The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) - the UK's independent regulator for advertising across all media - have upheld two very important judgements with respect to the claims that the Phil Parker Group Ltd was making.

The ASA judgement has been published for all to see - for the full article click here.


1. The ASA have upheld that the claims with respect to treatment of ME/CFS, in particular the 80-90% claims of success, were misleading. They have also upheld that the LP is a medical therapy with respect to the law and not a training program.

2. The ASA have also upheld that the claims with respect to MS, IBS/digestive issues, food and chemical intolerances, eating disorders, addiction, depression, FM/chronic pain, phobias/anxiety/stress, low self-esteem and OCD, are both misleading and should not appear again as they could prevent people from seeking proper treatment from appropriately medically qualified practitioners for those conditions.

This judgement upholds the most serious issues that were raised with respect to the Phil Parker Group.

This may also have serious implications for Dr Esther Crawley in that she has  gained consent for a medical trial (the SMILE study) - something which ought to be scrutinised again to determine if information used to justify that study was factually false or misleading.

Did Dr Crawley know, or should she have known, that the Phil Parker Group was under such investigation?

Did Dr Crawley know, or should she have known, of the implications from the investigation for her trial and for the consent of participants?

For example, would parents have consented had they known that the Phil Parker Group was under investigation and that claims made were "misleading"? Consent is the most important rule in medical ethics after all.

Furthermore, it has to be asked if there is an issue with respect to the classification of the medical trial.  The ASA have ruled that the LP is a medical treatment. Yet did Dr Crawley not gain approval for her trial by classifying the LP as a questionnaire/training program, and thereby avoiding from being subject to the same requirements of safety as a medical treatment?

Should the SMILE study be totally dropped now that ASA has told the Phil Parker Group "...not to refer to conditions for which advice should be sought from suitably qualified health professionals"?

 

With respect to the implications of the judgement the Hampshire Trading Standards have confirmed that the ASA judgement can be used as supporting evidence that people were mislead into buying the product. Therefore anyone that wants their money back can write to Phil Parker Group and claim negligent misrepresentation. Possibly their house insurance may cover the costs of this, or the small claims court is also available.

The ASA judgement should be raised with the SW2 Regional Ethics Committee that granted approval for the LP trial.

The work to uncover this has been performed by determined patients who have not relented in their quest for the truth, despite this taking a huge toll on their health.

We can only thank them for their efforts.