Yin and yang prove to be out of balance at Everwell

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has upheld complaints by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) concerning a leaflet advertising services in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinics.

The leaflet, produced by Everwell, made statements which the MHRA believed put consumers 'at risk as a result of misleading claims about the safety of TCMs'. The MHRA's official complaints, which resulted in Everwell being charged with breach of eight clauses of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing, challenged: whether the advertisers could effectively treat all the medical conditions listed; the implication that Chinese medicine was safer than Western medicine; whether the leaflet discouraged readers from seeking advice from 'suitably qualified medical practitioners about serious or prolonged medical conditions', and whether references to 'doctor' misleadingly implied the practitioners held general medical qualifications.

The leaflets stated: 'Why is TCM a viable alternative to Western medicine? Because most Western medicine treatment has damaging side-effects which is [sic] avoided in Chinese medical treatment. Some Western drugs are harmful or addictive, whereas Chinese herbal drugs are not. Chinese medicine treats the cause of the illness whereas Western medicine only treats the symptoms. Chinese medical treatment is gentler and less aggressive.'

Psoriasis, sciatica, hypertension, asthma, bronchitis, irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhoea, diabetes, colds and influenza, sinusitis, oncology, utery cancer, lung cancer, gastric cancer and skin cancer were all listed as 'treatable ailments', alongside the claim that: 'Our doctors have been practicing for many years and are fully recognised and are also recognised by the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine in UK'.

In response, Everwell disagreed that the leaflet discouraged readers from seeking advice from a suitably qualified medical practitioner, saying it was 'simply offering an alternative form of medicine'; argued that the leaflet did not state that it could effectively treat the ailments listed 'but that the ailments were capable of being treated', and said that its staff 'held medical degrees and were qualified in China', claiming that this was stated in the leaflet.

The ASA considered that the leaflet: 'could discourage readers from seeking essential treatment for serious medical conditions by comparing TCM favourably with orthodox medical treatments'; 'implied all the listed ailments could be effectively treated by Everwell', and was 'likely to infer [to readers] from the claim and references to "doctor" that staff at Everwell held qualifications equivalent to a general medical qualification in the UK'. The ASA has also told Everwell to 'avoid implying TCM was safer than western medicine or referring to serious medical conditions in similar, future ads'.

Richard Woodfield, head of herbals policy at the MHRA, said: 'We are highlighting the message that misleading advertising of therapies can lead in turn to unsafe or inappropriate use of medicinal products. The MHRA is writing to herbal practitioner associations encouraging them to ask their members to review their advertising against the provisions of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing.'

The action follows ASA's upholding, in the second half of 2005, of MHRA complaints against a 'DrChina' leaflet and a public complaint about a claim in a 'Dr & Herbs' leaflet that Chinese herbal medicine does not interfere with the effects of any Western medicine.