I've been banned again!

[SadIndigo]

FFS. MN HQ has banned me again!

It appears there is one rule for everyone else on MN and one rule for me.

Apparently you're allowed to discuss everything on MN - except how to cure dyslexia. :( (Because apparently that subject is distressing to parents of dyslexic children)

So, I lose the support I need.

And MNers lose information about treatments that work for dyslexia.

I've made some good friends on here and provided and received lots of support and information and advice.

But this time I'm really going. MN HQ are a law unto themselves and they can't be reasoned with.

If you post nasty replies to this thread, please be aware that of course I will be reading them, and of course they'll hurt.

Indigo Bell

See, I'm not sure I can, badvoc.

Having googled Robin Pauc, googled Tinsley house, and read the site, I'm wondering why he doesn't make any reference to his previous Chiropractic training (I understand that he isn't allowed to call himself a Chiropractor as he isn't registered, but you'd think he'd at least say 'practiced as a Chiropractor for x years before moving on to TH therapies). I'm also wondering what the PCC case against him was?

Ok, found the GCC judgement against Robin Pauc and I can see now why he doesn't mention it.

The case Lougle

:ALLEGATION REFERRED TO THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCILName of Respondent: Robin Anthony PaucAddress of Respondent: Tinsley House Clinic Ltd_ THE ALLEGATION:That being a registered chiropractor you are guilty of unacceptableprofessional conduct._________________________________________________ __PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATION:1. You are the author of the following books (?the Books?):(a) ?Is That My Child??, published by Virgin Books Limited in 2006 Great Britain;(b) ?The Learning Disability Myth?, published by Virgin Books Limited in 2006 USA;(c) ?The Brain Food Plan?, published by Virgin Books Limited in 2007 Great Britain;(d) ?Could It Be You??, published by Virgin Books Limited in 2008 Great Britain;2.(a) On the front cover of 1(a) and 1(b) it states that you are ?Assistant Professor, The Carrick Institute, Cape Canaveral?;(b) You did not hold this or any other position with The Carrick Institute, CapeCanaveral (?CICC?) at the time of publication of the books referred to in 2a;(c) On the inside cover of 1(d) it states that you were awarded a professorship at the CICC;(d) The statement at 2(c) gives the misleading impression that you were awarded a professorial chair, which was never the case;(e) In around October 2008, your website for the Tinsley House Clinic stated that you were ?an Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurology at the Carrick Institute for PostGraduate Studies, Cape Canaveral?;(f) You did not hold the position referred to at 2(e) or any other position with The Carrick Institute, Cape Canaveral, in around October 2008;(g) The statements referred to at sub-paragraphs 2(a), 2(c) and 2(e) were therefore each inaccurate and misleading;(h) You failed to ensure the inaccurate and misleading information about you was not published and/or contained on your website;3.(a) On the front cover of each of the Books, you are referred to as ?Dr Robin Pauc?, and on the back cover of 1(a) and 1(b) as ?Dr Robin Pauc, an expert in child neurology? and on the back cover of 1(c) and 1(d) as ?Dr Robin Pauc?;(b) These references to you are liable to mislead members of the public into believing that you are a registered medical practitioner, when you are not;(c) You failed to ensure that the contents of the covers for each of the Books made clear that you are a doctor of chiropractic and not a registered medical practitioner;4. You have claimed to be an expert in the field of child neurology and/or a specialist treating developmental disorders for children in that:(a) You have allowed your publishers to refer to you as ?an expert in child neurology?on the back cover of the Books referred to at 1(a) and (b);(b) In around October 2008, it stated on your website for the Tinsley House Clinic that you were ?an Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurology at the Carrick Institute?;5. You have failed to behave honestly in promoting your practice and yourself as a chiropractor in relation to the matters set out in paragraphs 2 - 4 above;6. For the reasons set out in Particulars 2 ? 5, you have acted in a manner which may undermine public confidence in the chiropractic profession and/or bring the profession into disrepute.__________________________________________________Dated: 26 August 2009

Jeez,not just the Daily Mail saying it then!

To his credit, the GCC concluded that he didn't intentionally mislead, so 'only' issued an admonishment.

Did he argue perhaps that it was his publishers, not he himself, who were bumping up his status by calling him a professor when he wasn't one?

No, sickof, it says in the judgement under particular 2(h) "You accepted that you drafted your entry in ?About The Authors?."

"Particular 2(d) ? the Committee found this Particular proved. The Committee was satisfied that the statement, that you were awarded a professorship, gives the impression that you were awarded a professorial chair, not that you had been granted the title of Assistant Professor.
The book ?Could It Be You?? was intended for the UK market and the Committee considered that members of the British public would not be clear as to your status." ([[http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/hearing_file/Notice_of_Findings_%28Pauc%29.pdf pg5)

Particular 6 ? the Committee found this proved. It considered that by failing to make the nature of your professorship clear and by allowing the covers of the two books to be misleading as to your status, you have undermined public confidence in the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. (pg 5)

It [the Committee] considered that the nature of the misconduct it had found against Dr Pauc concerned the misrepresentation to the public of his professional qualifications and his right to the use of the title of professor. It accepted that his behaviour would not have caused direct or indirect patient harm. It concluded that this case did not concern the protection of patients but the protection of the public and maintaining public confidence in the chiropractic profession." (pg 6)

I dunno. Wakefield gor crucified but I still don't think all his theories were bollocks.

I'm willing to believe that some of Pauc's stuff might help some children.

My issue is more the promotion of his stuff above everything else. But accepting his stuff as an option? No issue.

Nooooo! Let's not get onto Wakefield again [shuts can of worms emoticon]

I don't know about dismissing TH as quackery, that is a bit strong I think. I went to see him and followed his advice, it didn't make a lot of difference to us so we stopped going, but the advice I got from him was sound.

Infact, we have had an assessment done by an OT and the recommendations are more or less the same as TH and the other stuff he recommends like vision therapy etc, isn't it just similar to stuff like AIT, RRT etc. I just wanted to make it clear that its not the therapy or TH that's the problem here, just a posters particular posting style.

sickofsocalledexperts I thought you were the same person as sickofincompetenceandbullshit?

No, I am not the same person as the other sick of...

Oooh I did, too, Dev9aug.

ah me too!

Ok so there is a man that wanted to sell books and promote himself bigger than he was. He put professorship just not WHICH type which was Assistant Professor :) Crafty yes.

Business ppl do this all the time to promote and be bigger and better than the next business coming up behind them. Some get caught and have their wrists slappedand some don't. Lets face it the man is trying to make a living as well. Just like any private salt, ep, ot, solicitor and have met a couple who are not all they make out to be even if their write up looks good x

Still doesn't say his theories are harmful so still up to the individual to choose to pay and go or not. I don't as not got that sort of money but no harm in reading books and make my own mind up.

Not defending him as don't know him, only picking to bits what I am reading here. But that just shows he is a human that got his fingers burnt.

It was deliberately misleading though, as he knew people would assume he was something that he wasn't, given the field it was very important that he be honest.

When it comes to medical qualifications, you just don't pretend you are something you are not.

Much as I have discomfort with the whole TH affair, in the interests of honesty, the GCC decided that he wasn't deliberately misleading:

The Committee was satisfied that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Whilst the misrepresentations appeared in more than one of Dr Pauc?s publications, this was a connected series of books published in consecutive years and therefore could be considered as one incident. (pg 6)

Yes Amber it was deliberately misleading.

But maybe he had ideas and research and met the same brick wall of refusal to acknowledge or dismiss it as quackery from the general public or colleagues?

Perhaps he did this misleading "slip of the tongue" by using it on books to get the word out about his views and research to the wider public?

Wrong yes. Businesses are wrong in many ways behind the scenes and we all know that but he could have or a may have a genuine reason for his dishonesty.

None of us know really why he did it.

There is a lot of possibilities but none that say he is harmful to children with SN x

Sorry, sickof ! I got tired (haha) of my previous givemesleep style names as I became annoyed rather than tired!

I would like to thank Indigo from the bottom of my heart.When i did not know what to do in quote with my daughter.I pm indigo with some questions which needed answers ,she gave me her time and made a number of suggestions.it was through these suggestions that we have been able to pinpoint some issues and put support in place.I feel sad that although indigo has said that she will be hurt if certain things are said ,this is still the case.

"I feel sad that although indigo has said that she will be hurt if certain things are said ,this is still the case."

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't discuss things which Indigo finds sad?

I'm with Amber on the misrepresentation thing. You can't equate a code of professional conduct in healthcare with corporate PR. it just ain't the same thing at all, it has completely different ramifications. The Robin Pauc thing reminds me of the discredited Gillian McKeith.

hw xxxx

Can't deny Gillian mckeith did get results though!