Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for The Detox Clinic Ltd, the-detox-clinic.com, displayed a banner at the top of the page which stated “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19!”. A web page titled “Colon Hydrotherapy” displayed text which stated “People have colon hydrotherapy for a wide range of reasons. Some are looking for relief from the symptoms of IBS”. A subheading further down the page stated “BENEFITS OF COLON HYDROTHERAPY” and showed text below which stated “It can be useful in helping with conditions such as: … Irritable Bowel Syndrome”.
Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the claim “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19” was misleading and could be substantiated.
2. The same complainant also challenged whether the claims that colon hydrotherapy therapy could help people with irritable bowel syndrome were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. The Detox Clinic Ltd said that the statement was accompanied by a link to Italian, Spanish and Chinese clinical studies that they said proved that ozone therapy was beating Covid-19. They added that their clients could read the newspaper announcements and details of those clinical trials to make up their own minds. The Detox Clinic added that there were also thousands of articles and clinical studies on the efficacy of ozone therapy, generally, published in an online database of scientific research.
2. The Detox Clinic said that the ad did not claim to “treat” irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but rather mentioned “relief from the symptoms of IBS”. The Detox Clinic therefore believed that there was no claim to diagnose, treat or cure IBS on the website. The Detox Clinic added that the medical assessment, diagnosis and treatment plan were all conducted by medically-licenced doctors and health professionals within the NHS. They stated that The Detox Clinic helped relieve symptoms of constipation and offered general health advice available in the public domain and referred back to a GP where appropriate.
The Detox Clinic also stated that complementary and alternative therapies for IBS were part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical pathway for the management of IBS with the exception of acupuncture and reflexology. The Detox Clinic stated that rectal irrigation was also a NICE recommendation for both faecal incontinence and faecal impact. Finally, The Detox Clinic stated that doctors were able to refer patients who wanted colonic irrigation to Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) registered practitioners.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19” to mean that ozone therapy was a successful treatment for Covid-19 in people who tested positive for the virus. We noted that the original claim had been amended to state “Spanish, Italian and Chinese doctors claim Ozone Therapy is beating Covid19 in clinical trials”. However, we considered that the amended claim did not alter the overall impression likely to be given to consumers. We reviewed the link provided, which displayed a web page for an ozone therapy equipment supplier.
The specific web page was titled “CASE STUDIES COVID-19” and contained a list of various news articles, a Facebook post, a letter and a guidance document. Some of those documents were inaccessible, including a link that appeared to be a study. We were not provided with access to the full document and therefore could not review it. The linked web page also provided a further link to an online database, which displayed thousands of results in relation to ozone therapy in general. There were only limited results specifically regarding COVID-19 and none of those results appeared to be Randomised Controlled Trials.
We acknowledged that some of the papers were about the use of ozone therapy in relation to COVID-19 treatment, but they were narrative reviews rather than actual experimental trials of any kind. We therefore considered that we had not seen sufficient substantiation to support the claim, as consumers were likely to understand it. We concluded that the claim was misleading and breached the Code.
On that 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),
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) and
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.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
The ad stated “People have colon hydrotherapy for a wide range of reasons. Some are looking for relief from the symptoms of IBS” and also contained the claim “It can be useful in helping with conditions such as: … Irritable Bowel Syndrome”. We considered the claims were likely to be understood by consumers as meaning that colon hydrotherapy could relieve symptoms of IBS, which would be seen as meaning that it could treat those symptoms. We noted that IBS could involve a range of different symptoms, and in the absence of further information, consumers were likely to understand that the therapy was effective in treating all of those symptoms. We therefore expected to see evidence to support that. The NICE guidance explicitly discouraged reflexology and acupuncture as IBS therapies. However, we did not consider that meant that all other complementary therapies were recommended.
While we understood from the NICE guidance that rectal irrigation should be considered for specialised management of the specific symptom of faecal incontinence in distinct circumstances, it was not listed as a treatment option for all IBS symptoms. To substantiate the claim that colon hydrotherapy could treat the symptoms of IBS, we expected to see clinical trial evidence. However, The Detox Clinic did not provide any clinical trial or documentary evidence to support that claim. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence that colon hydrotherapy could help treat all symptoms of IBS, we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading and had not been substantiated.
On that 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),
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) and
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.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told The Detox Clinic Ltd not to claim that ozone therapy could successfully treat Covid-19 unless unless they held sufficient evidence for this. We also told The Detox Clinic Ltd to ensure that they did not state or imply that colon hydrotherapy could help treat all symptoms of IBS unless they held sufficient evidence for this.
