MPs try to overturn 'God can heal' ad ban

Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Posts
8,201
Rt Hon Lord Smith of Finsbury
Chairman, Advertising Standards Agency
21st March 2012

We are writing on behalf of the all-party Christians in Parliament group in Westminster and your ruling that the Healing On The Streets ministry in Bath are no longer able to claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions.
We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made. It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible.
On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision?
You might be interested to know that I (Gary Streeter) received divine healing myself at a church meeting in 1983 on my right hand, which was in pain for many years. After prayer at that meeting, my hand was immediately free from pain and has been ever since. What does the ASA say about that? I would be the first to accept that prayed for people do not always get healed, but sometimes they do. That is all this sincere group of Christians in Bath are claiming.
It is interesting to note that since the traumatic collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba the whole nation appears to be praying for a physical healing for him. I enclose some media extracts. Are they wrong also and will you seek to intervene?
We invite your detailed response to this letter and unless you can persuade us that you have reached your ruling on the basis of indisputable scientific evidence, we intend to raise this matter in Parliament.
Yours sincerely,

Gary Streeter MP (Con)
Chair, Christians in Parliament

Gavin Shuker MP (Labour)
Vice Chair, Christians in Parliament

Tim Farron (Lib-Dem)
Vice Chair, Christians in Parliament
http://charlieuniform.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/gary-streeter-mp.html

They have made a complete fool of themselves, if they actually looked up the ASA legislation they would have found this
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. If relevant, the rules in this section apply to claims for products for animals. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/CAP-Code/CAP-Code-Item.aspx?q=CAP%20Code%20new_Specific%20Category%20Sections_12%20Medicines,%20medical%20devices,%20health-related%20products%20and%20beauty%20products_Rules
 
I posted this link on these forums the other day which is rather apt - maybe they should take a look the ****** muppets.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370557

Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health.

Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, Davison A.

Source

Hertford College, Catte Street, Oxford, UK, OX1 3BW.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Prayer is amongst the oldest and most widespread interventions used with the intention of alleviating illness and promoting good health. Given the significance of this response to illness for a large proportion of the world's population, there has been considerable interest in recent years in measuring the efficacy of intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health in a scientifically rigorous fashion. The question of whether this may contribute towards proving or disproving the existence of God is a philosophical question lying outside the scope of this review of the effects of prayer. This revised version of the review has been prepared in response to feedback and to reflect new methods in the conduct and presentation of Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES:

To review the effects of intercessory prayer as an additional intervention for people with health problems already receiving routine health care.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We systematically searched ten relevant databases including MEDLINE and

EMBASE (June 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included any randomised trial comparing personal, focused, committed and organised intercessory prayer with those interceding holding some belief that they are praying to God or a god versus any other intervention. This prayer could be offered on behalf of anyone with health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We extracted data independently and analysed it on an intention to treat basis, where possible. We calculated, for binary data, the fixed-effect relative risk (RR), their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH).

MAIN RESULTS:

Ten studies are included in this updated review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death, with the effect not reaching statistical significance and data being heterogeneous (6 RCTs, n=6784, random-effects RR 0.77 CI 0.51 to 1.16, I(2) 83%). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer,the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.
 
Of course a study on prayer is going to be inconclusive, that would be tantamount to proving God exists, which clearly God does not wish to be proved because that removes faith.

ASA should keep it's nose out and worry more about those seeking to profit from misleading claims, not to tell religions what they can't believe in


lolreligion
wow, was that really worth typing, it's not like we haven't seen it a million times already.
 
Of course a study on prayer is going to be inconclusive, that would be tantamount to proving God exists, which clearly God does not wish to be proved because that removes faith.

Yeah, that's the reason.
wow, was that really worth typing, it's not like we haven't seen it a million times already.

I wonder why that is...
 
They are not telling people what religions they can believe in, those leaflets were rightfully banned as they were misleading. Many thousands of people die from not taking medicine due to these leaflets, it's practically legal murder.
 
Of course a study on prayer is going to be inconclusive, that would be tantamount to proving God exists, which clearly God does not wish to be proved because that removes faith.

ASA should keep it's nose out and worry more about those seeking to profit from misleading claims, not to tell religions what they can't believe in



wow, was that really worth typing, it's not like we haven't seen it a million times already.

ASA has for once made the right call. Belief is not proof.
 
Of course a study on prayer is going to be inconclusive, that would be tantamount to proving God exists, which clearly God does not wish to be proved because that removes faith.

ASA should keep it's nose out and worry more about those seeking to profit from misleading claims, not to tell religions what they can't believe in.

The MPs asked for evidence - I have just linked that evidence.

To make a claim that your product does something (in this case prayer) the onus is on you to back up that claim not everyone to demonstrate you are talking rubbish. So the ASA is doing exactly what it should.
 
I wonder why that is...
It's to allow people who haven't got a point to make or the intelligence to think of one, to participate in a discussion. This isn't the first thread in which you have added precisely nothing, maybe that's not a good reason for people to notice you?

Perhaps the mods will ban it one day, it really is tiresome to see it in every thread.
To make a claim that your product does something (in this case prayer) the onus is on you to back up that claim not everyone to demonstrate you are talking rubbish. So the ASA is doing exactly what it should.
I think it's pretty clear on what basis this is being offered, it requires belief in a deity first and faith in what participation in that belief may involve, in that context then almost anything could be attributed. Witness the convenient miracles that take place whenever a pope needs to be made into a saint.
It's not like they are setting out to con rational people, you can't fool somebody into believing in a God.
 
Whats wrong? They are falsely advertising.

How can god heal if he doesn't exist?

No religion can even prove their beliefs even exists...
 
Back
Top Bottom