INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Advertising Standards Authority

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#41 Postby Alan H » March 19th, 2008, 1:07 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

********************************************************************************
Bioinduction Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44149.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bioinduction Ltd t/a Acticare
178 - 180 Hotwell Road
Bristol
BS8 4RP
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 19 March 2008
Media: National press
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
A national press ad feature, for an electrical device called Acticare, was headed "The 250 Volt Charge that Relieves Pain by Peter Trueman". It described the experiences of Caroline Harrison, who suffered "constant pain" after a collar bone injury and which "melted away" after she used the Acticare device for an hour. Further text claimed " ... Arthritis pains affect 8 million people in the UK and four out of five adults will experience back pain ... Acticare is a drug free therapy that provides symptomatic relief from many types of pain. Many users have been bowled over by its effectiveness. A survey of 324 patients found that 72% of respondents said their pain levels were reduced by more than half ... Acticare may help provide relief for multiple pains simultaneously ... Tony Eaton, a Backcare helpline advisor comments 'I suffer from bouts of disabling Sciatica, but Acticare helps me get mobile again whenever I have a relapse and has enabled me to live my life again to the full.' ... Acticare is safe to use in the home, but it should not be used to treat undiagnosed pains as it may mask the pain of an underlying condition. We recommend that you consult your doctor before varying your pain medication or for the treatment of anything other than minor aches and pains...".

Issue
The complainant challenged whether Acticare could substantiate that the product provided general pain relief and treated the conditions referred to in the ad.

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;50.1;50.4;50.7;50.3

Response
Bioinduction said their product was a transcutaneous electrical neurotransmitter (TENS) device, as defined by the statutory bodies the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that was used to relieve pain. They said the FDA had determined that TENS machines were suitable for the symptomatic relief of chronic, intractable pain and for the management of pain associated with post-traumatic or post-surgical conditions. They said there had been no specific clinical trials conducted on the device, but that a large number of medical papers about TENS devices had been published. They acknowledged that there were differing opinions about the quality of the research amongst academics, but believed there was a growing body of evidence to support the efficacy of TENS. They explained that a patient survey was carried out by an independent consultant on 324 people who used the Acticare device for 3 months. They said 7% of respondents reported "complete" relief and 65% reported "greater than 50% relief" of their symptoms. Bioinduction sent signed letters from Caroline Harrison and Tony Eaton, which confirmed that they had made the testimonials in the ad.

Bioinduction believed TENS therapy was endorsed by the majority of doctors and that 90% of pain clinics in the UK performed TENS therapies. They said 84% of the 362 members of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) surveyed in 2000 considered TENS therapies to be legitimate medical practice. Bioinduction also stated that the core curriculum of the IASP taught that TENS reduced pain in many different types of acute and chronic pain conditions including, for example, low back pain and arthritic pain, and that the regulatory authorities and world-wide clinical practice supported that position. They sent a copy of a paper which they said was the largest meta-analysis conducted on the subject that studied the reduction in painkiller consumption following surgical procedures. The paper showed that, in the 11 trials where an optimal dose of TENS treatment was used, a mean weighted reduction in painkiller consumption of 35.5% was measured compared with a placebo.

Bioinduction provided several quotes from an expert. The quotes said TENS treatments could be used for the management of chronic and intractable pain, lower back pain, nerve-damage pain, sympathetically maintained pain and neurogenic pain. Bioinduction said TENS was used in the treatment of arthritis. They sent a copy of a medical paper which reported on the effect of TENS on pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee and concluded "TENS and AL-TENS are shown to be effective in pain control over placebo in this review..." and "TENS and AL-TENS over at least four weeks are effective for pain control and relief of knee stiffness in osteoarthritis". In support of TENS relieving acute pain, they sent studies on post-traumatic hip pain and lower back pain during emergency transport. In support of TENS relieving chronic pain, they sent a meta-analysis which they claimed strongly supported TENS as a pain intervention for musculoskeletal conditions in all regions of the body. They referred to several other studies that they had previously submitted to the CAP Copy Advice team. Bioinduction said the MHRA, via their notified body SGS, had approved the device as an "electro-stimulator for pain relief". They said the device had 11 standard modes of operation, eight of which were labelled as TENS and three as TSE (transcutaneous spinal electroanalalgesia). They explained that TSE as inplemented in Acticare was part of the spectrum of TENS waveforms. They sent a report that compared the modes of Acticare with other legally marketed TENS devices.

They said they understood that CAP did not generally accept that TENS could be used to treat chronic pain. They said the ad was based on copy submitted to CAP for approval and that they had worked closely with CAP over a period of weeks. They argued that they were aware of the risk of discouraging consumers from seeking essential treatment and that every customer that ordered products from the helpline was asked if their condition had been diagnosed by their GP. They said they encouraged customers to consult their GP or physiotherapist for advice about use of the product. They pointed out that the ad advised customers to consult their doctor for undiagnosed pains, and for the treatment of anything other than minor aches and pains, and not to vary their medication without advice from their doctor. Bioinduction acknowledged that their device was not always effective and pointed out that that was true of all pain interventions, including painkillers. They said they offered customers a full refund for products returned within 28 days.

Bioinduction said they recently undertook a more rigorous assessment of the efficacy of the device. They sent out two standard validated Brief Pain Inventory questionnaires that they said were widely used in pain studies. The first was enclosed with the device and a follow-up was sent one month later, and both asked people to rate their pain as a Visual Analogue Score (VAS). Bioinduction said their analysis of the 141 results indicated that Acticare was an effective pain intervention when used in the home environment. They explained that people who used the low power TENS modalities showed a reduction in VAS scores of 28%, those using the higher power and higher frequency TSE1 modality a 36% reduction and those using TSE1 centrally over the spine a 43% reduction. They added that they removed all references to Tony Eaton's testimonial and to sciatica in April 2007.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted from the Acticare website and from the product specification sent by the advertisers that the device had two modes; one for TENS and the other for TSE. We also noted the ad made claims such as "The ... device generates a high voltage, high frequency electronic pulse that has ten times the power output of TENS machines and penetrates deep tissues, but because of the very short pulses it causes only a mild tingling sensation" and "Unlike most TENS machines where adhesive pads are placed at the site of the pain, Acticare's adhesive electrodes are placed at the top and bottom of your spine for pain originating from legs, hips and back, or at either side of the neck for pain found in the shoulders, arms, neck and head". We considered that those properties appeared to relate to TSE rather than TENS treatment. We noted a similar ad had been submitted to CAP Copy Advice and advice had been given that the product could be advertised within the scope of CAP's accepted claims for TENS devices. We also noted Copy Advice had told Bioinduction that any complaints about the ad were unlikely to be upheld as long as they possessed factual evidence to support their claims.

