A success with Victoria Chiropractic, a chap called Lanigan, and a paradigmatically relevant hypothesis...

Hurrah, time to chalk one up for the good guys! Following my complaint to Victoria Chiropractic Clinic in Woking I have finally had a response from Jeremy Spanton. As you may remember, I complained about his misleading use of the "Dr" title as well as his claims to be able to treat childhood illnesses such as colic.

He emailed me today to confirm that he had been

"in touch with my association, and on their recommendation... I have altered my name to Jeremy Spanton, Doctor of Chiropractic, and have removed mention of the specific childhood ailments for which Chiropractic can be helpful"

Sure enough, a quick visit to his site confirms that he now correctly identifies himself as a "Doctor of Chiropractic" and whilst he still refers to treating children he has removed references to colic, ADHD, IBS etc. The tone of this page has also been changed somewhat. I'm still not comfortable with his equating spinal exams with dental and hearing tests, but it's a big improvement.

Now, his reference to being in contact with his association interested me. Was he talking about the GCC (the industry regulator) or BCA? As you may know, the BCA are currently suing Simon Singh for claiming that treatments for conditions such as colic are "bogus". It struck me that if the BCA was now advising its members to remove references to such conditions then it might have some bearing on the case.

It turns out Spanton was referring to neither. He was in fact refering to the United Chiropractics Association (UCA), an organisation I had never heard of before.

I looked the UCA up, and what an odd bunch they are! The first thing that struck me was how unprofessional their website looked - kind of worrying for a "professional association". It looks like something straight out of the '90s.

It seems the UCA was set up in 2001 by a bunch of disgruntled chiropractors who were concerned that existing organisations just weren't wacky enough didn't adequately represent "the subluxation based wellness view of chiropractic". These are the people who won't only claim to help you with your sore lower back, posture etc. These are the ones that will claim to help with all sorts of conditions, for which there is no evidence chiropractic can help.

Their "Mission" page shows how bizarre they get. It's full of mumbo-jumbo cod philosophy that would make even a stoned sociology undergraduate blush. They base their mission around a "Philosophical Construct" that states:

Vitalism: We ascribe to the idea that all living organisms are sustained by an innate intelligence, which is both different from and greater than physical and chemical forces. Further we believe innate intelligence is an expression of universal intelligence.

Holism: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Neural supremacy: We ascribe to the concept that the nervous system is the major co-ordinator and regulator of all bodily systems.

Conservative ethic: Our belief in the body's ability to heal itself logically implies that the best care is the least invasive care.

Humanism: We ascribe to the belief that individuals have immutable rights.

Indeed.

Looking further down the page we have the following gems:

In Relation To The Science Of Chiropractic

- Science should seek to answer paradigmatically relevant hypothesis, which by necessity, are borne out of our philosophical constructs
- Science itself is based on a metaphysical belief system built on a priori assumptions not amenable to proof.

This is classic "woo", and a clear attempt to change the rules of the game. Essentially, they're saying "science is what we say it is". That makes it nice and easy to later say that "science" says this stuff works. I call that bullshit.

The UCA currently have 250, 350 or 450 members, depending on which page you look at. Jeremy Spanton is one of them. I dare say the websites of a fair few others contain a few unjutifiable claims.

This isn't the end of the story though. What this demonstrates to me is that chiropractors don't really know what they are. The internal politics of the profession seem quite interesting, and mirrors some of the disputes between other alternative medicine groups such as that between the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths and the Society of Homeopaths:

SoH has sent out inaccurate and defamatory information to ARH members to coincide with ARH membership renewals. This communication has been accompanied by information and registering documents inviting ARH registered members to join SoH. This at the very least, constitutes unethical behaviour.

[T]he SoH’s recent actions suggest that they are more concerned about preserving their own position of power within the profession, than representing the actual needs of practising homeopaths.

I was made aware of the internal politics of chiropractic when a Richard Lanigan copied and entire earlier post of mine on his blog.

It seems Lanigan hopes that complaints from skeptics such as myself will bankrupt the GCC. Lanigan can't call himself a chiropractor, because he isn't one. He resigned from the GCC last year. Though he does offer chiropractic treatment at his clinic. in Kingston-upon-Thames. He is good enough to tell us on his website that:

This may affect your ability to claim from an insurance provider for chiropractic treatment from Richard

Buyer beware!

Not being a member of the GCC does have its benefits though. It means he is presumably not bound by their code of conduct and can therefore make whatever claims he likes on his website.

There's more to say on Lanigan, the BCA and the GCC, but I'll leave it there for now.

Make what you will of all of this. Perhaps you could even make a "paradigmatically relevant hypothesis"!

Neal's Yard - who thought this would be a good idea?

The Guardian have a regular "You ask, they answer" column as part of their "Ethical Living" blog.

Today, the "they" in question is Neal's Yard, the well known spelling mistake and woo-remedy store. I can see the team meeting at Neal's Yard HQ, with everyone sat on bean bags drinking organic herbal tea (coffee and boardroom tables being too corporate!). Desperate to spread the message of holistic organic goodness, someone comes up with the idea of getting a piece into The Guardian. After all, surely only mung bean eating, sandal wearing beardy hippies read The Guardian.... don't they?

It obviously didn't occur to them that a fair few skeptics also read The Guardian, and regularly frequent thier Comment is Free website.

So far, around 25 questions have been asked. I don't think Neal's Yard will enjoy answering them. Here are a choice few:

Benulek : How do you validate the medical efficacy of your 'remedies'?

Saltycdogg : Do you see no problem with trying to be 'ethical' while at the same time selling snake oil for a living?

puzzlebobble : you sell a multitude of products for a wide variety of medical conditions, some of which are serious or life threatening.

Please could you explain what level of evidence of efficacy you require before stocking any product?

If, as I suspect, the level of evidence of efficacy is poor then will you tell us what, if any, studies are done to look for harmful side-effects? How are these studies conducted? Furthermore please show us the power calculations for these studies.

Surely you don't view it as ethical to sell products which are of unproven benefit and which you don't even know are safe?

takearisk : Your website states:

The correct homoeopathic remedy will stimulate a sick person's vitality to send healing energy where it is needed, thus rectifying mental, emotional and physical imbalances.

Could you please explain how the 'correct homoeopathic remedy' is decided on and describe the qualifications of the people who make these decisions?

I'd also be grateful for a biological definition of 'healing energy' and an indication of where I can find the scientific evidence for its existence.

I can't wait for the answers.

Virgos need not apply - Hiring through horoscope

I've checked the date, and we're still a good few weeks away from 1st April. But how else can you explain an Austrian insurance company selecting employees based on their star signs?

The Salzburg insurance company has performed a statistical analysis of its employees' star signs and have determined that those who are Capricorn, Taurus, Aquarius, Aries and Leo are their best workers. They therefore want to make sure that Sales & Management recruits for 20 new roles also have said star signs.

Now, I haven't been able to find any details of this statistical analysis, and if anyone else has come across it I'd love to see it.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about this is that it doesn't seem to be illegal. In fact, the Salzburg employees council have said:

'When an employer considers star signs and says: "I want to only hire Pisces, for an example, it must be assumed that within this group of people born under the sign of Pisces there are old and young people, women and women etc. It does appear like a certain limitation, but it is not discrimination.'

It'll be interesting to see how astrologers react to this. On the one hand I can see them being happy that a mainstream business is buying into the whole astrology idea, but at the same time I doubt they'd be happy at it being used to discriminate.

The mind boggles!