Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10762-21 Peer v thesundaytimes.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Marisa
Peer complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, via a
representative, that thesundaytimes.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Celebrity therapist Marisa
Peer makes millions from ‘dangerous’ therapy”, published on 2 May 2021.
2. The
online article reported on the rapid transformational therapy (RTT) created and
promoted by the complainant and her company, More Than Enough. It reported that
the complainant was a “celebrity self-help guru with no proper medical
qualifications”, who had “trained others to use a technique that ‘breaks’
clients” and who promoted RTT as a “miracle cure for problems including eating
disorders, depression and infertility”. It went on to report that “for two
decades [the complainant] has been quoted as an expert ‘psychologist’ and
‘doctor’, despite being neither”. It further noted that the complainant had
once been described by a separate publication as a “winning sports
psychologist” although she has “never qualified as one”, adding that
“misquoting the 15-year-old article, [the complainant] refers to herself as
‘Britain’s best therapist’”.
3. The
article included comments from an unnamed individual who had practised RTT and
described it as “dangerous” in inexperienced hands. It also included comments
from an unnamed user, who said that the sessions were sold to her by the
therapist as “a miracle cure” and “left her feeling ‘broken inside’”; she urged
others to be wary of RTT and called for tighter regulation. The article went on
to report that the claims made for RTT were “not supported by evidence” and
have “prompted warnings from NHS England and the government”. The article
included statements from the national director for mental health at NHS England
and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with the latter stating
that “it was not aware of any evidence that demonstrates the therapeutic
effectiveness” of RTT. The article also reported that the complainant had been
“accused by psychologists of giving false hope to the desperate” and included
the comments of two named academics in the field of psychology and the deputy
chief executive of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
(BACP). One academic said they were “agog” at claims the therapy could cure
complex mental illness rapidly, which they described as “morally wrong” and
“nonsense”, adding “in terms of current understanding of psychological problems
like anxiety and depression… it had absolutely no foundation in what we
understand about these problems.” It further stated that the Advertising
Standards Authority (ASA) was “looking into claims on [the complainant’s]
website” and reported that the “in a call with a prospective student, an RTT
sales adviser” had said the courses “’normally’ cost ‘up to “12,000’.The
article concluded by stating that the complainant had “declined to comment”.
4. The
complainant said that the article included numerous inaccuracies, in breach
Clause 1 (Accuracy). The complainant disputed the accuracy of the claim that
RTT was “dangerous”. She said that the therapy was safe and denied that the
technique sought to “break” its clients. She said the article was misleading to
report that she had “no proper medical qualifications”; the services she
provided in the UK did not require licensing or medical qualifications. She
said that the inclusion of this information compounded the misimpression that
RTT was “dangerous”. Furthermore, the complainant denied that she had promoted
RTT as a “miracle cure” and disputed that the technique was “not supported by
evidence”, noting it was currently the subject of an independent study by
academics from the University of Central Lancashire, and her organisation had
its own research team. She denied that she had been “accused by psychologists
of giving false hope to the desperate”. She also disputed that RTT training
“courses ‘normally’ cost “up to £12,000”; she said they never cost more than
approximately £9,000.
5. In
addition, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that the
technique had “prompted warnings from NHS England and the government”; neither
had issued any warnings specifically related to RTT, nor could the statements
included within the article reasonably be characterised as “warnings”. She also
said that the article was inaccurate to report that the ASA were “looking into”
claims made on her company’s website. Though she accepted that the advertising
regulator had subsequently launched an investigation into her organisation, she
said that it had not yet done so at the time the article was published.
6. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that she had been “quoted
as an expert ‘psychologist’ and ‘doctor’”; she had never asked to be quoted as
such. She also said that the article was inaccurate to quote a description
provided by a separate, named publication (“winning sports psychologist”); she
had never claimed to be qualified as a psychologist, nor was a qualification
required for the practice of hypnotherapy or similar therapies.
7. Finally,
she said that the article was inaccurate to report that she “declined to
comment”. She had received a request from the publication for comment 48 hours
prior to publication, with a representative at the time confirming receipt and
indicating that they would respond in due course.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
suggestion that RTT was “dangerous” and “breaks” clients was clearly presented
as the personal view of a former student. It said that the use of single
quotation marks in the headline was a standard journalistic practise,
indicating that a claim had been made. They were statements of opinion, which
the text of the article made clear, and the publication was entitled to report
it.
9. While
the publication accepted that the practice of hypnotherapy required no medical
qualification, it noted that the complainant had previously described RTT as
“beyond hypnosis” which could assist with a multitude of clinical and medical
conditions. Taken in this context, where vulnerable people seeking assistance
may avoid more appropriate medical treatments, the publication said it was
appropriate and necessary for the article to raise the issue of medical
qualifications and to make clear the complainant had none.
