Netherlands: NKCV (Hans Knoop)

[Hutan]

https://nkcv.nl/
Nederlands Kenniscentrum Chronische Vermoeidheid

This Netherlands clinic takes a psychosomatic approach, offering 'mind over matter' treatments. Hans Knoop and Tanja Kuut are part of a large team of psychologists.

 

[Hutan]

NKCV is the "Dutch Knowledge Center for Chronic Fatigue", an outpatient clinic of the Amsterdam UMC. It's either headed by, or involves, Hans Knoop. It promises to treat and conduct research for people with "chronic fatigue". Boasts of seeing 550 patients per year.

Their website has a list of testimonials from patients saying all sorts of good things about the clinic. Quite similar in wording and general style to the LP website.

And many of those testimonials are fake. The patients quoted don't even exist. They are represented by pictures taken from stock photos. At least several of them are. Maybe there are real testimonies in there. Probably not.

Thread with links to the stock photos they were taken from:

The clinic has been shown to be using stock photos on testimonials, calling into question the veracity of the testimonials themselves.

 

[EndME]

To play devils advocate wouldn't it be possible for testimonials to be real but due to data-privacy regulations it not being possible to upload real pictures and names (hence stock pictures and fake names)?

 

[Hutan]

To play devils advocate wouldn't it be possible for testimonials to be real but due to data-privacy regulations it not being possible to upload real pictures and names (hence stock pictures and fake names)?

Certainly the testimonials themselves could be real, but they get their power from the person offering the testimonial appearing to be willing to stand up and say they have been helped. By giving their name and photo, they are effectively putting their reputation on the line. That's exactly why the clinic did not just put the written testimonials there with 'anonymous' written underneath.

I'd be surprised if data-privacy regulations had a problem with a willing person allowing their name and image to be used online to support a service they recommend. I would have thought regulations would have more problems with a testimonial being attached to a visual identity and name that did not belong to it.

 

[EndME]

I'd be surprised if data-privacy regulations had a problem with a willing person allowing their name and image to be used online to support a service they recommend.

I was thinking they maybe wouldn't have done so, they might have just given testimonials and the right of public usage of those without images (and possibly under false names). I think many people wouldn't want to have their picture together with health information open in the public. But I don't know. It does seem rather odd...

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

It does seem rather odd...

It's deceit, let's face it. Straight deceit.
And of course psychologists would know a lot about deceit and why people go in for it.

 

[rvallee]

I was thinking they maybe wouldn't have done so, they might have just given testimonials and the right of public usage of those without images (and possibly under false names). I think many people wouldn't want to have their picture together with health information open in the public. But I don't know. It does seem rather odd...

It's pretty common to do that, though. Maybe the Netherlands are different in that regard but there's definitely no shortage of people doing exactly this, except for real.

The LP website has, by my last count, 84. There are some suspicious ones, including one of the main providers, which is basically like a director providing testimony for his own company's services but whatever, they do include real quotes from people with their names and photos. So even if there's the excuse that it's "controversial" and so people are afraid of repercussions, those selling the fairy tales aren't shy about promoting them so if they actually believe this, they are willingly increasing that risk. But of course they know it's a BS narrative and they're just exploiting it so whatever.

 

[bobbler]

To play devils advocate wouldn't it be possible for testimonials to be real but due to data-privacy regulations it not being possible to upload real pictures and names (hence stock pictures and fake names)?

Normally data privacy means you have to renew permission regularly to use the testimonial and to remove it and any storage of it and any names or photos if someone contacts you to withdraw permission and can do so at any time

“the right to be forgotten”

and whilst photos are optional you would NOT add someone else’s to a testimonial

after all isn’t that worse because the stock photo is a model who also doesn’t have me/cfs and didn’t write that (plus of course a healthy model? It’s as bad as using someone else’s perfect teeth next to someone else’s testimonial for cosmetic dentistry almost)

same with names - maybe someone might prefer only their first name but in most circumstances people should read that with suspicion (though I can see why with me/cfs someone wouldn’t want it coming up on Google - bigotry with employers, dating etc in future knowing it never comes down) here the regulations for the CMA mean they have to prove who it came from ie have that name as part of their evidence of compliance (even if not published) and be able to prove that it was written by them

basically just cos you can’t get anyone to write a testimonial you like and sign over permission to use their name or image doesn’t mean you just make it look like they have. You instead have to find a way to comply with these regs AND regs related to mis-selling too - I’m not going to give them ideas on how

OR don’t have them

 

[bobbler]

I was thinking they maybe wouldn't have done so, they might have just given testimonials and the right of public usage of those without images (and possibly under false names). I think many people wouldn't want to have their picture together with health information open in the public. But I don't know. It does seem rather odd...

Or did they get asked to fill in some feedback sheet that had a line somewhere at the top or bottom saying this would/might be used on website - but they think it’s ok Because they aren’t identifying them (which I’d be surprised if that was the case these days even tho I’m no Netherlands experts)