember that this osteopath is using it to ‘treat’ a pregnant woman who seems to have been convinced that it is going to help her to have a stress free delivery for both herself and her baby!  Worse still he is offering to train others in this nonsense!

A PDF Course Overview can be found Here:  Harmonic Sound In Therapy

[Personally I'd prefer to see it called Sound Harmonics In Therapy - and abbreviated to S.H.I.T ]

 ”The basic tools used are an Aluminium C 256Hz, G 384Hz and a High C 4096 Hz. The prefect fifth of C and G represent the principles of Yin and Yang”.

It would be very unfair to say that all osteopaths, chiropractors or physiotherapists would put their faith in this sort of nonsense, but a similar course was run in 2011 and this 2012 course is being advertised in the The Osteopath, so one can only assume that there is a level of interest.  I'm amazed that the GOsC consider this rubbish to be suitable advertising for their journal.

As a qualified osteopath Mr Montague-Smith doesn't limit himself to waving tuning forks around, he also runs an osteopathic clinic in Tunbridge Wells - the Atman Clinic. 
Although tuning forks don't seem to feature on the website, he makes some interesting claims for osteopathy for a variety of conditions and EAV (electro-acupuncture) testing for certain medical conditions and food sensitivity testing.  

It should come as no surprise that these claims are now with the ASA!

 

In April this year I commented (Be Careful What You Wish For) on an article called ‘If the CAP fits’ that was published in the British Osteopathy Association Journal .  In this article, osteopathy Mary Monro expressed her the view that a lack of complaints to bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency was partly to blame for the limited range of conditions that the CAP codes allow osteopaths to claim to treat.

“We are told that the CAP code only allows us to mention a short list of possible conditions that we can claim to treat.  This is partly down to lack of evidence and partly down to a lack of complaints.   CAP almost never receive complaints about osteopaths’ advertising so (until very recently) they have no idea what we do.”

She also said that osteopaths should not restrict themselves to the CAP code list and that if they did the list would never get any bigger.

Online access to the article seemed to vanish shortly after I blogged about it, however a pdf copy of it was sent to me and is available here. Osteopathy Today April 2011pdf.

Although the General Osteopathic Council have already undertaken a mission to review members websites in order to highlight potentially misleading claims, many osteopaths were still making a variety of claims that I felt fell well short of the CAP codes.  So having read that article, I wondered just how many osteopaths shared Mary Monro’s view …… I decided it was time to find out!

I picked 11 websites belonging to either UK registered osteopaths or UK osteopathic organisations, all of them were making claims to use osteopathy to treat a range of conditions that were not authorised under the CAP codes.  All of these conditions would need robust evidence to substantiate the treatment.  ASA complaints were submitted for each of these sites.   Each of the complaint received a response from the ASA, many of them included the words:

“Based on the information you provided, it appears you have a valid point, and with a view to acting quickly, we have instructed them to remove the claims you highlighted from their website.”

In some cases the ASA also found other claims that they considered to be “problematic” and these would also need to be removed.   In 3 of the cases the ASA decided to deal with the issues under their formal complaints procedure.  This means the advertiser would be formally asked to provide evidence to substantiate the claims, however any of the 11 osteopaths would have been able to defend their claims if they felt they could.

So exactly what treatment claims did the ASA decide would have to be removed in order to comply with the CAP codes:

“Colic, Asthma, Sleep disturbances, Glue ear, Flat head syndrome, Feeding difficulties, Screaming/irritability, Recurrent infections, Ear Infections, Sinus Problems, Headaches, Behavioural problems, Leaning difficulties, Irritable bowel syndrome, Period pain”.   Also included were    “Symptoms of Cerebral Palsy and other forms of Brain Damage in babies and children, Whiplash, Threatened Miscarriage  and  arthritis“

Clearly some of these are serious medical conditions and are well beyond what most people would normally consider as treatable by a visit to an osteopath.

Some, like colic, are fairly benign although they can be distressing for both parent and child. These claims clearly target parents frustration and feed on the need to ‘do something‘ for their child.  Others like cerebral palsy target those who are vulnerable and suffering from long term and often incurable conditions.   Threatened miscarriage plays on the obvious fears for the health and welfare of an as yet unborn child, particularly if there is a history of problems during pregnancy.

It is also good to see Whiplash claims included in the list of conditions that the ASA had issues with.  A number of osteopathy sites were asked to remove this claim, many more are still making it!

I don’t intend to name all the sites or osteopaths involved, it is enough to say that none of them felt they had sufficient evidence to defend their claims and agreed to remove them from their websites when requested to by the ASA.    It is worth pointing out at this stage that all of these claims not only breached the CAP codes, but also the General Osteopathic Council Code of Practice.

Maybe I just picked the wrong osteopaths, because clearly none of them felt the urge to take up Mary Monro’s call to defend  their claims, present their evidence and thus increase the list of CAP permitted conditons.  All of them agreed to remove the website claims, that includes those involved in formal investigations.

However, I will highlight 3 organisations included in my complaints, partly because of the prominent position they play within (cranial) osteopathy in the UK, but mainly because there are still unresolved issues.  Whilst the individual clinics seem to have complied with the ASA’s advice, these organisations appear to need a little more encouragement!   

 The Sutherland Society.  One of the most popular cranial osteopathy website in the UK seemed to be the Sutherland Society.  Information and quotes from this site are common on UK cranial osteopathy websites and many provided links back to the Sutherland Society.

The list of conditions and claims on this site was comprehensive to say the least and included claims for cerebral palsy and brain damage, their main page also displayed a disclaimer that I questioned and the ASA had issues with, it has now been removed.  

The Sutherland Society was listed on the ASA’s webstite on 20 July 2011 – Here: Informally Resolved Cases.

However it seems not all the misleading claims have been removed –  ’Pregnancy and Childbirth‘  ’Babies and Children‘ and  ’Learning Difficulties and Special Needs‘.  These are now back with the ASA.

The London School of Osteopathy (LSO clinic).  This is a London based osteopathy teaching body, who claim “Research is an integral part of the LSO course” - They also run a teaching clinic that made a number of claims that were the subject of my complaint.     I have no idea what the quality of that research is, but their clinic website could certainly do with some to back up the claims.  But they chose not to defend!

The London School of Osteopathy was listed on the ASA’s website on 22 June 2011- Here: Informally Resolved Cases.

As a part of this case the LSO clinic was asked to remove claims including Whiplash, and “symptoms of chronic conditions e.g. asthma, arthritis“. Despite being listed as ‘informally resolved’ those claims are present today ( 31 Jul 2011) and the ASA have been informed.

The Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy /Osteopathic Centre for Children (FPO/OCC).   Since submitting my complaint about the FPO the site has undergone a change of identity.  What was the Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy is now the Osteopathic Centre for Children (OCC).  Other than a name change, the OCC is essentially the same organisaion.  The FPO and OCC have the same Company number (2545759) and Charity number (1003934) and the OCC were repeating the same claims as the FPO site:

“However, patients who visit us for treatment have presented with the following conditions: autism; gastric reflux; hyperactivity; behavioural difficulties; dyslexia; eczema; colic; glue ear; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; insomnia; asthma; hypersensitivity; headaches; back pain; diabetes; plagiocephaly and talipes. This list is not exhaustive.” 

On 15 June 1022, I was told that the ASA had spoken to the OCC and “discussed with them at some length the requirements of the CAP Code and the advice on medical conditions“.  The ASA sought and  received assurances that the FPO site had been withdrawn and that the OCC would consult, as a matter of urgency, with the Copy Advice team in order to make the OCC website CAP complaint.

The ASA also said that: (my bold emphasis)

“I think those assurances are sufficient to close this case without any further action. I have made FPO / OCC aware though that, should we receive further complaints about the same claims after they have had a reasonable amount of time to correct them, then we will pursue a more formal course of action.“ 

Well a quick check today (31 July 2011) shows that the OCC website is still making many of the same misleading claims as the old FPO site.  The ‘patients presented with the following conditions’ argument is exactly the same as that challenged on the FPO site

“However, patients who visit us for treatment have presented with the following conditions: asthma; autism; back pain; behavioural difficulties; cerebral palsy; colic; diabetes; dyslexia; eczema; epilepsy; gastric reflux; glue ear; headaches; hyperactivity; hypersensitivity; insomnia; plagiocephaly and talipes. This list is not exhaustive.”

They also make suspect claims on a few other pages.

The OCC web page states that they offer 30,000 osteopathic treatments per year to babies, children, pregnant and post-partum mothers.  That’s a lot of treatments offered to vulnerable patients for some potentially serious conditions, so you would rightly expect them to hold good quality evidence to support these treatments.

I have no idea if the OCC actually contacted the Copy Advice team, or how long the ASA view as a ‘reasonable amount of time‘ for making changes, but these claims have now been sent back to the ASA.   The OCC may just remove these claims (I’ll let you know), but if they genuinely feel that they can they can justify offering  30,000 treatments per year for conditions like cerebral palsy, autism, diabetes and dyslexia then they should be prepared to present the evidence!

If the OCC have no evidence, then that makes the statement on their main web page even more worrying:

The Osteopathic Centre for Children (OCC) is a charitable organisation based in the UK that seeks to ensure that paediatric osteopathy – a gentle, effective and environmentally-friendly treatment – is established as the first option for parents and carers concerned for their child’s health.

The first option for anybody concerned about a child health should be a properly qualified medical doctor, not an organisation lacking evidence to support their exaggerated claims!

Volume II covers the performance reviews of the 9 healthcare regulators who come under their remit.

Volume II can be found here   http://www.chre.org.uk/satellite/402  Or the PDF is here:  http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1012/hc10/1084/1084_ii.pdf

This document contains lots of  detail on issues surrounding health care regulation, many are worthy of a  much  closer look.  This post is simply a very quick look to highlight a few select areas where the business of regulation meets quackery.

There are some interesting mentions for homeopathy & pharmacies, herbalists, GCC complaints, along with a quick mention of the BCA’s failed libel action against Simon Singh.  Also issues surrounding the advertising of CAM, including the GOsC’s concerns over the potential for ‘mass complaints’.

Section 1 - Chief Executive’s foreword:

 There has also been considerable public attention given to those therapies where the evidence for efficacy is contested. Pharmacy regulators have had to consider the place of homeopathic remedies in pharmacy practice in the face of criticism from the Science and Technology Committee. 

The inclusion of herbal products in the regulatory framework means that herbalists will be regulated in future by the Health Professions Council. 

Chiropractic has come under scrutiny as a result of the attempt by the British Chiropractic Association to sue a science journalist for libel and the General Chiropractic Council has had to deal with several hundred complaints relating to the claims made about the efficacy of chiropractic for certain conditions.

Section 9. The General Chiropractic Council (GCC)

Some comments on the GCC’s complaint workload and the vote of no confidence by its members.  There is lots to read in this section.

GCC under external pressure …

9.2  ”The GCC’s investigating committee considered 29 non-website cases and 689 website cases and its final fitness to practise committees determined 16 non-website cases and 375 website cases”.

GCC under internal pressure …

Some interesting comments on the sale of homeopathic remedies in pharmacies – Also see sect 17

14.12 Under the Pharmacy Order 2010, the GPhC has a new role in relation to setting standards for pharmacy premises. The GPhC has established a ‘premises project’ and will be developing its standards.

14.13 “The premises standards will include those relating to the sale of homeopathic products in pharmacies”

 “We note that the sale of homeopathic products in pharmacies is an issue that has recently attracted media attention because of the lack of a consensus about the efficacy of those products and the potential implications for patients who take them in preference to conventional medicines. It is therefore a significant issue for the pharmacy regulator to consider”.

Well it would be kind of hard to have missed the media attention!   Any ‘lack of consensus‘ only comes in to play when you talk to a homeopath about the fact that there is no reliable evidence to support their quackery claims.

Section 15. The Health Professions Council (HPC)

On herbalists …

15.17 As yet there is little detail about how practitioners of herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine will be regulated, but the government has said that the focus will be ‘solely on minimising risk to the public’. The HPC register will be a register of people who are able to dispense unlicensed herbal medicines.”

 Section 17. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

On homeopathy …

17.9  Registrants raised concerns with the PSNI following the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s review of the evidence base for homeopathy (which found that homeopathy is not an efficacious form of treatment). Supply of homeopathic products in pharmacies is legally permitted, and pharmacists have the right to sell them as part of their business

Legally permitted is one thing …. but that doesn’t address the ethical issue of selling ineffective sugar pills alongside genuine medicines!