10. The
publication maintained that it was entitled to report that the complainant had
been wrongly quoted for two decades as an expert “psychologist” and “doctor”,
despite being neither. In order to demonstrate this, the newspaper provided a
number of articles from a range of publications from 2006 to 2016. It also
noted that the complainant had actively contributed to a number of these
articles, with several referenced on the complainant’s own website, and these
misdescriptions remained uncorrected.
11. The
publication did not consider the article was inaccurate to report that the
complainant had promoted RTT as a “miracle cure”. It noted that complainant’s
website had repeatedly asserted that RTT could “heal” or “fix” complex
conditions – including medical conditions – and that this could be achieved in
one session. In addition, it noted that the unnamed former client had described
RTT in such terms, stating: “What I was sold by [the therapist] was a miracle
cure”.
12.
Furthermore, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate or
misleading in its reporting of the comments issued by psychologists; specific
concerns about RTT had been expressed by a number of experts with relevant
experience in this field. The publication provided the full responses from
those quoted, as well as the comments provided by other professionals, to
support its position in relation to this point.
13. In
addition, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to
characterise the statements issued by NHS England and the DHSC as “warnings”,
and to report that RTT was “not supported by evidence”. The publication had
approached both authorities with specific enquires about RTT prior to
publication, with the statement issued by NHS England “urg[ing] the public to
be extremely wary of untested expensive therapies provided by charlatans that
claim to cure serious conditions such as anxiety, eating disorders or addiction
in one session” and contrasted it with the services available through the NHS.
It also noted that the DHSC statement made clear it was “not aware of any
evidence that demonstrates the therapeutic effectiveness” of RTT and did “not
currently recommend that RTT should be used in the treatment of any health
condition”.
14. The
publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report that the
ASA was “looking into claims on [the complainant’s] website”. The publication
had contacted the ASA on 22nd April, 10 days prior to the article’s
publication, asking whether promotional material for RTT would “break their
rules” and regulations. The following day, the ASA had responded saying that it
could not comment on specific cases “without investigation”. However, following
further correspondence with the reporter, on 28th April, 5 days before the
article’s publication, the ASA then stated that “following internal
discussions”, it was “currently assessing what next steps” it might take in
relation to claims made. It also noted that the regulator had subsequently
investigated and ruled on the claims made by the complainant’s organisation
about RTT, concluding that the presentation of RTT on its website as a
stand-alone therapy for addressing multiple health conditions – including
addictions, physical health problems and post-traumatic stress disorder – was
misleading and could not be substantiated.
15. In
relation to the complainant’s concerns about the reported costs of RTT
training, the newspaper said that an undercover reporter, posing as a potential
RTT trainee, had contacted the complainant’s company on multiple occasions
prior to publication to discuss exploring the course. On the issue of course
fees, the reporter was told: “In terms of funding the training to get to the
level of the RTT certification, normally it would have been up to £12,000, but
with this new course in the form of blended learning, to get to the level of
RTT certification, it would be £5,850.” The publication said it was entitled to
rely upon the figures provided by the individual at the complainant’s
organisation who was responsible for liaising with potential trainees.
16.
Finally, the publication maintained that the complainant had been given a full
and fair opportunity to respond. It had contacted the complainant on 29th
April, four days before the article’s publication, via the email address
provided on the complainant’s website specifically for press enquiries. This
enquiry set out what the article was about, asked for the complainant’s
response, put a number of specific questions to her, and included a deadline
for the following day. When no response was received by the publication, this
request was forwarded to a separate address given on the complainant’s website.
To this, the publication received an acknowledgment. This made clear that that
the enquiry had been received by the complainant’s organisation, they were looking
into it and they would be back in touch shortly. However, the publication did
not receive a response to this request despite following up a further three
times before the article’s publication. In such circumstances, the publication
said it was reasonable to infer and report that the complainant “declined to
comment”.
17.
Prior to IPSO’s investigation, the publication had offered to update the online
article to record the complainant’s position, and proposed wording based upon
the correspondence between the two parties:
"RTT
is not dangerous, is not generally regarded as such and has never been the
subject of any Government warning to that effect. It is not designed or
intended to 'break' clients. Equally it is not a miracle cure and we cannot
guarantee that it will work for everyone. But there are many thousands of
practitioners and therapists utilising RTT and many thousands of people who
have benefitted from it. In order to practise as a therapist in the UK no
medical qualifications or licences are legally required. RTT therapists do not
diagnose patients or offer any other services that would require licensing or
medical qualifications. We believe RTT training is far more comprehensive than
that offered by the majority of hypnotherapy training providers. The minimum
requirement is 230 hours of rigorous training, which includes four livestreamed
training days, six observed practice sessions, six masterclasses, four
mentoring sessions, submission of a robust readiness-to-practise portfolio and
submission of a case study, consultation notes and audio for appraisal and
validation. If students do not meet the required standard they do not pass. We
also have a programme of ongoing CPD to ensure standards are maintained, and
mentoring and on-going training and support for therapists."