We considered that, even if it promoted merely the benefits of the TENS mode of the Acticare device, the ad made claims that went further than those generally accepted for TENS. We noted Bioinduction had sent a paper which concluded that TENS was an effective treatment over placebo for pain control and relief of knee stiffness. We also noted the meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials that showed TENS, and in particular the use of high levels of current, reduced painkiller consumption for post-operative pain. We noted the meta-analysis of TENS in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We noted the comments Bioinduction had provided from an expert, but considered that they did not support the efficacy of TENS in treating chronic pain. We understood that TENS devices could be used to treat minor aches and pains, but we also understood that although some studies accepted the efficacy of TENS for pain relief, there was not a general consensus among experts that a sufficient body of evidence existed to substantiate the effectiveness of TENS treatment.

We took expert advice on the evidence sent by Acticare. Our expert commented that the evidence did not support the advertised claims, and that, in general, the evidence on efficacy of TENS in chronic pain, or acute pain, was so weak as not to be supportive of any pain relief claim.

We considered that readers would understand the references to "years of pain", "constant throbbing" and "constant pain" in Caroline Harrison's testimonial to be references to chronic pain and would believe the Acticare device could treat chronic pain. We noted Tony Eaton's testimonial stated "I suffer from bouts of disabling Sciatica, but Acticare helps me get mobile" and considered that readers would understand that the Acticare device could treat sciatica. We considered that, because we had not seen product-specific evidence to show that Acticare could treat chronic pain, sciatica or arthritis, both testimonials were likely to mislead readers. We also considered the patient surveys were insufficient to support the general pain relief claim. Although readers were advised not to use the device for undiagnosed conditions, we considered that the ad implied that Acticare was suitable for treating serious or prolonged medical conditions. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1, 50.3, 50.4 and 50.7 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General)

Action
The ad should not reappear in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

[Captured: 19 March 2008 13:06:56]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#42 Postby Alan H » May 7th, 2008, 10:21 pm

This one demonstrates that medical claims are at least partially controlled...
********************************************************************************
Goldshield Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44366.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Goldshield Ltd t/a Goldshield Healthcare Direct
NLA Tower
12-16 Addiscombe Road
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 0XT
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 7 May 2008
Media: National press
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
A national press ad for LIPObind was headlined "The NEW Clinically Proven Fat Binding Pill ...". Text underneath stated "Forget about all the diet fads, forget about just eating salad and forget about pills that are more expensive than effective. If you want to fight the fat in food, then learn more about the incredible medically certified pill set to take the nation by storm ... Cutting a line through the swathes of products on the market that claim to aid weight management comes a pill which has been tried and tested and is proven to bind fat. There are no gimmicks, no fad diets, no additional exercise routines that have to be undertaken, in fact you can still indulge yourself with your favourite treat every now and again!" Text on the left of the ad stated "LIPObind AVAILABLE WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION CERTIFIED MEDICAL DEVICE PRODUCT With Safety and Efficacy assessed under Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC". Text on the right stated "What does LIPObind do? LIPObind is a weight management tool making it easy for you to take charge of your personal dietary intake. Helps to Suppress Appetite Binds Dietary Fats Helps to Decrease Food Cravings Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol Weight Management". Text at the bottom of the ad stated "3 easy ways to order ... by Freephone 08700 xx xx xx ...".

Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the 08700 telephone number was free.

The ASA challenged whether Goldshield Healthcare Direct could substantiate the claims:

2. "The NEW Clinically Proven Fat Binding Pill ... A pill that has been tried and tested and proven to bind fat";

3. "There are no gimmicks, no fad diets, no additional exercise routines that have to be undertaken, in fact you can still indulge yourself with your favourite treat every now and again";

4. "Helps to Suppress Appetite";

5. "Helps to Decrease Food Cravings";

6. "Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol"; and

7. "Weight Management".

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;50.1;51.1;51.4

Response
1. Goldshield Healthcare Direct (Goldshield) said the 08700 telephone number was not free and the claim "Freephone" was a misprint that had not been picked up when the ad was checked. They said the mistake had been amended and would not appear again.

2. Goldshield said LIPObind was a certified Class IIa Medical Device and was CE marked by a duly appointed and audited certification organisation, TUV Rhineland in Germany, under the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC. They provided a copy of the relevant CE marketing approval document, which described the scope as being "production, marketing and sales of tablets for weight management".

3. Goldshield said the claim was intended as a lifestyle comment. They said, for best results, a calorie controlled diet should be undertaken but that was not a strict rule and depended on the choice of the individual consumer.

4., 5., 6. & 7. Goldshield referred to the Medical Device Directive. They argued that, because it had a CE mark and accompanying certificate, it was proven that LIPObind was safe and complied with the performance levels attributed to it by its manufacturer; they argued it was therefore fit for its intended purpose. They maintained that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had recognized the categorization of mechanically acting fat binding tablets as medical devices. They argued that the MHRA acknowledged properly CE marked medical devices for fat binding as being fit for the purpose intended and they were therefore authorised to make medical claims for the product within the scope of its conformity assessment. They argued that the CE mark was the equivalent of a Marketing Authorisation and it was therefore their legal right to state the device's intended purpose in all advertising; namely as dietary fat binding pills for weight management.

Goldshield said they would remove the claims "There are no gimmicks, no fad diets, no additional exercise routines that have to be undertaken, in fact you can still indulge yourself with your favourite treat every now and again", "Helps to Suppress Appetite", "Helps to Decrease Food Cravings" and "Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol".

However, in response to the "Weight Management" claim, Goldshield said the product did not make any weight loss claims and there was no direct clinical evidence that significant weight loss could be achieved with the product alone. They asserted that there was evidence to show that the ingredients contained in the product could contribute to weight management.

They sent a clinical evaluation of LIPObind by a German expert and supporting studies, which included literature reviews, in vitro studies of the product, and two proof of concept in vivo studies of the product.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the 08700 telephone number was not free and considered that the claim "Freephone" was therefore misleading. We welcomed Goldshield's assurance the ad had been amended.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2., 4., 5. & 6. Upheld
We considered that the ad implied the product could aid weight reduction. We noted the product appeared to meet the requirements of the European Medical Devices Directive but understood that the Directive did not harmonise EU law relating to the advertising of medical devices, which was subject to an EU Directive on unfair commercial practices (including in advertising) generally. We contacted the MHRA, which told us that the product was a recognised medical device and, as such, did not need to be licensed as a medicinal product, because its mode of action was purely physical rather than pharmacological; it was not absorbed by the body. They said, as a CE marked medical device, LIPObind had a legitimate right to bear claims relating to fat-binding and weight management because that was its registered primary purpose; they said the CE mark for a device provided an assurance that a product's safety had been assessed together with its performance. The MHRA said, on the basis that the performance had been assessed by a notified body, they had to assume that LIPObind was effective in its primary purpose: fat binding and weight management. They said notified bodies were subject to audit by national regulatory authorities and their assessment was expected to be recognised by all EU Member States.

