New ruling on Lightning Process from British Advertising Standards Authority

Kalliope

Kalliope

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The ME Association:
Advertising Standards Authority ruling on ME Association complaint re Kathy Kent and the Lightning Process
When the SMILE trial results were published, the ME Association stated that we would continue to refer cases where Lightning Process practitioners are making unproven therapeutic claims to the relevant regulatory authorities.

Shortly after, Dr Shepherd referred website advertising material from Lightning Process practitioner Kathy Kent to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

From the ruling:
In 2012 and again in 2013 the ASA investigated health claims relating to The Lightning Process. The ASA found that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support medical claims for The Lightning Process training programme.
 
Sounds good, but clicking the link to the ruling leads to a '404 Page Not Found' error page: https://www.asa.org.uk/non-compliant/kathy-kent.html . A search on Lightning Process on the ASA site just turns up a short piece referring to the 2010 and 2012 judgments: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/health-the-lightning-process.html . That piece only includes a link to the ruling from 2012: https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/Phil-Parker-Group-Ltd-A11-158035.html . What happened to the new ruling?

The text of the new ruling, as reproduced on the MEA site, did state that it would stand until such time as the claims for LP's effectiveness had been removed or amended from Kathy Kent's site. Her page on LP on her site does not state anything about any actual curative powers of LP (presumably it did before), so maybe that's why the ruling has now disappeared? The wording on her LP page is now just vague stuff about getting the mind and body to work together: http://www.kathykent.co.uk/?page_id=154 . But, her Testimonial page has numerous links to testimonials of folks alleged to have had CFS or ME, who claim to have experienced a miracle cure thanks to LP: http://www.kathykent.co.uk/?page_id=109 . Surely that must be a no-no too?

ETA: Ah, a search on the Wayback Machine brings up what that LP page on Kathy Kent's site previously looked like; so, quite a big difference: https://web.archive.org/web/20170128133852/http://www.kathykent.co.uk/?page_id=154 . But that Testimonials page really needs to go.
 
Last edited:
So these rulings don't stay on-line any more? That seems odd to me. Thanks to the MEA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom