Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for live blood testing, www.livebloodtest.com, included the headline "Dr Errol Denton Harley Street Live Blood Specialist Versus Dr John Smith Pharmaceutical Drug Pusher Which Doctor Is The Witch Doctor?". Text then stated "Dr Errol Denton live blood analysis expert has two thousand satisfied patients for the past decade with conditions such as: Arthritis, Cancer, Diabetes, Eczema, Gout, Hypertension, Psoriasis and many more ... If a person has cancer opting for chemotherapy, surgery or radiotherapy is a dumb move when there are dozens of safe natural alternatives that are being deliberately hidden and lied about ... Dr Errol Denton live blood analysis expert likes to keep it real simple eat [sic] and drink to clean your blood and there will be no disease or sickness".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether;
1. the advertiser, Errol Denton, was a qualified medical doctor;
2. the ad discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought;
3. the claim "two thousand satisfied patients" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
4. the claim "eat and drink to clean your blood and there will be no disease or sickness" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Live Blood Test t/a Errol Denton did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Errol Denton's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the prefix Dr, in the context of the ad, to refer to a general medical qualification. Because we had not seen evidence that Errol Denton held a general medical qualification, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 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. (Substantiation),
2. & 4. Upheld
We were concerned that the ad made efficacy claims for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, and had not seen evidence that the services Errol Denton offered took place under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Furthermore, the advertiser had not provided substantiation to support the claim "eat and drink to clean your blood and there will be no disease or sickness". We concluded the ad breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
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.
(Substantiation),
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
12.2
12.2
Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
Errol Denton did not provide substantiation that he had "two thousand satisfied patients". Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claim, we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 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. (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Live Blood Test t/a Errol Denton to remove the prefix Dr, to not make efficacy claims for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and to avoid making claims without robust substantiation.