The MHRA said they understood that claims could be made for the product that were relevant to its purpose as a device; that did not, however, allow Goldshield to make any claim they wished to. They said any medicinal claims that implied changes would only be achieved through a modification of physiological functions by either metabolic or pharmacological means were not appropriate for a medical device. They considered that the claims in the ad that referred to such functions, "Helps to Suppress Appetite", "Helps to Decrease Food Cravings" and "Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol", were outside of the product's stated scope or purpose.

We noted that the MHRA accepted the fat-binding and weight management claims for LIPObind on the grounds that its performance had been assessed by a notified body but that they did not accept the other medicinal claims. We nevertheless asked to see the evidence to support the fat-binding and weight management claims as we considered that the claim "The NEW Clinically Proven Fat Binding Pill ... A pill that has been tried and tested and proven to bind fat" implied that LIPObind had been clinically tested to bind fat. We considered that, because they were for a weight reduction product, that claim, and the other claims made for the efficacy or action of LIPObind, should be backed by rigorous trials on people.

We noted much of the evidence sent by Goldshield referred to the effects of varying amounts of dietary fibre on a diet and other dietary studies. We noted there were also some studies on the dietary effect of various pectins and leaves. We noted, however, that many of those studies were in vitro and that the in vivo studies had been carried out on obese, diabetic or ileostomy subjects or hamsters and guinea pigs.

We noted other evidence sent by Goldshield related to one of the ingredients of LIPObind, Neopuntia. We noted, however, some of those studies were not in vivo and, of those that were in vivo studies, one was carried out on subjects with metabolic syndrome and the other was carried out on ten healthy subjects. We noted the results of the latter study claimed it "suggested an effectiveness for an application of Neopuntia within the framework of meals rich in fat content". We considered, however, that the two in-vivo studies did not constitute robust substantiation to support the claims made.

We considered that the claim that the product could bind to fat and the claim "Clinically Proven" were not demonstrated by the evidence sent to us.

We considered that, to substantiate the claims, we would need to see robust in vivo evidence that showed a direct link between the specific LIPObind formula and it binding fat, suppressing appetite, decreasing food cravings and lowering blood cholesterol for healthy people. We considered that we had not seen that and concluded therefore that the ad was misleading.

We welcomed Goldshields offer to remove the claims "Helps to Suppress Appetite", "Helps to Decrease Food Cravings" and "Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol".

On points 2, 4, 5 & 6, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General), 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight Control).

3. Upheld
We considered that the claim "There are no gimmicks, no fad diets, no additional exercise routines that have to be undertaken, in fact you can still indulge yourself with your favourite treat every now and again" and further text "You can still treat yourself to a piece of cake without having to think twice and without feeling the usual pangs of guilt" implied that LIPObind would enable people to lose weight without dieting or doing exercise. We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to show that LIPObind would enable people to lose weight without dieting or doing exercise, the ad was misleading.

We welcomed Goldshields offer to remove the claim.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General), 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight Control).

7. Upheld
We considered that the claim "weight management" was likely to be understood by readers to mean that LIPObind could aid weight loss. We considered that we had not seen robust evidence to show that that was the case and therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General), 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight Control).

Action
We told Goldshield to remove the claim "The NEW Clinically Proven Fat Binding Pill ... A pill that has been tried and tested and proven to bind fat" and not to imply that the product could bind to fat in the absence of robust evidence that proved it could. We also told them to remove the claims "There are no gimmicks, no fad diets, no additional exercise routines that have to be undertaken, in fact you can still indulge yourself with your favourite treat every now and again", "You can still treat yourself to a piece of cake without having to think twice and without feeling the usual pangs of guilt", "Helps to Suppress Appetite", "Helps to Decrease Food Cravings", "Helps Lower Blood Cholesterol" and "Weight Management" unless they held robust evidence to support them. We advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

[Captured: 07 May 2008 22:19:56]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#43 Postby Alan H » May 7th, 2008, 10:32 pm

Another Homoeopathy one:
********************************************************************************
Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44302.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice
484 Katherine Road
Forest Gate
London
E7 8DP

Date: 23 April 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
Monitoring staff viewed an ad in Bengali for Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice (FGHP) on Channel S ATN. The ad showed people walking into the practice and waiting. Different men, wearing stethoscopes, talked to people across a desk and in one scene one of the men seemed to write out a prescription. In another he was holding up a packet of what seemed to be medicine. Another man was shown opening a glass-fronted medicine cabinet full of bottles and packets. At the end of the ad, on-screen text stated "Consultant - MD. Alim Uddin B.S.Y (D.HOM) F.B.I.H".

The voice-over stated "A new method in the field of treatment Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice is a member of UK Homeopathic Medical Association. Mr Alim Uddin, educated in Britain, is an experienced Homeo Consultant who is offering treatment for your complex and complicated ailments. Entirely agreeing with science and depending on natural process, it has no side effect; hence safe and beneficial for all. Then without delay, come today to Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice."

Issue
Monitoring staff challenged whether:

1. the ad gave the impression of professional medical advice;

2. the reference to "treatments for complex and complicated ailments" was a therapeutic claim.

Monitoring staff challenged whether the ad suggested that the treatments:

3. had no side effects;

4. were safe or effective because they were natural.

5. Monitoring staff challenged the acceptability of broadcasting the ad after two upheld ASA adjudications against FGHP for similar reasons.

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.1;8.2.2;8.2.12;8.2.14;8.1.2

Response
1. Channel S Plus Ltd stopped broadcasting the ad during the investigation. Channel S Plus Ltd explained that FGHP was registered and affiliated with the Homeopathic Medical Association UK and that enabled FGHP to offer alternative medicinal homeopathic treatment after a consultation and assessment of the patients health. Channel S Plus Ltd asserted that FGHPs local authority required the consultation surgery to replicate a general practitioners surgery. As part of their assessment of a patients health FGHP conducted tests on, for example, blood, urine, stools and took patients pulses. Channel S Plus Ltd explained that the homeopaths used stethoscopes to ascertain their patients health.

Channel S Plus Ltd explained that Alim Uddin was a homeopathic consultant and the reference to "MD." was an abbreviation of Alim Uddins first name, Mohammed.

Channel S Plus Ltd said that because the ad was for an alternative form of treatment, homeopathy, they believed viewers would not be misled into thinking that the ad was referring to medical treatments by a medically qualified physician. Channel S Plus Ltd added that their viewers were culturally and socially aware of homeopathic treatment and understood that homeopathic treatment was different from medical treatment.

2. Channel S Plus Ltd explained that people typically sought homeopathy treatment for colds and allergies, which, for cultural and linguistic reasons, had been translated as "complex and complicated ailments". They acknowledged that although in English "complex and complicated ailments" would refer to "serious illness", in Bengali it meant "basic ailments", which were often treated by pharmacists or over-the-counter medicines.

