More Homeopaths Caught In The Act

The task of spotting misleading claims on homeopathic websites is proving even easier than anyone thought.

(Image credit)

Of the three thousand or so homeopaths who are already on my little list, I've chosen three, entirely at random. Let's find out whether they're complying with their responsibilities.

(This is quite a long post, but stay with me. There's a good punchline coming up.)

(Image credit)

Pictured above is Sue Berry who runs an "Online Homeopathic Consultation" service. Leaving aside the ethics of dispensing licensed medicines to people who might be anywhere in the world except sitting in front of you - how does Sue's sales pitch bear up?

"So, when I am asked, 'what can you treat' my answer is anyone experiencing symptoms of dis-ease."

No problems so far. The placebo effect can be very convincing.

But wait, there's more!

"WHAT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT CAN DO FOR YOU - Help with many health problems, physical, mental or emotional - Treat all dis-ease..."

Sue doesn't clarify exactly which "all dis-eases" she imagines she can "treat", but the claims she makes for her Homeopathic First Aid Remedy Kits are rather less vague.

"Perfect for treating people experiencing the most common... injuries, such as common cold, shock, insect bites, upset stomach and fevers... treats measles and meningitis... Treats infections and infected wounds... Treats mouth ulcers and colds... Treats bronchitis, laryngitis and haemorrhages... Supports the liver... Aids bone and teeth formation... treats colic... Excellent remedy for (whooping) cough..."

(Image credit)

The second test subject is June Sayer, who runs a complementary health clinic in Southend. According to her own biography:

"June's enthusiasm and passion for homeopathy has given her the opportunity of treating a variety of people who have been suffering from a wide range of complaints both acute and chronic during the 18 years she has been in practice"

June isn't reticent in naming them.

"Homeopathy is known to be able to treat many conditions - a few of those that have been successfully helped by homeopathic treatment are: A[ttention] D[eficit] H[yperactivity] D[isorder]... Allergies (food sensitivities)... Asthma... Acne... Eczema... Hay-fever and other seasonal allergies... Psoriasis... Female problems..."

(Image credit)

Our last hope is Nigel Bird. Nigel is a qualified pharmacist who moonlights as a magical potion salesman. His mastery of modern pharmacology is neatly summarised in his own words:

"There [are] over 4,500 remedies available tro [sic] treat all disease from babies and children to adults of any age"

Yes, he really did say all disease. To underline the point, he claims that homeopathy is "proven" to treat

"...malaria..."

That particular delusion was the final straw for me. This afternoon I quickly fired off letters of protest to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

I've also raised the matter with Trading Standards and lodged formal complaints with the trio's professional organisation, the hilariously-titled Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH).

By an astonishing coincidence, the three homeopaths that I chose "entirely at random" from a "list of three thousand" happen to be the, errr... the Board of Directors of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths!

Nigel is in charge of annoying real doctors, June is the "Company Secretary" and Sue is responsible for "Ethics and Welfare". Which presumably means that she'll soon be investigating herself!

SUE BERRY - ASA COMPLAINT

I'm writing to complain about the marketing claims I read today (9th March 2011, at 1pm) on the website www.hrfa.co.uk

The site - which redirects to another UK-based site, www.homeopathyremediesforall.com - promotes the services of Susan Berry, a homeopath who lives in Sussex.

The pages in question are too big for a screenshot, so I've used a mirroring website. The ASA online complaints form doesn't accept HTML files yet, but I have saved a copy and can send them to you, if necessary.

1. The main page of the site makes a number of health claims for homeopathy. I'd like to challenge if the advertiser can substantiate any of them.

http://www.homeopathyremediesforall.com/index.asp
http://www.freezepage.com/1299675983VHBLERZSIJ

(i) "So, when I am asked, 'what can you treat' my answer is anyone experiencing symptoms of dis-ease."

(ii) "Homeopathic treatment helps our bodies to heal."

