Chiropractor Dr Carl Irwin is wrong to call himself ‘Dr’ and makes untruthful claims say ASA

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) have passed judgement on an advertising claim by chiropractor business Dr Carl Irwin and Associates.  Dr Carl made the following claim in his advertising:

Dr Carl Irwin and Associates CHIROPRACTORS. Back, Neck, Shoulder, Arm and Leg Pain, Sports Injury, Joint Problems, IBS, Colic, Learning Difficulties, Cranial Treatment for Mothers and Babies. To discuss any area of your health with our Doctors, call for a FREE Consultation.

This claim was challenged on two points:

1. Dr. Carl Irwin and Associates could substantiate the implied claim that their therapies could successfully treat some of the conditions mentioned, in particular IBS, colic and learning difficulties;

2. the references to “Doctors” and “Dr” misleadingly implied that the chiropractors held general medical qualifications.

Also of interest is the reference to colic as the article by Simon Singh, which he was sued for libel over by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) claimed that

even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

Carl Irwin is a member of the BCA, both the BCA and Carl think that colic can be treated by a chiropractor.  The ASA think not:

1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that manipulative therapies used by suitably qualified practitioners had been shown to be effective in treating back and joint pain and minor sports injuries. We noted the journal abstracts, conference paper reports and article references provided by Dr. Carl in support of the claim to treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties. In relation to the chiropractic treatment of IBS we noted the evidence provided included a 2007 randomised controlled pilot study relating to osteopathy and another randomised controlled study where results involving the treatment of IBS with osteopathy were described as “promising”; we noted, however, that those studies referred to osteopathy, not chiropractic. In relation to the chiropractic treatment of colic, we noted a number of reported un-controlled individual case studies where infants had been treated with chiropractic. We also noted several larger studies, one of which was a  “prospective case study”, another of which was based on “a retrospective uncontrolled questionnaire”, another which was a “pilot study” presented at a conference and a fourth which was a blinded randomised controlled trial that measured the “short-term effect” of spinal manipulation on infantile colic. In relation to the chiropractic treatment of learning difficulties we noted a 2007 literature review of the effects of chiropractic on individuals with learning disabilities and dyslexia in which the reviewers considered that none of the studies met all of their pre-defined methodological criteria.

We considered that, whilst some of the studies indicated that further research was worth pursuing, in particular in relation to the chiropractic relief of colic, we had not seen robust clinical evidence to support the claim that chiropractic could treat IBS, colic and learning difficulties.

On these points the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

The ASA also upheld part 2 of the complaint:

2. Upheld
We welcomed Dr. Carl’s assurance that the practice would no longer refer to its chiropractors as doctors in their future advertising to avoid misleading readers.

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

and concluded:

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Dr. Carl not to refer to the treatment of IBS, colic and learning difficulties in future.

Now the ASA are to be applauded in their judgement and willingness to analyse the evidence submitted as well as their criticism of claims that some may describe as bogus but sadly their remit only extends to advertising not websites or professional claims.  Not a medical doctor Carl describes himself as a Doctor on his website and promotes chiropractic for the treatment of colic.  Given the ASA ruling I think it is fair to say that Carl Irwin is potentially misleading people into thinking he has general medical qualifications and making claims unsupported by clinical evidence.  Also Carl Irwin is promoting homeopathy on his website, a therapy I would argue is incontrovertibly bogus, having no plausible mechanism of action and having being robustly proven not to be better than a placebo.

Carl Irwin is a respectable Chiropractor and BCA member who is promoting bogus treatments. With respect to The Quackometer’s challenge I think I may be getting in touch with Mr Irwin about some of his other claims.

*update*

JackofKent has a skeptical lawyer’s brain point of view on this ruling in which he makes the point that the GCC demand that their members work within ASA guidelines.  He concludes with this point:

[...]it would render odd that the British Chiropractic Association still wishes to litigate in respect of its promotion of chiropractic for the treatment of colic when such a promotion by its members would now seemingly be a breach of their professional obligations…

I suspects the BCA and GCC will use the get out clause that the ruling only applies to one chiropractor and one advert, not the wider chiropractic community.  No professional organisation worth its salt would allow a independent body with no stated professional expertise in chiropracty (IMHO the ASA demonstrate a professional approach to evidence) to pass rulings that would have wide implications for the whole profession without some kind of get out clause.  I hope I’m wrong and that this ruling does have implications for Simon Singh and Judge Eady’s ruling, but I’m assuming a default position of pessimism for now.

However, I would encourage readers of this blog to submit ASA complaints about chiropractors making dubious claims referring to this ruling and the ASA guidelines on chiropractic.  The profession as a whole may be resistant to the ASA, individually I suspect they are not.

[BPSDB]