3. Channel S Plus Ltd maintained that, because of their different interpretation of medicinal products, the side effects claim was perceived differently.

4. Channel S Plus Ltd explained that the products shown in the ad were herbs and spices that were consumed on a regular basis by their viewers. They maintained that, in that context, the definition of medicinal products was different and the products were better described as "medicinal produce". They added that the ad did not directly identify a specific product.

5. Channel S Plus Ltd maintained that they were complying with the earlier ASA adjudications and that the ad had been altered taking those adjudications into account.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered the ad implied the men providing the treatment were doctors offering professional medical advice because they were wearing stethoscopes and the ad showed people being offered advice in a setting that looked very much like a doctor's surgery. We understood from their local Council that it had no requirement to make the premises look like a doctors surgery. We considered that the ad also implied that professional advice was being offered because the voice-over referred to Alim Uddin as "an experienced Homeo Consultant" and on-screen text at the end claimed "Consultant - MD. ...". We understood that Mohammed is typically abbreviated as "Md.", not "MD.".

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 8.1.2 (Impressions of professional advice and support).

2. Upheld
We noted the ad claimed that FGHP offered "treatment for your complex and complicated ailments." We understood that the original Bangladeshi words could also mean treatment for complex and severe or acute illness". We considered that the impression created by the ad, which included the men wearing stethoscopes and writing out prescriptions, implied that the treatment offered was not merely an over-the-counter treatment or advice from a pharmacist. We considered the ad had made a therapeutic claim.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.2 (b) (Homeopathic medicinal products).

3. Upheld
The CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code states "No advertisement for a medicinal product may suggest it has no side effects". We considered the claim "no side effect" breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.12 (Side effects).

4. Upheld
The CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code does not permit ads for a medicinal product to suggest that the latters safety or efficacy is due to it being natural. We considered the claim "depending on natural process, it has no side effect; hence safe and beneficial for all" breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.14 ("Natural" products).

5. Upheld
We noted this was the second time Channel S Plus Ltd had not complied with a previous ASA adjudication. We reminded Channel S Plus Ltd that failure to comply with an ASA adjudication was a serious breach of broadcast licence conditions that could result in a referral to Ofcom.

Action
We concluded that the ad must not be shown again in its present form.

[Captured: 07 May 2008 22:29:55]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#44 Postby Alan H » May 7th, 2008, 10:35 pm

No mention of osteopathy or chiropractic, but they still lose because they can't substantiate their claims...
********************************************************************************
Ideal Spine Centre
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44299.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Ideal Spine Centre
30 Whitstable Road
Blean
Canterbury
Kent
CT2 9EB
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 23 April 2008
Media: Regional press
Sector: Health and beauty
Agency: Wellness News

Ad
Three regional press ads for the Ideal Spine Centre, Canterbury.

Ad (a) was titled "Cost Effective Health Care Saving Time & Money". Text stated "The vast problem with our health service has now become highlighted by the increasing number of hospital admissions, surgical procedures, escalating use of drugs and sky rocketing health care costs. A report was published recently revealing that prescription drugs are harming more people today than ever before. Hospital admissions from errors relating to medication and medical care hit an all time high! So, with all the money and research that is poured into our health system, what is the solution? ...

... If you had breast pain or chest pain, would you be happy if your doctor just gave you some pills to make you feel better? Of course not! You want to get to the cause of your problem. Drugs do not correct your health problems. They simply mask the symptom and make you feel 'better' ...

... It is time to stop treating the symptom, but look to correcting the cause of your health problems. This month, I hope this message sounds loud and clear because the condition I am going to make you aware of affects no less than 75% of the population. Misalignment of the spine (better known as 'Vertebral Subluxation') can occur silently, without you even feeling it for years. Vertebral Subluxation can be caused by poor posture, poor sleeping habits, car accidents, slips and falls, sports injuries, right down to the birth process itself for mother and child, as well as chemical imbalances and mental stress within the body.

Vertebral Subluxation (misalignment of the spine) can manifest itself in all sorts of ways - headaches, migraines, neck pain, numbness, asthma, high blood pressure, pins and needles, poor concentration, sciatica, neuralgia, scoliosis, behavioural problems, bedwetting, and ear infections in children, lowered immunity, indigestion and back pain just to name a few. So many people are taking medication for a problem that is actually correctable ...".

Ad (b) was titled "Did you get your £1,500 cheque?" Text stated "... Statistics have shown us that the NHS spends an average £1,500 per year on every man, woman and child in the UK. I don't know about you, but I have not seen my £1,500 for the past seven years since I moved from Australia to Canterbury in 2000 ...

... Just imagine if the government gave each and every one of us £1,500 a year to spend on our health. We would have a wellness explosion! More people could afford gym membership, to go on health experiences like health days, buy fresh produce from their local farm shops instead of buying packet food and poor quality produce from mass produced food chains, buy water filters to be able to drink a clean water source, have regular preventative spine and health checkups and take more regular stress free holidays.

What would our town look like? ... more wellness doctors teaching people about health and keeping you well, without the use of drugs and surgery! ...

... Just imagine there would be less [sic]people killed as a result of medical error because less [sic] people would go to the medical doctor because they would be kept well by seeing new age wellness doctors ...

... An average 300 people die each day due to errors made by medicine. That is what happens each and every day in the UK. That number has increased in the past five years to make medicine the leading cause of death in the UK after heart disease and cancer. The question is, if we keep using medicine as our health solution, how long will it take for it to be the No. 1 preventable cause of death? ...

... So, to get well and stay well, medicine may be good for an emergency (if you are lucky), but definitely no good for your future wellness. Speak to your wellness doctor first, not last! ..."

Ad (c) was titled "Latest News on Our Health and Our Future" and stated "The past healthcare system was sickness care and crisis care: The individual waits until either he is ill or injured and then seeks a medical doctor or other therapist for either drugs, surgery, or more natural treatment to alleviate his/her symptoms, or subdue his/her condition. This system has been useless and is the world's greatest failure ...

... The facts tell us our planet is now sicker than ever before in recorded history. The new model for health that is sweeping the nation and the world is WELLNESS CARE, and it works! ...

... Wellness means building your health up on a regular basis in order to achieve and maintain your natural health potential ...

... The power that made you, is the same power that keeps you and is the power that heals you. It is the same healing power the planet's best surgeons rely on for you to recover from life-saving surgery. That power is better known as 'innate intelligence' and it runs through your nervous system. If you have spinal misalignment, the nervous system has interference, which results in lowered function, health and ultimately impaired healing, inside the body ...

... If you want to get well and stay well start questioning your doctor's recommendations. Then if you want you and your family to be the healthiest you can be, without medication, for life, go and see a Wellness doctor ..."