(iii) "WHAT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT CAN DO FOR YOU - Help with many health problems, physical, mental or emotional - Treat all dis-ease, together with conventional medicine, or on its own..."

(iv) "...homeopathy can also help your pets..."

2. Another page promotes "Homeopathic First Aid Remedy Kits". The kits are introduced as follows:

http://www.homeopathyremediesforall.com/Homeopathic_First_Aid_Remedy_Kits.asp
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676038WOQTXIVVDW

"Homeopathy for All's First Aid Remedy Kits are ideal for home use. Each kit contains a selection of 10 remedies to treat common symptoms. Each remedy is contained in a bottle, which holds approximately 35 doses in pillule form... Each of our remedy kits cost £15 (plus £3.50 UK... postage and packaging)"

3. I'd like to challenge whether the advertiser can substantiate any of the following health claims. I'd also like to challenge whether the claims are misleading, whether the advertising contains claims about licensed homeopathic remedies which do not appear on the labels, whether the claims that homeopathy "treats" life-threatening conditions such as "measles", "meningitis", "shock" and "infected wounds" are irresponsible, and whether the advertising fails to include a warning to consult a medical doctor if symptoms persist (not including the claim for meningitis):

(i) The "First Aid Remedy Kit" is "Perfect for treating people experiencing the most common... injuries, such as common cold, shock, insect bites, upset stomach and fevers"

(ii) The "Remedy" Apis "Also treats... measles and meningitis"

(iii) The "Remedy" Hepar-Sulph 30 "Treats infections... and infected wounds"

(iv) The "Remedy" Mercury "Treats mouth ulcers and colds"

(v) The "Remedy" Phosphorus "Treats bronchitis, laryngitis and haemorrhages"

(vi) The "Remedy" Chelidonium 6X "Supports the liver"

(vii) The "Remedy" Ledum and Hypericum can treat "wounds that will not heal"

(viii) The "Remedy" Ant Tart "Treats coughs, fever and mucus in the airways"

(ix) The "Remedy" Calc Carb "Aids bone and teeth formation"

(x) The "Remedy" Chamomilla is the "No. 1 remedy for teething children" and "treats colic"

(xi) The "Remedy" Pulsatilla "Treats emotional mood swings in babies"

(xii) The "Remedy" Drosera is an "Excellent remedy for (whooping) cough"

4. I can confirm that I have no connections with the alternative medicine industry.

SUE BERRY - ARH COMPLAINT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to lodge a formal complaint against Sue Berry, MARH.

The matter concerns the contents of Ms Berry's websites www.hrfa.co.uk and www.homeopathyremediesforall.com - the first one redirects to the second, and both contain identical content; additionally, the first is promoted on the Alliance's "Find a Homeopath" register.

I argue that Ms Berry may be responsible for multiple breaches of the Alliance's "Code of Ethics and Practice", specifically Sections 31, 36 and 37.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the voluntary regulator for all marketing in the UK.

2. On 1st March 2011, the ASA's remit was extended to embrace online marketing activities, including "companies’ own marketing claims on their own websites and in other non-paid for space they control" (http://www.asa.org.uk/Media-Centre/2011/New-online-remit-enhances-consumer-protection.aspx)

3. For marketing communications promoting homeopathic products and services, the relevant sections of the British Code of Advertising Practice (CAP Code) include:

(i) Section 3.1 'Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.'

(ii) Section 3.7 'Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.'

(iii) Section 3.11 'Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.'

(iv) Section 3.13 'Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists.'

(v) Section 3.47 'Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.'

(vi) Section 12.1 'Objective [health] claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge...'

(vii) Section 12.2 'Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.'

(viii) Section 12.5 'Marketers inviting consumers to diagnose their minor ailments must not make claims that might lead to a mistaken diagnosis.'

(ix) Section 12.6 'Marketers should not falsely claim that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or malformations.'

(x) Section 12.7 'References to the relief of symptoms or the superficial signs of ageing are acceptable if they can be substantiated.'

