The CMA (competition and markets authority) don't allow it ie making claims whilst using disclaimers to cover your back
There are some good points. The one I'd like to pull out right now is how this is cyclical/happens often. And whether it would be useful to have a table/chart whether certain media/vehicles are doing these 'ME type things' more regularly than others. If there is a pattern in future eg from the BBC of it happening every x amount of time then that would be insightful like when it was newspaper articles and the source e.g. all came from one place (I remember an article that was started at Reuters then pretty much copied in other newspapers)?
Articles from the likes of Reuter and AP are syndicated so do often proliferate across the press & media
I know, but being able to track back the 'source' of each 'cycle' may or may not be insightful to see/visibly show if these tend to be often the same sources (even if different angles) and I'd be intrigued how regular (ie so regular they might be part of a comms plan)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...eurs-unfounded-claims-ear-seeds-healed-ME.htm Dragons' Den hit by nearly 500 Ofcom complaints over entrepreneur Giselle Boxer's 'unfounded' claims that ear seeds aided recovery from ME By JOHN JAMES PUBLISHED: 10:20, 29 January 2024 | UPDATED: 11:13, 29 January 2024 "...A BBC spokesperson said: 'Following a review of the episode, a clarification has been added to the programme on iPlayer to address the concerns raised. 'It reads: Acu Seeds are not intended as a cure for any medical condition and advice should always be sought from a qualified healthcare provider about any health concerns.' There is also a note in the information section of the episode to highlight that the programme has been edited since broadcast..." "All the other judges offered Giselle what she was asking for - apart from Diary of a CEO host Steven Bartlett who offered her £50,000 for 15 per cent" "Companies House lists Steven's brother Jason Bartlett as a director rather than him" "Steven Bartlett's brother Jason, who is listed as company director for Acu Seeds or East Healing Ltd as it is named on Companies House" "...It also emerged that despite agreeing to an offer of £50,000 for a 12.5 per cent of her business from Steven Bartlett, 31, he is not listed as a director in the company on Companies House. Instead his brother Jason Bartlett appears under the role, while the listing also shows that the company changed its name from Acu Seeds to East Healing Ltd. Jason is also known to be an investor in businesses and has teamed up with Steven before for projects."
I'm guessing what they can see is the gift of the grift. The product's often irrelevant, it's the ability to attach a staggeringly large price tag to something that costs pennies to produce and convince people to pay it. You then get to sit back and enjoy the 99.3% profit margin. ETA: For clarity, this is not to criticise the young woman at the centre of this, or those willing to invest. They're just leveraging the fact that some people will buy into sales pitches without asking enough questions, and business has always worked like that. What's wrong with it here is that a public broadcaster is willing to platform them without providing any context or journalistic opinion.
Wikipedia entry for Dragons' Den updated on 23 January to include Acu Seeds controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons'_Den_(British_TV_programme) Acu Seeds controversy[edit] The third episode of series 21 saw entrepreneur Giselle Boxer, owner of East Healing Ltd, accept an offer from Steven Bartlett at £50,000 at 12.5% after pitching the company's product 'Acu Seeds,' acupuncture ear kits.[66] She received acclaim for being the first entrepreneur in the den to receive six offers, following the addition of a guest dragon, whilst Bartlett soon confirmed that the investment was successful after filming and was actively working with Boxer.[67] During the episode, she stated that the product had helped her manage the effects of myalgic encephalomyelitis, however the BBC soon received numerous complaints that the pitch was edited to allegedly imply the product was a cure for the condition.[68] Charities Sheffield ME and Fibromyalgia and Action for M.E both stated that research as of 2024 proves that there is no known permanent remedy for myalgic encephalomyelitis and despite being open to alternative therapies, they lack scientific research to be classed as certified treatment.[69][70] Action for M.E posted an open letter co-signed by various support groups on the 22nd January 2024 to the Director General of BBC, asking for support in reviewing the role of the media in promoting unfounded-health claims and their potential harm to society.[71][72] The BBC initially defended Boxer's pitch, with a spokesman stating "Dragons’ Den features products from entrepreneurs and is not an endorsement of them. Dragons’ Den shows real businesses pitching to investors to lift the lid on what happens in the business world. This episode features an entrepreneur sharing their own, personal, experience that led to a business creation."[72] However following the backlash from medical professionals, another spokesman confirmed that the episode had been withdrawn from streaming services in order to re-evaluate Boxer's pitch, quoting "We’re taking the concerns raised seriously, so we are reviewing the episode and therefore it’s currently not available on iPlayer."[73] The Guardian reported that Boxer had not responded to request for comment.[72]
I don’t understand how 500 people have managed to complain to Ofcom in such a short timeframe. When I’ve complained to Ofcom in the past (at least twice above ME/CFS broadcasts) I’ve had to confirm I’ve exhausted the BBC internal complaints process first (complaint and appeal) and provide a BBC complaints reference. It took several weeks before that process was completed and I was able to submit a complaint to Ofcom. Does anyone know more about this? Is there anywhere to verify if 500 complaints have been made to Ofcom?