Issue
The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim "Hospital admissions from errors relating to medication had hit an all time high" in ad (a) could be substantiated;

2. the claim "Vertebral Subluxation affects 75% of the population" in ad (a) could be substantiated;

3. the claim "Vertebral Subluxation can be caused by ... chemical imbalances and mental stress within the body" in ad (a) could be substantiated;

4. the claims "Vertebral Subluxation (misalignment of the spine) can manifest itself in all sorts of ways - headaches, migraines, neck pain, numbness, asthma, high blood pressure, pins and needles, poor concentration, sciatica, neuralgia, scoliosis, behavioural problems, bedwetting, and ear infections in children, lowered immunity, indigestion and back pain just to name a few" in ad (a) could be substantiated;

5. the claims "Drugs do not correct your health problems. They simply mask the symptoms and make you feel better" and "it is time to stop treating the symptoms, but to look to correcting the cause of your health problems" in ad (a) would discourage the reader from seeking essential treatment;

6. the claim "An average 300 people die each day due to errors made by medicine" in ad (b) was accurate and could be substantiated;

7. the claim "An average 300 people die each day due to errors made by medicine. That number has increased in the past five years to make medicine the leading cause of death in the UK after heart disease and cancer" in ad (b) could cause undue fear and distress towards conventional medicine;

8. ad (b) would discourage the reader from seeking essential treatment;

9. the claim "the facts tell us that our planet is now sicker than ever before in recorded history" in ad (c) was accurate and could be substantiated;

10. the claim "the new model for health that is sweeping the nation and the world is WELLNESS CARE and it works" and the descriptions of the present system of healthcare as "useless and [is] the world's greatest failure" in ad (c) implied that the advertisers service was more effective than conventional medicine, because she did not believe that to be the case;

11. the claim "The power that made you, is the same power that keeps you and is the power that heals you. It is the same healing power the planet's best surgeons rely on for you to recover from life-saving surgery. That power is better known as 'innate intelligence' and it runs through your nervous system" in ad (c) was accurate and could be substantiated;

12. ad (c) would discourage the reader from seeking essential treatment.

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;50.3;9.1

Response
Wellness News responded on behalf of Dr Farthing at the Ideal Spine Centre. They said they had written the copy for the ads. They said they were unable to send evidence to substantiate the claims at this point in time, but provided their assurance that they would not repeat the claims made in the ads until they could send the substantiation required to support them.

Assessment
1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9., 10., 11. & 12. Upheld
The ASA welcomed Wellness News' assurance that the claims made in the ad would not be repeated until they could provide evidence to support them. However, because the ads could discourage some readers from seeking essential treatment, and because the CAP code required advertisers to hold substantiation for their claims prior to publication, we concluded the claims were unsubstantiated and the ads were misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 (Fear and distress), and 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

Action
We told the Ideal Spine Centre not to repeat the claims.

[Captured: 07 May 2008 22:33:28]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#45 Postby Alan H » May 7th, 2008, 10:39 pm

If you make claims of efficacy, you have to provide proof. In this one, the ASA had already adjudicated that this product did not work...
********************************************************************************
BIOlamps Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44260.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
BIOlamps Ltd
Kennet House
Horizon West
Canal View Road
Newbury
RG14 5XF
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 16 April 2008
Media: Mailing
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
A direct mailing, for the BIOlamp, was headed "SPECIAL REPORT 'Use this unique Pain-Relief Lamp for 4 weeks - FREE OF CHARGE. And I guarantee it will relieve your pain ...' Now you can experience relief from almost any painful condition with BIOlamp, the 'Chinese National Treasure' that's safe, pain-free and easy to use". Inside the 12 page mailing it stated "... I knew first-hand just how effective they were at relieving my back pain. This was the inspiration for me to set up BIOlamps, the U.K.'s only licensed distributor of this unique product ... BIOlamp is only available from one company in the U.K. - ours ... Remember BIOlamp is only available from one company in the U.K. - ours". The mailing also included a number of testimonials, which stated " 'I got an ache in the sacral area of my lower back from sitting too long at the computer, so I aimed the lamp at my sacrum for 20 minutes. When I got up I found that every last trace of ache had gone ...', 'I have been suffering lower back pain for some time whereby when I get out of bed in the morning it is painful to raise to the standing position ... after two-weeks use there is hardly any discomfort in my lower back what-so-ever ...', 'I had sciatica and could do nothing but lie flat on my back. After using BIOlamp for three days ... my pain was completely gone', 'This lamp has been a lifesaver to me. I was repeatedly getting a trapped nerve with referred pain in the calf of the right leg. I have not had this now since the second week in March. It is wonderful to be able to walk (& dance) again' and 'I combine BIOlamp with massage therapy ... I have one patient who has found this combination treatment really helpful to such an extent that he played golf recently after suffering chronic back pain for over 4 years due to back injuries. Now he loves BIOlamp!' ".

Issue
1. A recipient believed the mailing was misleading because he understood that other UK companies sold the BIOlamp.

The ASA challenged:
2. whether the testimonials misleadingly implied efficacy for a number of physical conditions.

The CAP Code: 7.1;3.1;14.3;50.1

Response
1. BIOlamps said they were the only supplier of the BIOlamp in Europe. They said they supplied the product to other retailers and believed this may have been the reason the complainant thought other companies sold the BIOlamp.

2. BIOlamps provided us with the Declaration of Conformity (CE certificate) and Product Safety Certificate for the BIOlamp. They also sent copies of letters and customer satisfaction surveys, which formed the basis for the testimonials quoted in the mailing.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that BIOlamps was the only licensed distributor of the BIOlamp in Europe. We noted they sold the product directly to customers as well as supplying other retailers. However, we considered that the claims "BIOlamp is only available from one company in the U.K. - ours ..." and "Remember BIOlamp is only available from one company in the U.K. - ours ..." implied that the product could only be purchased through BIOlamps and was unavailable from other outlets. We considered that customers were likely to believe from the claims that the BIOlamp could only be purchased by responding to the mailing and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld
We noted the ASA had investigated the efficacy of the product in 2005 and concluded that it was not proven to alleviate arthritic or joint pain. We were therefore concerned that BIOlamps had continued to make efficacy claims for the product.

We noted the BIOlamp was classified as a medical device and was CE marked indicating that the product met the requirements of the Medical Devices Directive. However, we considered that the claims based on testimonials, such as ... my pain was completely gone ...", ... I have not had this (pain) now since the second week in March. It is wonderful to be able to walk (& dance) again ..." and ... he played golf recently after suffering chronic back pain for over 4 years due to back injuries ...", implied the product could produce a lasting healing effect. Although we acknowledged that the testimonials were signed and dated, we considered that they did not constitute robust clinical evidence that the product could treat musculoskeletal and arthritic joint conditions and back pain as implied by the testimonials. We considered that the quotes represented customers opinions and, as we had not seen any independent supporting evidence, did not constitute substantiation for the efficacy of the BIOlamp. We concluded that the mailing was misleading.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.3 (Testimonials) and 50.1 (Scientific substantiation).

