Michelle Alexander and OfQuack (part 2)

Back in April I submitted a complaint to OfQuack (affectionately known in the sceptical community as the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council).

Shortly afterwards I was fobbed off - OfQuack, they wrote, accepted the validity of my complaint, but required six months to reconsider the guidance issued to their members.

(Image credit)

I wasn't the only person upon whom Ofquack had imposed a six-month cooling-off period (or should that be a "sod-off" period?) - though, curiously, the dates of other people's mandatory moratoriums were different to mine.

Anyway, today I re-submitted my complaint. The unfortunate victim is Michelle Alexander, a local reflexologist. The dubious claims she had made on her website in April are still in situ. They include the boasts that reflexology can

"...be applied to specific areas in [sic] your feet to affect an entirely different organ(s) or body part(s)...improve[s] the function of your organs and glands...help[s] remove crystalline deposits, re-opening energy channels allowing the body to re-balance and heal from within..."

Michelle's claims are now in OfQuack's in-tray... and so are the claims of nine other local Ofquack members!

(Apologies for the length of this post - but the ten miscreants will no doubt get a thrill from seeing their names in such pretty colours.)

"MICHELLE ALEXANDER (reflexology and aromatherapy)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Michelle Alexander (#000049-K09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist and aromatherapist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about the registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

(iv) My earlier complaint detailed a number of claims on the registrant's website [1].

(v) As of today (21 October), all the claims remain on the website [2].

2. Specifically, the claims are:

(i) Reflexology "reachs [sic] back to ancient Egypt"

(ii) Reflexology "help[s] remove crystalline deposits, re-opening energy channels allowing the body to re-balance and heal from within"

(iii) Reflexology "Imprves [sic] circulation"

(iv) Reflexology can be "applied to specific areas in [sic] your feet to affect an entirely different organ(s) or body part(s)"

(v) Reflexology "improve[s] the function of your organs and glands" and "bring[s] back the body's balance"

(vi) Reflexology "open[s] energy channels"

3. My earlier complaint dealt only with the registrant's activities as a reflexologist. The registrant now makes the following claims for her aromatherapy treatments [3]:

(i) Essential oils used in aromatherapy "not only help to kill bacteria and viruses but also stimulate the body's immune system, thereby strengthening resistance to further attack"

(ii) "Some essential oils increase the circulation and help with the efficient elimination of toxins, others promote new cell growth and encourage the body's natural ability to heal itself"

4. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

5. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

6. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.beautyswithin.co.uk/
[2] http://www.beautyswithin.co.uk/www.beautyswithin.co.uk/info.php?p=23
[3] http://www.beautyswithin.co.uk/www.beautyswithin.co.uk/info.php?p=20

ALEXANDRA MILLS (reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Alexandra Mills (#000138-L09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Reflexology brings "relief from a wide range of acute and chronic conditions"

(ii) Reflexology boosts the "natural internal healing mechanisms" of the body and "can facilitate healing"

(iii) Reflexology can "improve circulation and nerve function"

(iv) Reflexology can "Enhance lymph drainage to eliminate waste, toxins and impurities"

(v) Reflexology can "Boost and strengthen the immune system"

(vi) Reflexology can cause "lessening" of symptoms for sufferers of "arthritis", "asthma", "allergies", "back pain", "neck pain", "digestive disorders", "headaches", "migraines", "hormonal imbalances", "insomnia", "IBS", "menopausal problems", "PMT", "pregnancy", "sciatic pain", "sinusitis", "tinnitus"

3. (i) A whole page of the registrant's website is devoted to the claim that "reflexology may help problems with fertility" [2].

(ii) The registrant cites three "studies", none of which appear to be randomised, controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

(iii) The first "study" (Eriksen et al) appears to be a booklet espousing the author's views on reflexology.

(iv) The second "study" (Dong et al) appears to be a set of four case studies - not any kind of clinical trial.

(iii) The third "study" is linked to an article in the Daily Mail, promoting a trial which had not even commenced at the time of writing.

4. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

(iii) Specifically, I challenge whether the claim "reflexology may help problems with fertility", as supported by the three "studies", can be substantiated and justified.

5. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

6. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.reflexologistinmiltonkeynes.co.uk/
[2] http://www.reflexologistinmiltonkeynes.co.uk/page/problems_with_fertility

JOY FISHER (Bowen Therapy)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Joy Fisher (#000192-B10), who is registered with the CNHC as a Bowen Therapy practitioner.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Bowen Therapy "can be used very effectively to treat a wide variety of conditions including" "back problems", "frozen shoulders", "tennis elbows", "sports injuries", "M[yalgic] E[ncephalopathy]", "PMT", "asthma", "hayfever", "chronic headaches", "migraines"

(ii) "Four to six treatments" of Bowen Therapy can "bring about the necessary improvement" for sufferers of "long-standing chronic conditions"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.joyfisher.co.uk/

LIZ STRANGWAYS (reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Liz Strangways (#000221-I09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Reflexology can "improve the functioning of virtually every organ"

(ii) Reflexology "may help to" "reduce congestion", "relieve pain", "improve circulation", "encourage recovery from injury"

(iii) Reflexology "may bring relief from" "back pain", "migraine", "arthritis", "sleep disorders", "hormonal imbalances", "sports injuries", "digestive problems", "pregnancy-related health conditions"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.lizstrangways.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/2865?opendocument&part=2

MONA NAYAR (reflexology and aromatherapy)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Mona Nayar (#000132-J09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist and aromatherapist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. A web-page promoting the registrant [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Reflexology can cause "toxins" to be "released via the circulatory and lymphatic system"