It was a sort of email petition, using a pre-formatted complaint letter, accessible on the Canary website: https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2024/01/24/acu-seeds-dragons-den-2/ (...) Below, you can enter your details and send a pre-formatted complaint letter directly to Ofcom via email. There’s more information on this further down the article. Your details are secure, as per usual Canary GDPR practices. You can click in the “Read the Petition” box to read the email. Please make sure you fill in all the details. You will get a copy of the email: [Form] UPDATE: on Thursday 25 January, Ofcom gave the Canary the following statement: "We are assessing the complaints received to determine whether the BBC should consider them first, under the BBC First arrangements. Our decision will not be determined by the number of complaints we receive, but by our assessment of the nature of the complaints received to date."
I wonder if there are complaints and Complaints? I too have made a formal complaint, and it takes time and needs work. But if I rang them up to complain, or emailed them, or tweeted, they might register it anyway. It doesn't have the same force, but it would have an effect. ETA: cross-posted with @Dx Revision Watch.
The email letter petition currently stands at 482 signatures but this, I assume, does not include formal complaints submitted via the usual process (unless some people have done both).
From BBC Complaints - Thank you for contacting us about Dragons’ Den, broadcast on 18th January. We received a number of complaints making the same or similar points and so in line with the BBC Complaints Framework we are sending the same response to everyone. Dragons’ Den is an entertainment programme which features products created by entrepreneurs but is not an endorsement of them. It shows real businesses pitching to investors to lift the lid on what happens in the business world. This episode featured an entrepreneur sharing her own personal experiences that had led to the creation of a business. Her pitch asked for funding to expand her business selling ear seed kits, which she described as “an ancient Chinese medicine tool based on the principles of acupuncture, but without the needles”. The programme fairly reflected the Dragons’ responses on the day. Viewers heard her explain her use of diet, acupuncture, Chinese herbs and ear seeds as part of her “personal healing journey” following an ME diagnosis. She stated that “this combination, I believe, aided my recovery within 12 months”. The ear seeds were never described as a cure for ME. Dragons’ Den does not, and has never, set out to offer medical advice and we believe its audience understands this. However in light of some concerns raised we have added the following clarification to the programme: Acu Seeds are not intended as a cure for any medical condition and advice should always be sought from a qualified healthcare provider about any health concerns. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us. Kind regards, BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints Ugh.
Yes, well that's fine as long as the audience are observers. But they should acknowledge the risk that in some situations they could become participants. Particularly if they're vulnerable because they're suffering from an illness without a treatment, and someone is making a link between a product and their recovery. Pointing out what the small print says isn't good enough. ETA: I wonder if the wording used in the broadcast would pass scrutiny by the Advertising Standards Authority? The BBC would probably argue there's no comparison whatsoever, but that'd also be a bit disingenuous. It's television, from a source people tend to trust.