Action
We told BIOlamps not to use the mailing again and to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

[Captured: 07 May 2008 22:37:31]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#46 Postby Alan H » May 30th, 2008, 12:30 am

Hey! Chiropractors can't call themselves Dorctor unless they hold a general medical qualification!
********************************************************************************
BritChiro Clinics Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44460.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BritChiro Clinics Ltd
13 West Street
Horsham
West Sussex
RH12 1PB
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 28 May 2008
Media: Regional press
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
A regional press ad, for a chiropractic clinic, stated "When Getting Better Matters BritChiro Clinics ... ". Text beneath the headline listed different ailments: " ... whiplash ... arthritis ... migraine ... chronic pain". The names of the clinic's practitioners were listed at the bottom of the page with the prefix "Dr". The qualifications MSc and DC appeared after their names. Smaller text at the foot of the page stated "Registered with the General Chiropractic Council and Members of the British Chiropractic Association".

Issue
1. The Carlton Clinic challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the practitioners listed held general medical qualifications.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ad offered treatment for serious medical conditions without the supervision of a doctor or suitably qualified health professional.

The CAP Code: 7.1;3.1;50.1;50.3

Response
1. BritChiro explained that their practitioners were registered with the General Chiropractic Council (GCC). They said the GCC permitted registered chiropractors to use the titles "Dr" and "Doctors of Chiropractic". BritChiro told the ASA that the ad normally included the words "Doctors of Chiropractic" under the headline "When Getting Better Matters", but that text had been omitted from the ad in error. They pointed out, however, that the ad included the references "DC", "Registered with the General Chiropractic Council" and "Members of the British Chiropractic Association" and did not suggest that the people referred to held general medical qualifications. BritChiro therefore disagreed that readers of the ad would infer that the practitioners listed were medical doctors. They said future ads would include the term "Doctors of Chiropractic".

2. BritChiro said they were registered practitioners as required by the Chiropractors Act 1994. They explained that registration could not happen until the chiropractor was qualified to practice following graduation from an institution operating a degree course that met the General Chiropractic Council's Criteria for the Recognition of Degrees in Chiropractic. BritChiro therefore believed they were suitably qualified health professionals for the purposes of CAP Code clause 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general). They sent the ASA a large number of journals and studies that they believed showed the efficacy of chiropractic in treating the listed serious medical conditions: whiplash, arthritis, migraine and chronic pain. The evidence mainly consisted of articles published in journals such as the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) and the Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. Some studies took the form of randomised controlled trials consisting of a large number of subjects; others took the form of case studies that focused on the effects of treatment on one patient.

BritChiro nevertheless agreed to remove the reference to chronic pain from future ads.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted BritChiro's comments. We noted the term "DC", which we understood was a courtesy title meaning "doctor of chiropractic", was included in the ad, as well as small text at the foot of the ad that stated "Registered with the General Chiropractic Council" and "Members of the British Chiropractic Association". We considered that suggested that the listed practitioners held chiropractic qualifications. We nevertheless considered that, because the term "Dr" was also included in the ad, readers were likely to infer that the practitioners mentioned in the ad held general medical qualifications, as well as chiropractic qualifications. Because they did not hold general medical qualifications, we concluded that the use of the word "Dr" could mislead. We also considered that the suggested claim "Doctors of Chiropractic", for use in future ads, did not go far enough to remove the implication that the practitioners held general medical qualifications as well as chiropractic qualifications.

The ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld
We noted the ad made references to conditions that were considered serious by the CAP Help Note on Health, Beauty and Slimming Marketing that Refers to Ailments: whiplash, arthritis, migraine and chronic pain.

We considered that the evidence submitted about migraine supported the efficacy of chiropractic in treating that condition. We therefore considered that BritChiro could continue to refer to the treatment of 'migraine' in future ads.

We instructed an independent expert to assess the evidence BritChiro submitted in support of the treatment of whiplash and arthritis. Our expert concluded however that the studies were not sufficient to support efficacy claims for either condition.

BritChiro instructed their own independent expert who evaluated the evidence they had submitted in support of whiplash and arthritis, produced two reports and who also evaluated our expert's two reports. BritChiro's independent expert concluded that the evidence for whiplash showed that chiropractic was effective in treating that condition, but was not effective in the treatment of arthritis. He concluded that "... chiropractic is effective (as opposed to doing nothing) in the treatment of whiplash ... The evidence for the treatment of osteoarthritis is less good ... Chiropractic could rationally be seen as an adjunctive and not primary treatment for osteoarthritis". With regards to clinical trials he stated "Bearing in mind that it would probably not be possible to produce an ideal chiropractic placebo ... it would be very difficult to assess the specific efficacy of chiropractic." He also stated "While ... there are some placebos which have been "suggested" for trials of chiropractic, they are not properly validated or convincing or currently completely methodologically sound." and that it was "misleading to suggest that placebo controlled trials in this area are simple, possible or reasonable at the moment ... There is so much debate about what constitutes a placebo in the context of a physical intervention ... that it is almost impossible for us to define a placebo in this context."

BritChiro agreed to remove references to arthritis from their ad. They nevertheless asserted that, because chiropractors who were registered with the GCC were suitably qualified health professionals for the purposes of CAP Code clause 50.3 and because the evidence supported the efficacy of chiropractic as a treatment for whiplash, they should be allowed to continue to refer to that serious condition.

Our expert pointed out that BritChiro's evidence for whiplash and arthritis failed to include controlled clinical trials and therefore had no control for a placebo effect. With regard to whiplash, he concluded, "Collectively, this evidence fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of chiropractic for whiplash injuries." We noted BritChiro's expert considered that it would be difficult to produce an ideal chiropractic placebo but also noted his concern that, without it, it was difficult to assess the specific efficacy of chiropractic. Our expert said "The following forms of sham have been used in clinical trials of chiropractic manipulation: non-therapeutic manipulation at the site of subluxation, therapeutic manipulation at the site of no subluxation, non-therapeutic manipulation at the site of no subluxation. These sham interventions might not be ideal placebos in every respect but they do exist and have been employed in clinical trials to minimize bias." He added that, "Even if we accept that [clinical studies] cannot be rigorously placebo-controlled, there is no reason whatsoever why a controlled trial of chiropractic versus either no treatment or a standard treatment would not be feasible." We therefore concluded that the evidence submitted by BritChiro fell short of the standard required by the CAP Code.

We welcomed BritChiro's decision to remove the references to arthritis and chronic pain from their ads but concluded that the reference to whiplash should also be removed.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 50.1 and 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general).