“However, as there may be a risk to public protection if patients use such products in preference to conventional medicines to treat serious health conditions without being aware that there is no consensus regarding the evidence base for the treatments, the PSNI developed, consulted upon and published guidance on the supply of homeopathic products in pharmacies. The guidance made it clear that when registrants provide a homeopathic product the patient should be advised that there is no consensus on the efficacy of homeopathy.”

It is good to see an acknowledgement that using homeopathy in preference to conventional medicines represents a potential  risk to patient safety ….. that’s because it doesn’t work!

The full report is worth a read.

We can see just how common by using a very handy Google Custom Search, this tool can be used to search GOsC members websites for specific search phrases, in this case colic: (See Note at bottom of post for more custom searches and information on Fishbarrel!)

GOsC Members Websites – Colic

At present this search is returning 9 pages of websites (that may change) and whilst the results include sites that mention colic, rather than specifically offering treatment, the majority of these sites do make varying degrees of treatment claims for colic.

With this claim being so common, you would rightly expect there to be a body of  good quality evidence to support it.   Well I’ve looked for it before and couldn’t find it,  I’ve asked both the GOsC and NCOR if they knew of any and still not found anything conclusive.   This is covered in earlier posts:

Osteopathy: A question of evidence pt1

Osteopathy: A question of evidence pt2

NCOR (National Council for Osteopathic Research) have recently been conducting a review of literature and evidence covering cranial osteopathy for a number of conditions and the results of this should be made public soon.

Until then, perhaps the best place to turn to would be the recent article in the April/May edition of The Osteopath  The article, published by NCOR is called ‘Osteopathic Studies Investigating the Management of Infantile Colic’ (pages 19 – 21).

The opening paragraph contains a statement that highlights the problem with these colic claims:

“This is a distressing condition for both parent and infant.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that osteopaths treat infantile colic successfully, but limited published evidence is available on this topic“

What we seem to have are lots of (cranial) osteopaths offering to treat a distressing condition, but with very limited evidence to support that treatment.  So hopefully the article will address these issues.

The NCOR article covers what colic is, how it is assessed, what literature is available for osteopathy and also chiropractic and finally gives their conclusions.

One study that crops up regularly in relation to osteopathic treatment for colic is Hayden et al 2006.  This study appears on numerous websites, it was also included in the list of evidence that the British Chiropractic Association’s plethora of evidence (even though it is not chiropractic).  The study itself was a small scale, preliminary study with no blinding.  The full report is clear  that there are some  issues with the trial design and potential for bias and despite reporting some positive results, it acknowledges that a larger double-blind study is warranted.  This study has also been looked at by the ASA and has been rejected as substantiation for colic claims.

Even if colic is a fairly harmless condition, I fully agree with NCOR that colic can be a very distressing. NHS information on colic can be found here:  NHS Choices – Colic

So how do NCOR  actually view the level of evidence for the treatment of colic:

So here is a clear statement that there is insufficient evidence to recommend cranial osteopathy (or other manual therapies) for management of colic.  

It is important to note that these conclusions do not simply relate to the level of evidence required by the ASA/CAP codes when advertising or making website claims, but to the level of evidence available to justify offering  osteopathy as a treatment for colic.   This has obvious implications for compliance with the GOsC Code of Practice (item 122), but also for the wider issue of osteopathy and Evidence Based Practice.  

So what next......  
These claims would certainly be unacceptable to the ASA, so will we see individual osteopaths taking the easier option of (reluctantly) accepting  that there is a lack of evidence and voluntarily removing these claims, or  will it take some form of pressure to get them removed. 
How about the GOsC? Do they continue the slow, but welcome, process of reviewing members websites and offering advice, or do they issue a clear statement that colic treatment and claims cannot be justified.

Note:  Visit these links fr more information on the Google Custom Searches and the excellent quackery reporting tool 'Fishbarrel' produced by Simon Perry.
Fishbarrel  - ASA, Consumer Direct and MHRA complaints (Google Chrome browser plugin)
Google Custom Searches