ASA Rules Against Crazy Church Miracle Cure Claims

ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Adjudication on Mount Zion Restoration Ministries

Ad

A circular for Mount Zion Restoration Ministries was headlined “Come and See” and had the strapline “Real life testimonies from London Miracle Centre”. The front cover featured pictures of three individuals, whose testimonies of miraculous and prayer-assisted healing were printed inside the circular, under the headings “Miraculously Healed after Near Fatal Car Accident”, “Cancerous Cells Disappear After Prophetic Healing Service” and “Miraculously Healed of Cancer”. The front cover also featured a picture of a man in a tuxedo with the caption “‘Jesus Wants the Best for You in Life’ Senior Pastor, Dr Abraham”. The same picture appeared again inside the circular with the caption “Senior Pastor: Dr Abraham Daniel-Joel”.

Issue

One reader challenged whether the:

1. advertiser could substantiate the claims that they had cured cancer and the serious complications suffered by the car accident victim;

2. ad was irresponsible and could discourage people from seeking essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions; and,

3. use of the term “Dr” misleadingly implied that Dr Abraham Daniel-Joel held a general medical qualification.

The ASA challenged whether the:

4. testimonials featured in the ad were genuine and could be independently verified.

CAP Code

Response

1. Mount Zion Restoration Ministries (Mount Zion) said that they were no different from many mainstream churches in the UK that also practised prayer for the sick and published accounts of such prayers being answered.

2. Mount Zion did not believe the ad discouraged anyone from seeking medical help.

3. Mount Zion said Abraham Daniel-Joel held a PhD in Computation Fluid Dynamics and believed the use of the term “Dr” in the ad was not misleading as it was clear that they were not offering medical healing.

4. Mount Zion said that all the individuals featured in the ad stood by their testimonies. They said that such healings were common and were widely documented. They submitted a news article about a young boy who fell into a freezing lake and was clinically dead for three hours before being resuscitated. They pointed out that the boy claimed to have met his late grandmother during his ordeal and believed this was evidence of miraculous healing.

Assessment

1. Upheld

We noted that the ad featured three testimonials that claimed Dr Abraham had cured cancer and serious head injuries sustained in a road accident. However, we also noted that we had not seen robust, independent evidence that demonstrated that Dr Abraham had successfully treated these conditions. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code Clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

2. Upheld

We noted that the ad stated “… I have seen the dead raised and I have witnessed nearly all types of healing miracles. Church ministries are like restaurants. Here … we serve miracles.” We also noted that the testimonials referred to series medical conditions, and suggested that Dr Abraham’s healing abilities were responsible for curing them. Two of those testimonials also described explicit refusals to visit a GP, go to hospital or undergo emergency surgery. We therefore considered that the ad implied that Dr Abraham was able to treat serious medical conditions by healing alone, and we concluded that the ad could therefore discourage some people from seeking essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

3. Upheld

The ASA noted Mount Zions explanation that Abraham Daniel Joel had a PhD in Computational Fluid Dynamics. However, we considered that consumers were likely to understand the term Dr to mean that Abraham Daniel-Joel held a general medical qualification. Because we understood that was not the case we concluded that the use of the term “Dr” was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We noted that the CAP Code required advertisers to hold signed and dated proof for any testimonial that they used, and stated that claims made in testimonials must be supported by independent evidence of their accuracy. Because we had not seen signed and dated copies of the testimonials used in the ad, or independent evidence that verified the claims made in them, we concluded that the testimonials were misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 14.1 and 14.3 (Testimonials).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/6/Mount-Zion-Restoration-Ministries/TF_ADJ_48537.aspx

Crazy Related Posts

• Sorry No Other Crazy Related Posts Just Yet