Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two ads for the Resonator.uk, an electronic bio-resonance machine, seen in February 2021:
a. The website resonator.uk, displayed the headline “The Resonator” with further text beneath which stated “The Resonator produces a resonant frequency in microamps from a tiny 9 volt battery that kills your parasites, bad bacteria, and destroys viruses. The 30kHz frequency vibrates at 30,000 times a second, shaking the pathogens to pieces. It can do no harm to the human body as the resonant frequency of a human cell resonates at a much higher frequency”. Further down the page a sub-heading stated “30 YEARS CONTINUAL SAFE USE”, with the text beneath “This 30 kHz (vibration) kills all parasites, bad bacteria, and destroys viruses in all mammals by SHAKING them to destruction. The Resonator runs at 30kHz. Overuse of antibiotics has produced resistant bacteria, but the Resonator kills all bad bacteria. The Resonator cannot kill the good bacteria in liquid as in the gut … Drugs can kill the living pathogens parasites and bacteria, but not viruses, they are not alive. Vigorous shaking to destroy the outer protein shell is the only safe way to destroy viruses.”
Another sub-heading stated “LONG COVID” with text beneath which read “The aftermath of having the virus. Long Covid is happening because the immune system has not removed all the viruses. Viruses are sucked into under-performing cells being mistaken for food. The replicated virus produced by the cell is going to be slightly different, and if the body is not at its correct pH, your immune system will miss some of these replicants. These will be carried around the body causing havoc where they land. The only way to remove these replicants and any other virus is to use a Resonator … Using the Resonator every day until symptoms disappear will ensure a body free of the virus. This generally takes a week or two.” Also, another sub-heading towards the bottom of the page stated “COULD THE RESONATOR REPLACE VACCINES?” with text beneath which stated “There is a vaccine that contains mRNA (memory RNA) which is injected into the body by way of a modified cold virus. If the cell is under-performing, it will enter the cell just like any other virus and provides the mRNA to the cell to convert your DNA to produce antigens. The cell then presents the antigens to the immune system preparing the body to fight the disease. The long term outcome and side effects of giving a cell a set of instructions to produce artificial antibodies have yet to be found.” A paragraph beneath stated “Whereas parasites and bacteria are living entities and may be killed by chemical drugs, viruses are not alive, so they cannot be killed. They have to be destroyed, and the only safe way to destroy a virus is to shake it to pieces, which is what the Resonator does … Yes, it can replace vaccines as it will – if used, destroys any virus, parasite, or bad bacteria that invade the body.”
b. A post on the Resonator.uk’s Facebook page stated “If below was a scam, or it was a very bad lie, I am easily contactable and I would be shut down. But it’s not a scam it is so very true, but none of the Newtonian chemical-based medical systems has any idea what it is. They have never been taught it. That is why you don’t know.” Underneath text read “If you don’t want or can’t have a vaccine, there is a safer well proven alternative that destroys Covid-19 in the body.”
Issue
The ASA received two complaints, from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) and a member of the public, who challenged whether the claims in ads (a) and (b):
1. that the product could destroy viruses, and specifically COVID-19, made medical claims for a product that was not a CE-marked medical device and breached the Code;
2. discouraged essential treatment for COVID-19, condition for which medical supervision should be sought; and
3. that the product could treat COVID-19, replace vaccines and was an alternative to the COVID-19 vaccine were irresponsible.
Response
Anthony Grant t/a Resonator.uk, confirmed that the Facebook ads had been deleted but that they believed the remaining ads were relevant and would not be removed. Resonator.uk stated that the Resonator was an electronic device used to generate bio-resonance. They stated that the device could be used to destroy COVID-19. Resonator.uk stated that in a serious pandemic, they would promote anything that worked. They believed that the Resonator and similar devices had cured COVID-19 as well as other diseases. Resonator.uk confirmed that the Resonator was not a CE-marked medical device and they believed that it did not require a CE mark.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the MHRA, VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate) or under the auspices of the EMA (European Medicines Agency), or for a CE-marked medical device. The CAP Code also required that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, such as COVID-19.
The ASA noted that ad (a) made various claims about the Resonator product such as: “kills your parasites, bad bacteria, and destroys viruses”, “kills all parasites, bad bacteria, and destroys viruses in all mammals by SHAKING them to destruction”, “Long Covid is happening because the immune system has not removed all the viruses … The only way to remove these replicants and any other virus is to use a Resonator … Using the Resonator every day until symptoms disappear will ensure a body free of the virus” and ad (b) claimed that the Resonator “destroys Covid-19 in the body”.
We considered that consumers would interpret the claims to mean that the Resonator could prevent or treat COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. We considered that the ads made medical claims. However, we understood that the Resonator was not a CE-marked medical device, therefore no medical claims could be made for the product. We had not been provided with any evidence to support the medical claims. We also considered that COVID-19 was a condition for which medical supervision should be sought, and therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment needed to be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. However, we understood that the product was sold for home use. We considered that it could therefore discourage essential medical treatment. We concluded that ads (a) and (b) made medical claims for a product that was not a CE-marked medical device, and discouraged consumers from seeking essential treatment under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional, and therefore breached the Code.
On those points, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
12.2
12.2
Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
Ads (a) and (b) included claims such as “COULD THE RESONATOR REPLACE VACCINES?”, “the only safe way to destroy a virus is to shake it to pieces, which is what the Resonator does … Yes, it can replace vaccines as it will – if used, destroys any virus, parasite, or bad bacteria that invade the body” and “If you don’t want or can’t have a vaccine, there is a safer well proven alternative that destroys Covid-19 in the body”. We considered that consumers would likely interpret those claims to mean that the Resonator product could prevent and treat COVID-19 and offered an alternative to vaccination. As above, we had not seen any evidence that suggested the Resonator could treat or prevent COVID-19. Given the risk that people could be discouraged from being vaccinated, resulting in less protection for them and for the population more widely, we concluded that the ads were also irresponsible.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Resonator.uk to ensure that they did not make medical claims for a product, unless it was a CE-marked medical device and they held sufficient evidence to support efficacy claims. We told them not to discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We also told them not to state or imply that the Resonator was an effective alternative to vaccination against COVID-19 and to ensure that their ads were socially responsible.