Action
We told BritChiro to remove the word "Dr" and reference to whiplash and to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

[Captured: 30 May 2008 00:28:23]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#47 Postby Alan C. » May 30th, 2008, 9:18 pm

Thanks for that Alan :thumbsup: We have two "Chiropractors" here, they usually have a large add in the paper but I just checked and they're not in this week.
I'm almost sure they use the title Dr in the add, so next time (probably next Friday) they have their adds in, I will be checking, and if they are using Dr I will be writing to the editor, I haven't had a letter in for weeks now, the religious bigots seem to have lost their appetite for debate. :sad:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#48 Postby Alan H » May 30th, 2008, 10:36 pm

Alan C. wrote:I haven't had a letter in for weeks now
Well, you've been busy! Writing a letter would be an excellent idea! Let us know how it goes.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#49 Postby Alan H » June 4th, 2008, 9:01 pm

********************************************************************************
Professor Mohammed
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44509.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Mohammed
68 Good Ram Gate
York
North Yorkshire
YO1 7LF

Date: 4 June 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Leisure

Ad
An ad on Prime TV in Urdu said "Thanks to the blessings of Almighty God as we are still able to manage our lives. Since 1952, Professor Mohammed has been helping people in need. For anything on astrology, numerology, tarot card reading, palmistry or horoscope, contact Professor Mohammed. Telephone number 0796 xxx xxxx." On-screen text stated who is filled with love is filled with God himself - Rumi" Serving since 1952, Disobedient children, Black Magic, Domestic Issues, Children, Business, Marriage, Professor Mohammed 0796 xxx xxxx.

Issue
Monitoring staff challenged whether the ad:

1. promoted an unacceptable category as defined by rules 3.1 (i) (the occult) and 10. 3 (The occult, psychic practices and exorcism);

2. offered a commercial service of individual advice on personal or consumer problems, contrary to rule 3.1 (j).

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 10.3;10.4;10.13;3.1(i);3.1(j)

Response
Prime TV explained that the original ad had been amended as a result of the Monitoring teams advice and had removed the references to "Disobedient children, Black magic, Domestic Issues, Children, Business, Marriage." They explained that the original version had been broadcast again by mistake.

Assessment
The ASA noted this was the second time that Monitoring staff had contacted Prime TV about astrology ads. Monitoring staff had obtained an assurance that Prime TV would not broadcast the last ad and we were concerned that Prime TV was applying the Code wrongly.

1. Upheld
The CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code prohibits advertising for products or services within the recognised character of the occult, psychic practices and exorcism. Note four states that psychic practices include astrology, personal horoscope readings and palmistry. Advertisements for tarot-based prediction services are exempted from rule 10.3 if:

the service is pre-recorded and that is explained in the advertisement and at the start of the recording and

the service is for entertainment only and that is clear from the advertising and is explained at the start of the recording and

all references to tarot in the service and the advertisement are qualified to make clear that it is not a "real" tarot service and

the service does not contain material that might feel threatening to callers or might harm, offend or distress them.

We considered that the ad promoted astrology, horoscope, numerology, tarot, black magic and palm reading services. We concluded that the ad was for an unacceptable category.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 3.1 (i) (the occult), 10.3 (The occult, psychic practices and exorcism), 10.4 (Superstition) and 10.13 Vulnerable viewers.

2. Upheld
The Code also prohibits (with certain exceptions) commercial services offering advice on personal or consumer problems. We considered that the services referred to in the ad, "Disobedient children ... Domestic Issues, Children, Business, Marriage", fell within that prohibition. We concluded that the ad was for an unacceptable category. Furthermore, we considered that even if the revised ad had been shown, the ads would have indirectly promoted an unacceptable product, because ads for commercial services offering individual advice on personal or consumer problems were prohibited.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 3.1 (j) (commercial services offering individual advice on personal or consumer problems).

Action
The ad must not be shown again.

[Captured: 04 June 2008 20:59:16]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#50 Postby Alan C. » June 6th, 2008, 8:20 pm

Just as I expected, the two adds are back in the paper this week :angry: The first one descibes herself thus.

Dr Joanne Middleton.
MSc (Chiro) DC
Chiropractor.

She says on her website.
I never knew what I wanted to do when I left school at 18. I had an inexhaustible passion for learning about the structure and workings of the human body, which led me to Glasgow University to gain an honors degree in physiology and neuroscience.

Would this give her a legal right to call herself DR?
I would need to know before writing a letter of complaint.
I found this on the GMC website

Results of search on: 06 Jun 2008 at 20:05:58. The details shown are valid at the date and time of the search only.

GMC Reference Number 4126643
Given Names Rachel Joanne
Surname Middleton
Gender Woman
Registration Status Registered





More Details
Primary Medical Qualification

MB ChB 1994 University of Leeds
Provisional Registration Date 26 Jul 1994
Full Registration Date 04 Aug 1995

Specialist Register entry date

Renal medicine From 15 Jun 2006

GP Register entry date This doctor is not in the GP Register
but I don't think this can be her? She says on her website that she studied at Glasgow.

The second one is a bit of a "traveling salesman" McTimony Chiropractic. D.C MMCA. GCC reg.
Will be visiting Shetland on...............yada, yada, yada. He doesnt call himself Dr (not in this add anyway.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#51 Postby Alan H » June 6th, 2008, 10:32 pm

Alan C. wrote:
I...an honors degree in physiology and neuroscience.[/b]

Would this give her a legal right to call herself DR?
Definitely not! I don't think the doctor you found on the GMC's website is her either.

I've had a quick look at her website and it is full of claims that do not stand up to scrutiny (some are downright outrageous). I'll pick out a few if you want to take it further?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#52 Postby Alan C. » June 6th, 2008, 11:02 pm

I've had a quick look at her website and it is full of claims that do not stand up to scrutiny (some are downright outrageous). I'll pick out a few if you want to take it further?
I certainly do Alan, and any help would be much appreciated :thumbsup:
I suppose I'll put the backs up of a lot of the locals, her being "Shetland bred" (they're all related you know?) But what the hell.
I find it hard to believe there are so many gullible people here, to support a full time woo-woo practitioner, and one who travels here numerous times a year (three times this month) according to his add.

Before I can take it further I must be certain that she isn't qualified to call herself Dr, is there anywhere else I can check (other than the GMC?)
Thanks, Alan.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#53 Postby Lifelinking » June 6th, 2008, 11:15 pm

Spurious claims and dubious qualifications aside, is it relevant to refer to manipulating joints in the spine as 'woo woo'?

I just checked on the British Chiropractic Association website and there is not Joanne Middleton registered there.

But there is a Joanne Middleton registered with the 'General Chiropractic Council'. A search brings up these details

Joanne Middleton
Reg. no: 01801
Date of Registration: 15/07/2002
Registration Status: Registered - Practising
Sex: F
Shetland Chiropractic
Toll Clock Shopping Centre
26 North Road
Lerwick
Shetland
ZE1 0PE
Tel: 01595 690988
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#54 Postby Lifelinking » June 6th, 2008, 11:27 pm

Also from the GCC website

Q10. Why do some chiropractors call themselves doctors?
A10.

