Ad description
A page on a website for a complementary therapy, on 31 May 2011, was headlined "Howard Bult : Bristol Bowen Therapist". Information about the therapy was presented under various headings, next to pictures of clients undergoing the therapy. Text under the heading "What can it safely treat?" stated "Common problems such as back-ache and neck pain, knee problems, sports injuries, RSI, frozen shoulder, tennis elbow and respiratory ailments. Conditions such as chronic fatigue, hayfever, headaches, kidney problems, infant colic and ailments requiring lymphatic drainage have responded well to the Bowen Technique. It is used as a means of stress management and health maintenance involving regular appointments 2 to 4 times a year. The Bowen Technique also addresses many other conditions. It is generally regarded as safe and effective for people of all ages".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims for the treatment were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Howard Bult did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
In response to the ASA's enquiries into the efficacy of Bowen Technique we received responses from Bowen Association UK (BAUK) and the Bowen Therapy Professional Association (BTPA).
BAUK submitted a study relating to the efficacy of Bowen in the treatment of frozen shoulder.
BTPA provided two studies which they said were background research into why hands-on therapies worked. They also provided a list of studies on the internet and believed that there had been studies conducted in other countries to which they did not have access.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Howard Bult's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their obligation to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
We considered that the claims that the Bowen Technique was effective in the treatment of the listed conditions were capable of substantiation with robust, appropriately controlled and blinded clinical trials conducted on people. We had not received a response from Howard Bult and we had therefore not seen evidence to support any of the claims. In the absence of such evidence we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
In the course of this investigation we also assessed whether the material provided by BAUK and BTPA was sufficiently robust to substantiate claims about Bowen Technique's efficacy, in line with the Code's requirements.
We noted the trial submitted by BAUK which sought to evaluate the Bowen Technique in the treatment of frozen shoulder. We noted that the study included 20 participants who had presented, or been referred, to Bowen therapists with the condition. We noted that the study had generated data through the ongoing assessment of pain and mobility during treatment and that it claimed to show significant improvement in the condition for all subjects. We noted however that the trial had not been controlled, for example by randomly allocating subjects to intervention and control groups; or blinded, for example by having the subjects independently assessed. We also noted that the study itself acknowledged that the results should be viewed with caution due to the comparative lack of rigour in its design. For those reasons, we considered that the study did not show that Bowen Technique was effective in the treatment of frozen shoulder.
We also noted the various submissions from BTPA and that several provided background information, for example about muscle fascia. We noted that the other studies, which related directly to the efficacy of the Bowen Technique, concerned its use in the treatment of cerebral palsy, asthma, migraine and Parkinson's Disease. We considered that those were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and therefore considered that, irrespective of any evidence which may be in their possession, it was unlikely to be acceptable for Bowen Technique practitioners to refer to those conditions in their marketing communications.
The claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