18. The
complainant, however, did not consider this sufficient and requested the
removal of the online article. The matter was passed to the Complaints
Committee for adjudication
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
19. The
complainant said it was inaccurate to describe RTT as “dangerous” and to report
that it sought to “break” its users. While the complainant clearly disagreed
with these assessments of RTT, the newspaper was entitled to report the views
which had been expressed by others and the accounts of their experiences of the
therapy provided it took care not to mislead readers in doing so. In this case,
the article had, in the view of the Committee, accurately distinguished these
descriptions as comments on RTT based upon the experiences (first-hand or
second-hand) of those quoted in the article, rather than presenting them as
statements of fact. The headline used quotation marks around the term
“dangerous”, which indicated that it was a claim that had been made, and the
text of the article also included a quote from an unnamed former practitioner
who had described the therapy in such terms, and in which she gave her account
that she had “watched clients ‘break’” and “felt completely out of [her] depth”
whilst using RTT. There was no failure to take care in relation to the
presentation of these claims in breach of Clause 1.
20. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that she had promoted RTT as
a “miracle cure”. The Committee noted that the paragraph in which the statement
was made reported that the complainant had sold training courses for RTT “…on
the premise that RTT can fix several ailments in one session”. In circumstances
where RTT marketing materials asserted that the therapy can “heal” and “fix” a
number of complex medical conditions, and where several academics and
institutions in the sector had expressed concerns about the claims made, the
Committee considered that the publication had provided a sufficient basis for
reporting that the complainant had promoted RTT as a “miracle cure”. There was
no breach of Clause 1 in regards to this.
21. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article reported
that she was “accused by psychologists of giving false hope to the desperate”;
RTT was “not supported by evidence”; and that the therapy had “prompted
warnings from NHS England and the government”. During the course of IPSO’s
investigation into the complaint, the publication had supplied responses which
had been provided by a number of academics and institutions in the field of
psychology who had expressed concerns about the claims made in regard to RTT’s
effectiveness and the vulnerability of individuals seeking treatment. Taking
account of these responses, and those included in the article, the Committee
did not consider that it was inaccurate to report that psychologists had
accused the complainant of giving false hope to the desperate. The Committee
noted that the publication had approached NHS England and the government
department, DHSC, seeking their comments on RTT prior to publication of the
article. In circumstances where, in response, the statement provided by the
former urged the public to be “extremely wary of untested expensive therapies”
and the latter stated it was “not aware of any evidence” that demonstrated the
effectiveness of RTT, the Committee did not consider that the article was
inaccurate to characterise the statements issued as “warnings” or to report
that the claims made about RTT were not “supported by evidence”. There was no
breach of Clause 1 in regard to these points.
22. The
Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that the
ASA “were looking” into claims made on the complainant’s company’s website. In
circumstances where a member of the ASA had provided a statement prior to the
article’s publication that said that it was “currently assessing what next
steps” it may take in relation to the claims made “following an internal
discussion”, the Committee considered that there was adequate basis to report
that the ASA were “looking into” it; there was no failure to take care under
Clause 1 (i)and no published inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause
1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.
23.
While the Committee acknowledged that a qualification was not required to
practice hypnotherapy or similar therapies, it did not consider that reporting
the complainant had “no proper medical qualifications” rendered the article
inaccurate or misleading where it also considered the regulation of therapy and
counselling, and where it was not in dispute that the complainant did not have
medical qualifications. Although the complainant said that she had never
described herself as an expert ‘psychologist’ and ‘doctor’, she did not dispute
that she had been previously described by others as such on numerous occasions,
including in articles cited on the complainant’s website; the inclusion of this
information did not render the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
24. The
article had reported that the RTT training courses “normally” cost “up to
£12,000”, when the complainant said they never cost more than £9,000. The
newspaper was entitled to report the figure provided to its reporter by a
member of the complainant’s organisation. In any event, the Committee did not
consider the difference in these figures to be significant within the overall
context of the article, given its focus on the efficacy of RTT. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
25.
Finally, the complainant said that the article was inaccurate to report she had
“declined to comment”. It was not in dispute that the complainant had been
afforded the opportunity to provide comments on multiple occasions before
publication of the article; a reporter had contacted the complainant about the
matter on five separate occasions over the course of four days. In
circumstances where she had exercised her right not to provide comment despite
being given adequate time and opportunity to do so, it was not inaccurate or
misleading for the publication to state that the complainant had “declined to
comment”. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on
this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
26. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
27. N/A
Date
complaint received: 13/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/06/2022
Back to ruling listing