Some posts have been moved to: NHS England web pages on ME/CFS updated 29th October 2021 (NICE publication date)
Oh really? So it's not so much that they don't work, more they were never intended to work? A complete con then? Well worth investing in.
I didn't expect much more from the BBC as long as it was pwme on this issue given what I've observed over the years in relation to pwme Tbf now I have read more about what the lady is saying now, I would think that given such things if the BBC disagreed with public comments made by people associating themselves with them, would be enough to remove a staff member or cause BBC to issue a statement dissociating themselves from such comments or individuals. I'm more bothered by the new comments I'm seeing reported (from new and old social media she has posted) - and the misconception some have that an unpleasant woman making insinuations about vulnerable people or other women and 'how they think' isn't misogyny and disability bigotry pure and simple, and not very well-hidden given surely everyone has seen it in day-to-day-life or the playground many times over - can be blagged by those who should be stepping up as bystanders as 'pretending to help'. PS it stops being 'her story' as an excuse once she crosses that line and 'opines' on what she thinks of a minority [that she has never spoken to, ergo it is made up]. But she is just trying to be nasty and hide it I think to target those who've been ill with ME for longer as 'different from her' and manufacture histories for them by rumour, and she clearly knows exactly what she is doing because as soon as she got annoyed with pwme's replies then out the same troping-style came again with the same fake tone to cover it. It really isn't becoming of someone they are associating themselves with. One part of this (alongside just plain nastiness when its inferring some strange superiority of herself by making up stuff about people who supposedly haven't recovered the way she has) is the term 'weaponising mental health' (as a term in order to hide misogynistic accusations of 'hysterical woman' type behind a pretence it is real mental health stuff who would/should never either be about this, or say it if it is operating correctly and professionaly). And it's bad for stigmatising real mental health too because it shows how labels, whether fake or not are worth avoiding because they are used to lessen others. I'm unsure if written to the BBC would get this, but if someone more eloquent than myself managed to nail this issue then perhaps that would be a useful angle. It's an important issue to get this problem across because I'm certainly getting something that smells like Elaine Wilkins' strategy for the Chrysalis Effect nonsense (and used by things like Lightening Process) coming from this lady's latest stuff suggesting basically that 'lots of' pwme 'are bogged down' and then I'm not going to give her the privilege of whichever carefully-chosen to pretend it is anything but insinuation that makes it their thinking's fault. Which starts to really make me worry that coercion by speaking to laypersons and supporters to ensure that belief, understanding and support is removed in place of - let's be honest, coercion into such programmes (is there a better word if it is under the false premise 'I think your problem is x and I'm annoyed you won't sort it like this woman suggests?) making it a form of incitement. The impact of such behaviour and strategies is horrific and dangerous for its targets, and it is very definitely both intended and targeted at the vulnerability and disability to further reduce access to needs by undermining relationships and attitudes and if there isn't a term for it yet (like there is e.g. for coercive control now) it is serious enough that it requires one. So it needs to start being well unbundled and expounded I think, but in a way that the same fallacial, rhetorical game-playing stuff we've had from you know who in the past can't be played. EDIT: given people have mentioned she is now going down the MLM route, which involves recruiting 'other sellers' in a pyramid scheme using the same 'stories' and 'one-liners' this is a serious issue. And I do note that there was at one point at least a documentary on somewhere on the BBC I saw about fake psych and fake therapy, after the pandemic. SO I do not understand how one part of that organisation can 'see it' and the rest in some way associated. And they know full well that it is very different to Reggae Reggae sauce being sold with a tune on Dragon's Den being covered to provide a base to someone who has made clear they will milk this publicity and use certain tactics selling what is a 'promise' and not a 'product' (as we all know the value isn't in the £3 pips you can get from all sorts of other places for much less).
I think that people are correct that the sniff test on this is whether they would be happy for the same thing to stand if it were cancer or MS or another serious condition they [the BBC] didn't have misinformational beliefs about And I do think someone should ask that question directly - with nothing else in the letter or tweet or whatnot in order that if they duck answering then the answer is clear.