(xi) Section 12.10 'Marketing communications must not suggest that any product is safe or effective merely because it is “natural” or that it is generally safer because it omits an ingredient in common use.'

(xii) Section 12.14 'Marketers must not use fear or anxiety to promote a medicine or a recovery from illness and must not suggest that using or avoiding a product can affect normal health.'

(xiii) Section 12.15 'Illustrations of the effect or action of a product should be accurate.'

(xiv) Section 12.19 'Marketing communications for a medicine may not claim that its effects are as good as or better than those of another identifiable product.'

(xv) Section 12.20 'Homeopathic medicinal products must be registered in the UK. Any product information given in the marketing communication should be confined to what appears on the label. Marketing communications must include a warning to consult a doctor if symptoms persist. Marketing communications for an unlicensed product must not make a medicinal or therapeutic claim or refer to an ailment unless authorised by the MHRA to do so.'

4. Sections 36 and 37 of the Alliance's Code of Ethics state that all registrants are expected to observe the CAP Code in their marketing materials:

(i) '36. All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice.'

(ii) '37. Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims...'

5. In addition, Section 31 states:

(i) '31. Registrants must observe and keep up to date with all legislation and regulations relating directly or indirectly to the practice of homeopathy.'

REGULATION

6. It is not in dispute that many of the Alliance's registrants hold the opinion that homeopathy is effective for a range of medical conditions; neither is it in dispute that these beliefs are held sincerely.

7. The only matter of importance is a registrant's compliance or non-compliance with the advertising regulations to which they are professionally bound.

8. At present, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) do not accept that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy have been substantiated by rigorous clinical evidence:

(i) "Despite its popularity, CAP understands that no scientific rationale exists for assuming that remedies lacking in pharmacologically active molecules can produce clinical effects and is unaware of robust evidence that proves it does." (http://www.copyadvice.org.uk/Ad-Advice/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Homeopathy.aspx)

9. Section 12.1 of the CAP Code, quoted earlier, requires that all marketers hold substantiation, in the form of rigorous clinical evidence, before making health claims in their marketing materials.

COMPLAINT

10. I complain that Ms Berry may have breached the Alliance's Code of Ethics in respect of the following marketing claims found on her website, on March 9th 2011. (I give the full URL of the page, and a mirrored copy of the page as it was on that date.)

http://www.homeopathyremediesforall.com/index.asp
http://www.freezepage.com/1299675983VHBLERZSIJ

(i) "So, when I am asked, 'what can you treat' my answer is anyone experiencing symptoms of dis-ease."

(ii) "Homeopathic treatment helps our bodies to heal."

(iii) "WHAT HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT CAN DO FOR YOU - Help with many health problems, physical, mental or emotional - Treat all dis-ease, together with conventional medicine, or on its own..."

(iv) "...homeopathy can also help your pets..."

http://www.homeopathyremediesforall.com/Homeopathic_First_Aid_Remedy_Kits.asp
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676038WOQTXIVVDW

(v) The "First Aid Remedy Kit" is "Perfect for treating people experiencing the most common... injuries, such as common cold, shock, insect bites, upset stomach and fevers"

(vi) The "Remedy" Apis "Also treats... measles and meningitis"

(vii) The "Remedy" Hepar-Sulph 30 "Treats infections... and infected wounds"

(viii) The "Remedy" Mercury "Treats mouth ulcers and colds"

(ix) The "Remedy" Phosphorus "Treats bronchitis, laryngitis and haemorrhages"

(x) The "Remedy" Chelidonium 6X "Supports the liver"

(xi) The "Remedy" Ledum and Hypericum can treat "wounds that will not heal"

(xii) The "Remedy" Ant Tart "Treats coughs, fever and mucus in the airways"

(xiii) The "Remedy" Calc Carb "Aids bone and teeth formation"

(xiv) The "Remedy" Chamomilla is the "No. 1 remedy for teething children" and "treats colic"

(xv) The "Remedy" Pulsatilla "Treats emotional mood swings in babies"

(xvi) The "Remedy" Drosera is an "Excellent remedy for (whooping) cough"

RESOLUTION

11. I have never been a patient of Ms Berry, nor do I have any connection with her, nor do I have any conflicts of interest to declare. I write in the capacity of a concerned member of the public.

12. Because I have no personal connections with Ms Berry which might admit of an informal resolution, I have considered the Code's advice (Section 59) and opted not to implement "Stage One" of the complaints process (Section 60) but am instead making a written complaint to the PCO (Section 61).

13. There are two possible routes which might lead to a speedy resolution of the complaint:

(i) Ms Berry might produce new clinical evidence, not yet considered by CAP and of sufficient quality to substantiate all the marketing claims she makes in her websites

(ii) Ms Berry might accept the PCO's advice that her claims are not substantiated, are not "factual", are "unrealistic" or "extravagant", and undertake to remove the claims from her websites and all future marketing materials

14. I will readily agree to any resolution proposed by the PCO or Ms Berry that achieves either of these two objectives.

JUNE SAYER - ASA COMPLAINT

I'm writing to complain about the marketing claims I read today (9th March 2011, at 1pm) on the website www.sapphirecentre.co.uk

The site promotes the services of June Sayer, a homeopath.

The pages in question are too big for a screenshot, so I've used a mirroring website. The ASA online complaints form doesn't accept HTML files yet, but I have saved a copy and can send them to you, if necessary.

1. The site promotes the "Sapphire Complementary Health and Training Centre" in Southend. The Centre offers a number of complementary health treatments.

2. The site explains June Sayer's role in the provision of its homeopathy services:

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=about-sapphire-centre-southend
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676405ZMQHFSSEZK

(i) "The centre is run by June Sayer who has a wealth of experience within the field of complementary health."

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=june-blog
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676476PHNEYWQJSL

(ii) "June's deep love of the healing art of Homeopathy culminated in her opening Sunningdale College of Homeopathy in 2003 as a training centre for people wishing to train for an independent career in homeopathy. The college is now known as Sapphire Complementary Health & Training Centre and is based in the centre of Southend. June teaches all aspects of the homeopathic training course and continues to carry on her practice at this centre."

3. The site makes a number of health claims for the efficacy of homeopathy. I'd like to challenge whether the advertiser can substantiate any of them.

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=homeopathy
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676504DGJRTBSSCO

(i) Homeopathy "works" by "stimulating the body's natural defense [sic] system to promote health and well-being"

(ii) "Homeopathy is known to be able to treat many conditions"

(iii) The advertiser has "successfully helped", using her "homeopathic treatment", "A[ttention] D[eficit] H[yperactivity] D[isorder]... Allergies (food sensitivities)... Asthma... Acne... Eczema... Hay-fever and other seasonal allergies... Psoriasis... Female problems..."

(iv) "...homeopathy works by treating the patient, not the disease"

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=june-blog
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676559STEBFUZLYK

(v) "June's enthusiasm and passion for homeopathy has given her the opportunity of treating a variety of people who have been suffering from a wide range of complaints both acute and chronic during the 18 years she has been in practice"

(vi) "Homeopathy... has been known to help where other treatments may not have"

(vii) Homeopathy can be "safely used at home in first-aid situations"

4. I'd also like to challenge whether the following claim misleadingly implies that homeopathy is safe or effective because it is "natural":

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=homeopathy
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676504DGJRTBSSCO

() "...homeopathic remedies are natural, safe, non-toxic and non-addictive and can be used by anyone at any stage including by children, pregnant women and the elderly. We do however, recommend that a pregnant woman seeks the advice of a qualified practitioner to assist her in treatment."

5. I can confirm that I have no connections with the alternative medicine industry.

JUNE SAYER - ARH COMPLAINT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to lodge a formal complaint against June Sayer DHom(Med) HMD FBIH D.N.Th D.Iridol. MARH.

The matter concerns the contents of Ms Sayer's website
www.sapphirecentre.co.uk

I argue that Ms Sayer may be responsible for multiple breaches of the Alliance's "Code of Ethics and Practice", specifically Sections 31, 36 and 37.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the voluntary regulator for all marketing in the UK.

2. On 1st March 2011, the ASA's remit was extended to embrace online marketing activities, including "companies’ own marketing claims on their own websites and in other non-paid for space they control" (http://www.asa.org.uk/Media-Centre/2011/New-online-remit-enhances-consumer-protection.aspx)

3. For marketing communications promoting homeopathic products and services, the relevant sections of the British Code of Advertising Practice (CAP Code) include:

(i) Section 3.1 'Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.'

(ii) Section 3.7 'Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.'

(iii) Section 3.11 'Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.'

(iv) Section 3.13 'Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists.'

(v) Section 3.47 'Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.'

(vi) Section 12.1 'Objective [health] claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge...'

(vii) Section 12.2 'Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.'

(viii) Section 12.5 'Marketers inviting consumers to diagnose their minor ailments must not make claims that might lead to a mistaken diagnosis.'

(ix) Section 12.6 'Marketers should not falsely claim that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or malformations.'

(x) Section 12.7 'References to the relief of symptoms or the superficial signs of ageing are acceptable if they can be substantiated.'

(xi) Section 12.10 'Marketing communications must not suggest that any product is safe or effective merely because it is “natural” or that it is generally safer because it omits an ingredient in common use.'

(xii) Section 12.14 'Marketers must not use fear or anxiety to promote a medicine or a recovery from illness and must not suggest that using or avoiding a product can affect normal health.'

(xiii) Section 12.15 'Illustrations of the effect or action of a product should be accurate.'

(xiv) Section 12.19 'Marketing communications for a medicine may not claim that its effects are as good as or better than those of another identifiable product.'

(xv) Section 12.20 'Homeopathic medicinal products must be registered in the UK. Any product information given in the marketing communication should be confined to what appears on the label. Marketing communications must include a warning to consult a doctor if symptoms persist. Marketing communications for an unlicensed product must not make a medicinal or therapeutic claim or refer to an ailment unless authorised by the MHRA to do so.'

4. Sections 36 and 37 of the Alliance's Code of Ethics state that all registrants are expected to observe the CAP Code in their marketing materials:

(i) '36. All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice.'

(ii) '37. Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims...'

5. In addition, Section 31 states:

(i) '31. Registrants must observe and keep up to date with all legislation and regulations relating directly or indirectly to the practice of homeopathy.'

REGULATION

6. It is not in dispute that many of the Alliance's registrants hold the opinion that homeopathy is effective for a range of medical conditions; neither is it in dispute that these beliefs are held sincerely.

7. The only matter of importance is a registrant's compliance or non-compliance with the advertising regulations to which they are professionally bound.

8. At present, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) do not accept that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy have been substantiated by rigorous clinical evidence:

(i) "Despite its popularity, CAP understands that no scientific rationale exists for assuming that remedies lacking in pharmacologically active molecules can produce clinical effects and is unaware of robust evidence that proves it does." (http://www.copyadvice.org.uk/Ad-Advice/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Homeopathy.aspx)

9. Section 12.1 of the CAP Code, quoted earlier, requires that all marketers hold substantiation, in the form of rigorous clinical evidence, before making health claims in their marketing materials.

COMPLAINT

10. I complain that Ms Sayer may have breached the Alliance's Code of Ethics in respect of the following marketing claims found on her website, on March 9th 2011. (I give the full URL of the page, and a mirrored copy of the page as it was on that date.)

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=homeopathy
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676504DGJRTBSSCO

(i) Homeopathy "works" by "stimulating the body's natural defense [sic] system to promote health and well-being"

(ii) "Homeopathy is known to be able to treat many conditions"

(iii) The advertiser has "successfully helped", using her "homeopathic treatment", "A[ttention] D[eficit] H[yperactivity] D[isorder]... Allergies (food sensitivities)... Asthma... Acne... Eczema... Hay-fever and other seasonal allergies... Psoriasis... Female problems..."

(iv) "...homeopathy works by treating the patient, not the disease"

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=june-blog
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676476PHNEYWQJSL

(v) "June's enthusiasm and passion for homeopathy has given her the opportunity of treating a variety of people who have been suffering from a wide range of complaints both acute and chronic during the 18 years she has been in practice"

(vi) "Homeopathy... has been known to help where other treatments may not have"

(vii) Homeopathy can be "safely used at home in first-aid situations"

11. I also complain that Ms Sayer may have breached the Alliance's Code of Ethics in respect of the following marketing claim, which would seem to be in breach of the CAP Code Section 12.10 (quoted above):

http://www.sapphirecentre.co.uk/index.php?page=homeopathy
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676504DGJRTBSSCO

(i) "...homeopathic remedies are natural, safe, non-toxic and non-addictive and can be used by anyone at any stage including by children, pregnant women and the elderly. We do however, recommend that a pregnant woman seeks the advice of a qualified practitioner to assist her in treatment."

RESOLUTION

12. I have never been a patient of Ms Sayer, nor do I have any connection with her, nor do I have any conflicts of interest to declare. I write in the capacity of a concerned member of the public.

13. Because I have no personal connections with Ms Sayer which might admit of an informal resolution, I have considered the Code's advice (Section 59) and opted not to implement "Stage One" of the complaints process (Section 60) but am instead making a written complaint to the PCO (Section 61).

14. There are two possible routes which might lead to a speedy resolution of the complaint:

(i) Ms Sayer might produce new clinical evidence, not yet considered by CAP and of sufficient quality to substantiate all the marketing claims she makes in her website

(ii) Ms Sayer might accept the PCO's advice that her claims are not substantiated, are not "factual", are "unrealistic" or "extravagant", contain improper claims that her treatments are effective and safe because they are "natural", and undertake to remove the claims from her websites and all future marketing materials

15. I will readily agree to any resolution proposed by the PCO or Ms Sayer that achieves either of these two objectives.

NIGEL BIRD - ASA COMPLAINT

I'm writing to complain about the marketing claims I read today (9th March 2011, at 1pm) on the websites www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk, www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk and www.stress-solutions.info

All three sites promote the services of Nigel Bird, a homeopath. Since broadly the same promotional text is used on each site, I've combined them into a single complaint.

The pages in question are too big for a screenshot, so I've used a mirroring website. The ASA online complaints form doesn't accept HTML files yet, but I have saved a copy and can send them to you, if necessary.

1. On both sites the advertiser makes a number of health claims in order to promote his homeopathy services. I'd like to challenge whether any of the claims can be substantiated, and whether they are misleading. In particular, I'd like to challenge whether the repeated use of the word 'prove' - a corruption of the German word 'Preufung' which means 'testing' (but not 'proving') is misleading, when presented out of its proper context. I'd also like to challenge whether the claim that homeopathy has been 'proved' to treat malaria is irresponsible.

http://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/index.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676106PKFNFXTGPR

(i) "Ever thought about trying alternative medicines? - Complementary healing, treating like with like [with Homoeopathy] can help you where traditional drugs or treatment wouldn't be as effective..."

http://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/homoeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676134DGDRXJRFLP

http://www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk/homoeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676163INEZQGYDIL

http://www.stress-solutions.info/homeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676184JHBCJEKDMG

(ii) Samuel Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy, "prove[d]" that homeopathy could treat malaria

(iii) Hahnemann's "methods of treatment" are "known to be safe, effective and non-topic [sic]" (n.b. The Stress Solutions site renders this as known to be SAFE, EFFECTIVE and NON-TOXIC")

(iv) Many homeopathic remedies have been "proved" on "healthy human volunteers"

(v) There are now "over 4,500 remedies available tro [sic] treat all disease from babies and children to adults of any age"

(vi) Homeopathic remedies "assist the patient to regain health by stimulating Nature's 'vital force' of recovery"

(vii) Homeopathic "medicines" are "effective"

(viii) Conventional medicines can only "suppress" symptoms of disease, in contrast to homeopathy which "use[s]" them

(ix) "...there is almost a 200 year history of well-proven documentary evidence of the efficacy of Homoeopathic remedies"

2. I'd like to challenge whether the following claim can be substantiated, whether it is misleading, whether it is irresponsible, and whether it could discourage consumers from seeking essential treatment:

http://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/pracitioner.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676249NJRAOUMYNC

http://www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk/nbird.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676276VXUSKOVSIV

http://www.stress-solutions.info/homeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676184JHBCJEKDMG

(i) "...conventional medicine only suppressed symptoms, they did not get to the cause of the disease and the drugs used could be dangerous, toxic and their side-effects outweigh their possible benefits."

3. I can confirm that I have no connections with the alternative medicine industry.

NIGEL BIRD - ARH COMPLAINT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to lodge a formal complaint against Nigel Bird, MARH.

The matter concerns the contents of three of Mr Bird's websites which he uses to promote his services as a homeopath. They are:

www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk
www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk
www.stress-solutions.info

Each of the websites uses broadly the same promotional text, so I have included references to each in this complaint.

I argue that Mr Bird may be responsible for multiple breaches of the Alliance's "Code of Ethics and Practice", specifically Sections 31, 36 and 37.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the voluntary regulator for all marketing in the UK.

2. On 1st March 2011, the ASA's remit was extended to embrace online marketing activities, including "companies’ own marketing claims on their own websites and in other non-paid for space they control" (http://www.asa.org.uk/Media-Centre/2011/New-online-remit-enhances-consumer-protection.aspx)

3. For marketing communications promoting homeopathic products and services, the relevant sections of the British Code of Advertising Practice (CAP Code) include:

(i) Section 3.1 'Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.'

(ii) Section 3.7 'Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.'

(iii) Section 3.11 'Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.'

(iv) Section 3.13 'Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists.'

(v) Section 3.47 'Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer.'

(vi) Section 12.1 'Objective [health] claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge...'

(vii) Section 12.2 'Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.'

(viii) Section 12.5 'Marketers inviting consumers to diagnose their minor ailments must not make claims that might lead to a mistaken diagnosis.'

(ix) Section 12.6 'Marketers should not falsely claim that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or malformations.'

(x) Section 12.7 'References to the relief of symptoms or the superficial signs of ageing are acceptable if they can be substantiated.'

(xi) Section 12.10 'Marketing communications must not suggest that any product is safe or effective merely because it is “natural” or that it is generally safer because it omits an ingredient in common use.'

(xii) Section 12.14 'Marketers must not use fear or anxiety to promote a medicine or a recovery from illness and must not suggest that using or avoiding a product can affect normal health.'

(xiii) Section 12.15 'Illustrations of the effect or action of a product should be accurate.'

(xiv) Section 12.19 'Marketing communications for a medicine may not claim that its effects are as good as or better than those of another identifiable product.'

(xv) Section 12.20 'Homeopathic medicinal products must be registered in the UK. Any product information given in the marketing communication should be confined to what appears on the label. Marketing communications must include a warning to consult a doctor if symptoms persist. Marketing communications for an unlicensed product must not make a medicinal or therapeutic claim or refer to an ailment unless authorised by the MHRA to do so.'

4. Sections 36 and 37 of the Alliance's Code of Ethics state that all registrants are expected to observe the CAP Code in their marketing materials:

(i) '36. All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice.'

(ii) '37. Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims...'

5. In addition, Section 31 states:

(i) '31. Registrants must observe and keep up to date with all legislation and regulations relating directly or indirectly to the practice of homeopathy.'

REGULATION

6. It is not in dispute that many of the Alliance's registrants hold the opinion that homeopathy is effective for a range of medical conditions; neither is it in dispute that these beliefs are held sincerely.

7. The only matter of importance is a registrant's compliance or non-compliance with the advertising regulations to which they are professionally bound.

8. At present, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) do not accept that claims for the efficacy of homeopathy have been substantiated by rigorous clinical evidence:

(i) "Despite its popularity, CAP understands that no scientific rationale exists for assuming that remedies lacking in pharmacologically active molecules can produce clinical effects and is unaware of robust evidence that proves it does." (http://www.copyadvice.org.uk/Ad-Advice/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Homeopathy.aspx)

9. Section 12.1 of the CAP Code, quoted earlier, requires that all marketers hold substantiation, in the form of rigorous clinical evidence, before making health claims in their marketing materials.

COMPLAINT

10. I complain that Mr Bird may have breached the Alliance's Code of Ethics in respect of the following marketing claims found on her website, on March 9th 2011. (I give the full URL of the page, and a mirrored copy of the page as it was on that date.)

http://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/index.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676106PKFNFXTGPR

(i) "Ever thought about trying alternative medicines? - Complementary healing, treating like with like [with Homoeopathy] can help you where traditional drugs or treatment wouldn't be as effective..."

http://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/homoeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676134DGDRXJRFLP

http://www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk/homoeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676163INEZQGYDIL

http://www.stress-solutions.info/homeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676184JHBCJEKDMG

(ii) Samuel Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy, "prove[d]" that homeopathy could treat malaria

(iii) Hahnemann's "methods of treatment" are "known to be safe, effective and non-topic [sic]" (n.b. The Stress Solutions site renders this as known to be SAFE, EFFECTIVE and NON-TOXIC")

(iv) Many homeopathic remedies have been "proved" on "healthy human volunteers"

(v) There are now "over 4,500 remedies available tro [sic] treat all disease from babies and children to adults of any age"

(vi) Homeopathic remedies "assist the patient to regain health by stimulating Nature's 'vital force' of recovery"

(vii) Homeopathic "medicines" are "effective"

(viii) Conventional medicines can only "suppress" symptoms of disease, in contrast to homeopathy which "use[s]" them

(ix) "...there is almost a 200 year history of well-proven documentary evidence of the efficacy of Homoeopathic remedies"

ttp://www.homoeopathymanchester.co.uk/pracitioner.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676249NJRAOUMYNC

http://www.marklandtherapycentre.co.uk/nbird.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676276VXUSKOVSIV

http://www.stress-solutions.info/homeopathy.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1299676184JHBCJEKDMG

(x) "...conventional medicine only suppressed symptoms, they did not get to the cause of the disease and the drugs used could be dangerous, toxic and their side-effects outweigh their possible benefits."

RESOLUTION

11. I have never been a patient of Mr Bird, nor do I have any connection with him, nor do I have any conflicts of interest to declare. I write in the capacity of a concerned member of the public.

12. Because I have no personal connections with Mr Bird which might admit of an informal resolution, I have considered the Code's advice (Section 59) and opted not to implement "Stage One" of the complaints process (Section 60) but am instead making a written complaint to the PCO (Section 61).

13. There are two possible routes which might lead to a speedy resolution of the complaint:

(i) Mr Bird might produce new clinical evidence, not yet considered by CAP and of sufficient quality to substantiate all the marketing claims he makes in his websites

(ii) Mr Bird might accept the PCO's advice that his claims are not substantiated, are not "factual", are "unrealistic" or "extravagant", and undertake to remove the claims from his websites and all future marketing materials

14. I will readily agree to any resolution proposed by the PCO or Mr Bird that achieves either of these two objectives.