Oh I think irony is always lost on you @JUMPINJACK28
There were two elements to the ASA complaint. As that is how the ASA works, they focus on certain elements and in this case selected two social media adverts. It wasn’t that there were only two ‘adverts” that breached the code, it was clearly a case of whittling it down because Belief Coding has been making false claims on a daily basis. These false claims have been misleading a lot of people to part with a lot of money. There has also been damage to people’s mental health due to trusting in bogus therapy from people with no clinical training who don’t know how to help in a safe way.
When the ASA notice that a content creator is being misleading they put the concerns to that content creator/advertiser and they give them a chance to explain themselves. BC chose to claim it was all the fault of AI but it was clear their research was bogus and the numbers “proving” BC could cure depression were fictitious. It was also clear that the person leading the research had no qualifications. At this point Jessica and Kyle started deleting the content that would get them into further trouble because they knew they were guilty of making up the stats, the stories of curing all sorts of psychological and physical illnesses and claims that their research was to be published in the British Medical Journal. If BC wasn’t a scam it wouldn’t have needed any ruling from the ASA and wouldn’t have needed to do quite so much dirty deletion.
Seen as you claim expertise in ethics let us have your opinion on the following behaviour from JB and KB and Abhijeet S at Belief Coding in the last year alone, perhaps you can tell us how it demonstrates an ethical approach. By the way, every single one of these things have been stated (it’s not gossip) and it’s all been recorded.
Claim by JC that BC can cure Dementia in one session
Claim that BC “completely erases” anxiety
Claims of a one session cure for clinical depression
Claim on behalf of BC that suicidal thoughts can be removed
Sharing of someone’s private health conditions and family situation detailed in private correspondence with others without their permission cause acute distress then blocking them when they complained
Not complying with consumer law by refusing refunds
Promising to “cure” a woman with a psychiatric diagnosis and c-PTSD and then blocking her when she became more unwell as a result of delaying proper treatment
Claiming that Abhijeet was a neuroscientist
Claiming that Abhijeet was a medically qualified person
Abhijeet claiming he was “doing surgery at Hillingdon hospital”
Claiming 83% cure rate for depression using BC - actually this claim is still on social media!
Claims that BC helps with chronic pain, PND, Bipolar Disorder, phobias, weight loss, fertility problems, OCD, suicidal ideation, panic attacks
Claims of ongoing research
Ongoing breaches of privacy and little or no GDPR compliance
Sharing lots of anecdotes from “belief coders” about health conditions - these have not been removed either
Making false income claims about earnings as a result of doing BC courses - JC’s current focus
When you consider that people who have any of the illness listed may put their trust in these claims do you think that’s acceptable? When people spend huge amounts of money for training again and again, believing they will earn a living from it when that isn’t true, is that OK? Can you see why people are questioning that? Can you see why they think it’s wrong? Again, it’s not slander to discuss verifiable and recorded behaviour. No legal line Is being crossed here and if this and other comments about Belief Coding help people to consider the merits or otherwise of joining then that is a very good thing. And if any journalist or authority such as Trading Standards reads this thread or other similar critical comments then that is a very good thing.
Now stop pretending to be a lecturer in media ethics Kyle, you’re fooling no one.