In the UK the courtesy title 'Dr' is used by medical doctors, dentists, vets and chiropractors. The title 'Dr' is not protected in law, and may be used by chiropractors providing they make it clear that they are registered chiropractors they are not registered medical practitioners

"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#55 Postby Alan H » June 6th, 2008, 11:46 pm

LL: I thought Dr was protected by law — it should be.

Alan C: I'll pick out some stuff from her website over the next few days and email it to you.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#56 Postby Alan C. » June 6th, 2008, 11:54 pm

Lifelinking
Spurious claims and dubious qualifications aside, is it relevant to refer to manipulating joints in the spine as 'woo woo'?
Joints in the spine?
Well I wasn't referring to that in particular, rugby coaches, and probably football coaches do that.
About 25 years ago, Mary had been suffering back pain for a long time, the doctor didn't seem to be doing her any good and a friend, who was the "bag man" for Workington town rugby club, suggested she go and see the club phsyio, she made an appointment, and I went with her, following a short examination, he got her to lay face down on the floor, lifted her arms up behind her back, and put his foot on her spine, there was a crack and she cried out, but it certainly did the trick.

I don't think you can compare the above, with some of the ridiculous claims made by "Chyropractics"
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#57 Postby Lifelinking » June 7th, 2008, 12:42 am

joints in the spine?


Yes. Otherwise it would not be bendy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/factfiles/joints/spine_joints.shtml
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#58 Postby Emma Woolgatherer » June 7th, 2008, 1:43 am

Ben Goldacre wrote an article in the Guardian on the subject of chiropractors calling themselves 'Dr' a couple of years ago, under the heading, 'When in doubt, call yourself a doctor'. He wrote, 'By law, unlike "protected titles" such as nurse or physiotherapist, anyone can call themselves a doctor or a neurologist. Amusingly, on the other hand, you cannot call yourself a chiropractor ... because that is a protected term.' I sense he wasn't really amused.

Mind you, there was a complaint to the ASA about a press advertisement for the Beckenham & Bromley Chiropractic Clinic in November 2002. The complainant challenged whether the advertisers were justified in using the title "Dr". The complaint was upheld — partially, anyway — but it's worth looking at in detail.

You might also want to look at the House of Commons Hansard Debates on the subject of the title of "Dr", and who can use it, Friday 19 January 1996: Columns 1064-5, and 1066–70.

Emma

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#59 Postby Alan H » June 8th, 2008, 11:18 pm

Emma

Excellent articles and I can only admire your research skills! The ASA one is similar to the one I quoted above and Ben's article is, as usual, excellent. I've read through the Hansard, but I'll need to re-read it to fully understand it!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#60 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2008, 11:34 pm

Are people so gullible? No, don't answer that!
********************************************************************************
Margaret
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44660.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Margaret
77 Beak Street
London
W1F 9DB
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 9 July 2008
Media: Magazine
Sector: Leisure

Ad
A magazine ad for a clairvoyant stated "Do you need urgent help to solve a problem? Does the future appear hopeless? MARGARET CAN HELP YOU STEP FROM THE DARKNESS & PAIN INTO A BRIGHTER TOMORROW LOVE, MONEY, CURSES, FAMILY, STRESS, CAREER, EXAMS Know in advance the right direction to take to avoid obstacles. Love need no longer pass you by ... Resolve serious problems in your love ... Know your favourable financial phases and ... WIN. Without Margaret's guidance you will miss out on opportunities. Margaret will tackle your problems head on and solve them".

Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad implied that the advertiser's services were certain to work.

The CAP Code: 3.1;6.1;7.1;2.6

Response
Margaret did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Margaret's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded Margaret of her responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told her to do so in future.

In the absence of any response or evidence to substantiate the claims made in the ad, we considered that the claims had not been proven. We concluded that the ad was misleading and could exploit vulnerable people.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.6 (Non-response), 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
We told Margaret not to repeat the claims in future marketing. We urged her to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again and asked CAP to inform its members of the problem with Margaret.

[Captured: 11 July 2008 23:32:27]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22121
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#61 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2008, 11:37 pm

The lesson here is to make sure you can substantiate your claims (or at least spell check your ad!):
********************************************************************************
Ace Continental Exports Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44630.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Ace Continental Exports Ltd
Rays House
North Circular Road
London
NW10 7XP

Date: 2 July 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
An ad in Bengali for Rumoplus on Bangla TV said "Are you suffering from rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, sprains and strains or joint pains or lower back pain, cervical and limber spondylosis? Dont worry, take Rumoplus. The natural ingredients in Rumoplus will help you naturally to ease the pain and get back to work. Rumoplus. Call Ace Herbal Product on 0845 xxx xxxx that is 0845 xxx xxxx at Rumoplus.

On-screen text stated "are you suffering from Rheumatism, Arthritis, Fibrosis, Spondylosis, Sprains, Joins [sic] and lower back pains and cervical and limber spondylosis? Dont worry, take Rumoplus. The netureal [sic] ingredients in Rumoplus helps [sic] you naturally. Rumoplus. Ace Herbal Product Tel 0845 xxx xxxx http://www.dbcare.org over background graphics of a skeleton.

Issue
Monitoring staff challenged whether Rumoplus:

1. was a treatment for rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, sprains, strains, joint pains, lower back pain, cervical and limber spondylosis;

Monitoring staff challenged whether the ad:

2. made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product;

3. suggested that Rumopluss effectiveness was due to it containing "natural ingredients".

4. Monitoring staff challenged whether Bangla TV had sought independent medical advice as required by rule 8.1.1.

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.1;5.2.1;8.1.1;8.2.3;8.2.14

Response
Bangla TV withdrew the ad as soon as it was brought to their attention. Bangla TV submitted no evidence to substantiate the claims and did not comment on how they believed the ad complied with the Code.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Bangla TV promised to send the evidence when they received it from the advertiser. We were concerned that Bangla TV had not sought to evaluate the evidence before broadcast as required by the Code. Because we had not received any evidence, we considered that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

2. Upheld
We understood that Rumoplus did not hold a marketing authorisation under the Medicines Act 1968. Medicine law defines medicinal claims as those that suggest the product can treat or prevent a disease or restore, correct or modify physiological function by metabolic, pharmacological or immunological means. We considered that the ad offered to help sufferers of rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, cervical and limber spondylosis. We considered that the ad had made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.3 (Products without a marketing authorisation).

3. Upheld
We considered that the ad suggested Rumoplus was effective because of its "natural ingredients".

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.14 (Natural products).

4. Upheld
We noted Bangla TV had not sought independent medical advice for a proper assessment of claims as required by rule 8.1.1.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 8.1.1 (Assessment of claims).

Action
We concluded that the ad must not be shown again in its present form and that the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it. We reminded Bangla TV of its responsibility to ensure that transmitted advertisements complied with the Code.

[Captured: 11 July 2008 23:35:37]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest