Post by Cassus on Apr 6, 2010 21:04:54 GMT
Today I submitted my very first complaint to OfQuack (affectionately known in the sceptical community as the "Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council").
The unlucky registrant upon whom the wrath of SLW falls is Michelle Alexander, a local reflexologist.
Michelle's website contains several claims about reflexology which I strongly suspect cannot be justified.
OfQuack complaints must be submitted on a special form, but luckily, evidence can be submitted on a separate sheet. Here is what it contained.
This document has been written to accompany my my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), regarding Michelle Alexander who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.
1. The registrant promotes reflexology on her website, www.beautyswithin.co.uk
2. On her website, the registrant makes the following claims:
(i) Reflexology "reaches back to ancient Egypt"
(ii) Reflexology "help 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 the function of your organs and glands" and "bring back the body's balance"
(vi) Reflexology "opens energy channels"
3. 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".
4. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section 15 of the Code of Conduct I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant can justify any of the six statements
(ii) The registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"
5. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section A of the Code of Conduct ("Introduction") I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"
6. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section B of the Code of Conduct ("Your duties as a Registrant") I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant has "act[ed] in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"
(ii) The registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate and effective communication with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"
(End of document)
scepticalletterwriter.blogspot.com/2010/04/michelle-alexander-and-ofquack-slw-is.html
The unlucky registrant upon whom the wrath of SLW falls is Michelle Alexander, a local reflexologist.
Michelle's website contains several claims about reflexology which I strongly suspect cannot be justified.
OfQuack complaints must be submitted on a special form, but luckily, evidence can be submitted on a separate sheet. Here is what it contained.
This document has been written to accompany my my complaint to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), regarding Michelle Alexander who is registered with the CNHC as a reflexologist.
1. The registrant promotes reflexology on her website, www.beautyswithin.co.uk
2. On her website, the registrant makes the following claims:
(i) Reflexology "reaches back to ancient Egypt"
(ii) Reflexology "help
(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
(vi) Reflexology "opens energy channels"
3. 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".
4. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section 15 of the Code of Conduct I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant can justify any of the six statements
(ii) The registrant has "follow[ed] CNHC guidelines in relation to advertising [her] services"
5. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section A of the Code of Conduct ("Introduction") I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant has "observe[d] the standards set out in this document" and has "ensure[d] that they are observed"
6. With regard to the six statements quoted above, under Section B of the Code of Conduct ("Your duties as a Registrant") I challenge whether:
(i) The registrant has "act[ed] in the best interests of [her] patients, clients and users"
(ii) The registrant has "maintain[ed] appropriate and effective communication with patients, clients, users, carers and other registrants and professionals"
(End of document)
scepticalletterwriter.blogspot.com/2010/04/michelle-alexander-and-ofquack-slw-is.html