(ii) Reflexology can "[help] the body to heal itself"

(iii) Reflexology can "successfully...treat" "infertility", "Irritable bowel syndrome", "respiratory disorders", "lower back pain", "hip and knee pain", "tinnitus", "many other hormonal imbalance conditions"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.naturaltherapypages.co.uk/therapist/9219

NEVILLE HARWOOD (reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Neville Harwood (#000139-L09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Reflexology "stimulates the body's own...healing system" and "encourages areas that are not working properly, to function normally again"

(ii) Reflexology allows "not only the symptoms of the problem to be treated, but also the cause"

(iii) Reflexology "Improves the circulation"

(iv) Reflexology "Cleanses the body of toxins and impurities"

(v) Reflexology "can help with many common ailments", specifically "asthma", "back pain", "chronic fatigue [syndrome]", "circulatory disorders", "IBS", "eczema", "psoriasis", "hormonal imbalances", "insomnia", "migraine", "sinusitis"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [his] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [his] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.healingaspects.co.uk/reflexology.html

PAULA LOUISE CATFORD (reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Paula Louise Catford (#000240-I09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, these "facts about reflexology" are:

(i) "Reflexology triggers the body's own healing mechanism"

(ii) "Reflexology may boost the immune system..."

(iii) "Reflexology improves circulation"

(iv) "Reflexology aids in the elimination of toxins"

3. The "What Reflexology can do for you" page of the registrant's website [2] claims that "Reflexology has been shown to be effective" for "Migraine - Fatigue - Muscular aches and pains - Sinusitis - Hayfever - Back pain - Sleep disorders - Hormone Imbalances (Fertility, PMS, Menopause) - Digestive Disorders..."

4. The "Fertility reflexology" page of the registrant's website [3] claims that:

(i) "Reflexology has shown to be highly beneficial in balancing the body and it's [sic] systems, so hormones may be at the correct levels to regulating your cycles..."

(ii) "...This inturn [sic] helps to pin point [sic] ovulation"

(iii) Reflexology "may be very beneficial in reducing that stress and tension and as stated above can improve blood circulation, may strengthen the immune system and balance hormones."

5. The "Pregnancy Reflexology" page of the registrant's website [4] claims that "Reflexology may be beneficial in easing morning sickness, constipation, mood swings, indigestion, tiredness, back problems, insomnia and swollen ankles feet and hands".

6. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

7. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

8. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.your-reflexologist.co.uk/
[2] http://www.your-reflexologist.co.uk/pages/what-can-reflexology-do-for-you.php
[3] http://www.your-reflexologist.co.uk/pages/fertility-reflexology.php
[4] http://www.your-reflexologist.co.uk/pages/pregnancy-reflexology.php

SAMANTHA ELDRIGE-POWELL_(reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Samantha Eldridge-Powell (#000052-B09), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) "Meridians are invisible channels that run through the body carrying energy... If this energy becomes blocked illness may result. Reflexology can help unblock this energy so self healing can take place"

(ii) The "benefits" of reflexology include "reduced...depression", "reduced aches and pains", "reduced...tension headaches", "improved circulation", "more efficient removal of toxins"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.findwellbeing.co.uk/pages/reflexology.php

SHANA ECKMAN (Shiatsu)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Sharon Eckman (#000145-L09), who is registered with the CNHC as a shiatsu therapist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] [2] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Shiatsu "stimulate[s] the circulation and the flow of lymphatic fluid, helping to release toxins..."

(ii) Shiatsu "energis[es] the body's organs and internal systems"

(iii) Shiatsu has a "powerful effect on conditions such as depression (including post-natal) anxiety, insomnia..."

(iv) Shiatsu "works just as well on physical conditions (acute and chronic) such as back and neck problems and sports-related injuries"

(v) Shiatsu "has proved to be extremely beneficial in pregnancy, working with the body to help with back pain, morning sickness and nausea and fluctuating energy levels"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.


Footnotes:

[1] http://www.shiatsusharoneckman.co.uk/?q=node/2
[2] http://www.shiatsusharoneckman.co.uk/?q=node/8

TRACEY FIELD (reflexology)

This document has been written to accompany my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regarding Tracey Field (#000499-B10), who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.

1. (i) On 12 April 2010 I submitted a complaint to the CNHC about a different registrant.

(ii) On 17 April you wrote to tell me that, in order for the Council to amend its guidance to registrants on advertising, you would not accept any similar complaints for a period of six months.

(iii) That period has now expired.

2. The registrant's website [1] contains a number of dubious claims. Specifically, they are:

(i) Reflexology "can help relieve many conditions", specifically "insomnia", "muscular aches and pains", "back pain", "sciatica", "headache", "migraine", "sinusitis", "PMS", "menopause symptoms", "infertility", "IBS and other digestive problems"

(ii) "By using specific pressure techniques", reflexologists can "detect...energy blockages"

(iii) Reflexology can "break down crystalline structure[s] and encourage the body to heal itself"

3. (i) Section 15 of the Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics For Registrants states "You must not make or support unjustifiable statements relating to particular products or services".

(ii) I challenge whether the registrant can substantiate and justify any of the claims I have detailed above.

4. Regarding the claims, I challenge further whether:

(i) under Section 1, the registrant has "act[ed] always in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"

(ii) under Section 7, the registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate...communications with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"

(iii) under Section 15, the registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"

(iv) under Section A ('Introduction'), the registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"

5. I confirm that I have never been a patient of the registrant, and that I have no connections with the registrant.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.feetfirst-reflexology.co.uk/reflexology.html
"