Advertisment
The homepage of the website included the following statement:
5 reasons to choose Cell-based Immunotherapy for Cancer
Immucura offers a complete and advanced Cancer Therapy based on the patient’s immune system. This Natural Immunotherapy for cancer patients does not involve any chemicals, drugs or other external substances. Unlike traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, DCT offers multiple advantages:
Minimally Invasive Pain-free Using the body’s natural healing system No side-effects Appropriate for any tumour-based cancers
Under the section titled “A complete and non-invasive cancer therapy” it stated:
“An average of five years of survival on conventional treatments is a poor result, and at the same time huge side effects are experienced. Cancer is a systemic disease and needs a well-differentiated approach. That’s why Immucura combines the best non-invasive treatments.
Each of these elements has superior survival rates and no unwanted side effects:
Cell-based Immunotherapy
Hyperthermia
Highly efficient Natural Remedies
Clinically proven results and 5 star patient experience: that’s what distinguishes Immucura’s therapy.”
The home page included a graph titled “Cancer Survival Rates at Immucura” which outlined the 1-year survival rates for stage IV of various cancers, including breast, colorectal, brain, prostate and pancreatic and included the number of patients treated for each cancer.
Results were given as follows:
Breast cancer – 39 patients. Graph showed over 80% survival rate
Colorectal – 27 patients. Graph showed over 80% survival rate
Brain – 20 patients. Graph showed over 50% survival rate
Prostate – 9 patients. Graph showed 100% survival rate
Pancreatic cancer – 16 patients. Graph showed less than 40% survival rate.
Under the Frequently Asked Questions Section of the website, it included the following questions and answers:
“AM I ELIGIBLE FOR DENDRITIC CELL THERAPY? To improve or cure cancer using dendritic cells, the work mechanism is pretty much the same and effective in any cancer that forms tissue structures (tumours, carcinomas, melanomas, sarcomas etc.). This makes every cancer patient – including all cancer types that form a solid tumour or carcinoma, including metastasis – eligible apart from some forms of leukaemia. As the therapy effect is natural, it works in every stage of the cancer journey and it can be used in conjunction or separate from any other treatment. Oncologists with expertise in immunology will likely suggest dendritic cell therapy as a first and primary therapy. For clarity DCT, unlike chemotherapy, is a primary therapy, while most believe DCT is just an adjunctive therapy. To determine the best strategy, we are happy to discuss your individual situation based on your medical reports.
WILL MY TREATING SPECIALIST RECOMMEND THIS THERAPY?
The majority of specialists are unaware of this therapy as it is not yet mainstream in common pathways. As with all new methods, it takes time to convince a large part of the medical profession. The benefit this therapy has is that there is no harm done to the body, yet it has higher success rates than traditional treatments according to many clinical reports.
WHERE CAN I GET THE THERAPY?
The therapy can take place either in one of Immucura’s partner clinics located in different European countries or in any clinic located close to our patients’ homes. Furthermore, if the patient cannot travel, Immucura is able to send a medical team to the patient’s home. Thanks to the well-structured logistics network, Immucura can reach out to and help patients in many different countries, giving them access to this vanguard therapy.”
Complaint
The complainant objected to the advertising on the following grounds:
Issue 1:
The complainant considered that the reference and comparison to mainstream cancer treatments could be considered as discouraging treatment.
Issue 2:
The complainant considered that the success rates in the advertisement could be considered as overstated. The complainant said that the treatment was a relatively new treatment and that while there were references to scientific trials and papers, the treatment was not widely recognised.
Issue 3:
The complainant questioned the qualifications of those who administered the treatment.
Response
The advertisers said that they took the complaint very seriously and had implemented several changes to address the issues raised.
Issue 1:
advertisers said that any reference to mainstream treatments had been removed from the frequently asked questions page.
Issue 2:
The advertisers said that they only mentioned their own success rate statistics on their website and that they had stated that these statistics were from their own patients.
In regard to the scientific papers, they said that they only referenced publicly available scientific papers. They referred to the page on their website titled ‘Scientific Insights’ and that they had amended text on this page to state:
“Many clinical papers inform about the safety and efficacy of this therapy either alone or in combination with other treatments.”
They also referred to their Blog page where they included a link to the scientific papers and that they were simply stating that there were more than 70,000 clinical papers published about Dendritic Cell therapy (DCT)(1), including examples which showed the efficacy of DCT, the interaction of cell-based immunotherapy with other treatments and the treatment of specific types of cancer with DCT.
Issue 3:
The advertisers said that their website had only made reference to their own statistics and publicly available scientific papers.
(1) https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/immunotherapy/types/vaccines-to-treat-cancer
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1:
The Committee noted that the advertising had outlined the benefits that the treatment offered in comparison to other mainstream treatment options. The Committee noted that detail on the changes that had been made to the FAQ page had not been submitted. The Committee noted the requirements of the Code in regard to providing evidence for claims made in advertising and that in this case, no evidence had been provided to substantiate the comparative claim made against mainstream treatments. In the absence of such evidence the Committee considered that the advertising could discourage use of mainstream treatments such as chemotherapy and was therefore in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 11.1 and 11.5 of the Code.
Issue 2:
The Committee noted that the website had included survival rates for various types of cancer for individuals that underwent the advertised treatment. While the Committee noted that the website had referred to the studies, no evidence had been submitted to the ASA to substantiate the claims made. In the absence of substantiation, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 11.1 of the Code.
Issue 3:
The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainant and that the advertising had not included details as to who administers the treatment nor had the details been provided. The Committee noted the requirement of the Code that marketing communications for health and beauty products or treatments should not include representations of individuals that give the impression of professional advice or recommendations unless such persons are suitably qualified and have relevant and recognised qualifications. In the absence of evidence that those who administered the treatment were suitably qualified and had relevant and recognised qualifications, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 11.4 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertising must not reappear in its current form unless sufficient evidence was provided for the claims made.
