Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two marketing emails and a website, www.lynnemctaggart.com, for the alternative medicine advocate and author Lynne McTaggart:
a. An email for an online event promoting Ms McTaggart’s “Power of Eight” method, received on 23 February 2023, contained the subject line “Healed in an Instant: Supersize your intentions to transform your life”. Text in the main body stated “Join me for a special two-hour online event, 'Healed in an instant: Supersize your intentions to transform your life' and discover the secret of how group intention and the Power of Eight unleashes a miraculous power to heal yourself, your loved ones […] During this workshop about the Power of Eight, you’ll hear and see documented cases of […] paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, chronic fatigue, and much more – all being healed just through people sending their loving thoughts in a group.”
b. A page on the advertiser’s website promoting a paid-for five-day retreat called “Heal Your Past”, seen on 30 March 2023. Text stated “A HEALING RETREAT IN A HISTORIC ENGLISH COUNTRY HOUSE SANCTUARY”.
Text continued “[…] Time-Light is now being used by a team of European therapists to heal such problems as depression and anxiety […] Lynne will then work with you using her special techniques backward and forward in time, using the supersizing healing power of a Power of Eight group to heal specific incidents from your past that prevent you from living life to your full potential.”
Issue
The Good Thinking Society challenged whether:
1. the claims that the “Power of Eight” method could heal paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, and chronic fatigue in ad (a) were misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claim that the “Time-Light” method could heal problems such as depression and anxiety in ad (b) was misleading and could be substantiated; and
3. ads (a) and (b) discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
1. Lynne McTaggart said that the “Healed in an Instant” online event promoted in ad (a) had been broadcast from the USA, and the ad had been sent to her international audience as a courtesy. She said that she considered herself to be a science and medical author and journalist, and not an alternative medicine advocate.
Ms McTaggart believed that the claims identified in the ad were not medical claims, and that she had never claimed the techniques found in the “Power of Eight” method could heal people of medical conditions. She said the text from ad (a) meant that during the online event she would present testimonial videos from people suffering from the conditions identified in the ad, who, after working with their “Power of Eight” group, had reported that their conditions had improved or healed. She said that the only claim she had ever made was that group intention appeared to have an effect, the extent of which was still being investigated.
Ms McTaggart said that the people mentioned in ad (a) had all been under the care of doctors and other medical practitioners, who had deemed their conditions incurable by conventional means. She said that they had continued to receive medical care from their doctors during and after any work with “The Power of Eight” method. She said that each person had given their approval for the videos to be presented, and that she had received numerous testimonials from users of the method.
2. Ms McTaggart believed that the complainant had conflated a statement of fact - that her “Time-Light” method was being used by a team of European psychotherapists and psychiatrists to heal such problems as depression and anxiety – with a medical claim. She said that the “Time-Light” method was being used as a therapeutic tool at a psychiatric clinic in Germany, which had reported positive results. She said that the text of ad (b) did not claim that the “Time-Light” method had been used as the exclusive therapy in treating those patients, and had merely stated that it was one of the treatments used at the clinic.
Ms McTaggart said that she and her organisation had not claimed to heal anxiety or depression themselves using the “Time-Light” method. She said the wider language seen in the ad was metaphorical, and the healing referred to was not medical, and did not address anxiety, depression or other mental or physical conditions. She said that the “Time-Light” method sat in the realm of personal development, not medical treatment.
3. Ms McTaggart said that she and her organisation had never advised anyone to stop conventional medical treatment, did not present the “Power of Eight” method as a replacement for any therapy, and that during the course she recommended people focus on finding the right medical practitioner for their situation.
She said that the “Power of Eight” method provided a platform which allowed people working within a group to help each other and themselves. She said that she was not present within any such groups when the work was carried out, and had never made any specific claims about the method. She said that was made clear in the terms of use found on her website, which clearly stated that she was not a medical practitioner, did not make specific health claims for the “Power of Eight” method, and advised consumers that the method was designed to complement, not replace, professional medical treatment.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Ad (a) promoted an online event called “Healed in an instant: Supersize your intentions to transform your life”, which was a workshop promoting Lynne McTaggart’s group intention method, the “Power of Eight”. The ad encouraged consumers to “discover the secret of how group intention and the Power of Eight unleashes a miraculous power to heal yourself [and] your loved ones”, and contained the claim that attendees would “hear and see documented cases of […] paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, chronic fatigue, and much more – all being healed just through people sending their loving thoughts in a group.”
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from that claim that the workshop would present them with documented examples and case studies of people suffering from the identified illnesses and conditions, who had been healed as a direct result of “Power of Eight” group members “sending their loving thoughts in a group”. We therefore expected to see robust scientific evidence in support of the claims made about the “Power of Eight” method, which substantiated that it provided successful treatment for the listed illnesses and conditions. Testimonials alone were not sufficient to substantiate the claims.
Because the ad stated that attendees would “hear and see documented cases” of the listed illnesses and conditions “all being healed just through people sending their loving thoughts in a group”, we considered that it had made medical claims that the techniques promoted in the method could heal people of such conditions. We therefore considered that the ad presented the “Power of Eight” method as a cure to the listed illnesses and conditions.
While we acknowledged Ms McTaggart’s offer to provide us with copies of the video testimonials from people who had used the “Power of Eight” method, we did not consider testimonials alone were sufficient to substantiate the medical claims made in the ad. Because we had seen no evidence that the “Power of Eight” group intention method could provide effective treatment for paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression and chronic fatigue, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
Ad (b) promoted a paid-for retreat at which attendees would be taught the “Time-Light” method, and included the claim that the method was “being used by a team of European therapists to heal such problems as depression and anxiety”. We therefore considered that consumers would understand from that claim that the “Time-Light” method could heal depression and anxiety. We also considered that the claim that the method could “heal” depression and anxiety to be a medical claim. We therefore expected that Ms McTaggart should hold robust scientific evidence in support of the claims made about the “Time-Light” method, which substantiated that it provided successful treatment for depression and anxiety.
We acknowledged Ms McTaggart’s response, including her comments that the “Time-Light” method was being used in a clinical setting in Germany, and her belief that the ad had not claimed that it had been used as an exclusive therapy, but only as a treatment option. We also acknowledged her belief that the ad had not claimed that the method could heal anxiety or depression.
However, the ad had clearly stated “Time-Light is now being used by a team of European therapists to heal such problems as depression and anxiety” and had presented no qualifying information or evidence to substantiate that claim. The only information provided by Ms McTaggart was that feedback from the German clinic had reported “positive results”. Because we had seen no evidence that the “Time-Light” method could successfully treat depression or anxiety, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that 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 or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
We noted that ads (a) and (b) included references to paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, chronic fatigue and anxiety. We considered that those were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Because both ads had made medical claims, we considered that consumers would interpret them to mean that the online workshop advertised in ad (a) and the retreat advertised in ad (b) would offer specific advice or treatment for those conditions.
While we acknowledged Ms McTaggart’s response, and her belief that the ads did not make any specific health claims, we considered that the claims made in both ads implied that the advertised methods offered specific treatment for the illnesses and conditions mentioned, and therefore considered that it was her responsibility to demonstrate that the specific treatments mentioned in the ads were conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
Ms McTaggart had not supplied evidence which showed that either the “Power of Eight” or the “Time-Light” methods advertised in ads (a) and (b) were conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. We therefore concluded that the ads discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and that they breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Lynne McTaggart not to state or imply, including by the use of testimonials, that their “Power of Eight” method could treat health or medical conditions including paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, chronic fatigue, and anxiety unless she held adequate evidence. We also told Ms McTaggart to ensure her ads did not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
