Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two posts on Jessica Cunningham’s Facebook page seen in June 2025:
a. The first post stated, “There’s a reason everyone’s talking about Belief Coding. And you’ll be pleased to know it’s not just for sorting people’s depression. It works for everything… anxiety, phobias, self-sabotage, low self worth, self confidence, inner peace, money blocks, weight loss, clarity, the list goes on and on and on”. An accompanying video had on-screen text that stated, “In a recent clinical trial 83% of people with depression saw a huge improvement with belief coding. Compared to just 31% using regular cbt [cognitive behaviour therapy]. That’s more than DOUBLE the impact”.
b. The second post stated, “JUST LOOK AT THESE TESTIMONIALS” and “Here are just a handful of the many MANY testimonials we’ve got (I literally get tagged on a daily basis… like its honestly crazy). This could be YOU”. The post included a number of testimonials that referenced how belief coding had assisted with suicidal thoughts, substance misuse, infertility, helping to quit smoking, bed wetting, ear pain, back pain, anxiety and fibromyalgia.
Issue
The complainant, a CBT therapist, challenged whether
-
ads (a) and (b) discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought; and
-
the efficacy claims made for belief coding in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. and 2. Belief Coding Cognitive Rewiring Ltd (BCCR) stated that the claim in ad (a) regarding 83% of people with depression seeing a huge improvement did not come from published research. The ad was created by an external social media agency who had been provided with a published scientific paper for reference. In summarising that paper, artificial intelligence (AI) had been used and the figure had incorrectly been attributed to the paper by the AI tool. Following receipt of the complaint the post had been removed. They were further reviewing all their content to ensure only marketing claims supported by accurate data would be made. In addition, any AI generated content would be rigorously checked before publication.
They explained while the 83% figure had not been correct, belief coding itself was supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence that indicated measurable outcomes. They provided one clinical trial and a peer-reviewed journal article on the theoretical foundations of belief coding to support that position.
They said that for practitioners of belief coding, the training and accreditation process reinforced the message that belief coding was not a replacement for medical or psychiatric treatment.
They acknowledged that testimonials were not a substitute for objective evidence. They explained their intent was to use testimonials to show the genuine personal experiences of those who used belief coding. However, they recognised the testimonials could have been interpreted as claims beyond the individual. They said going forward they would better present testimonials so as not to appear to imply universal or guaranteed results.
They confirmed that belief coding was supported by scientific oversight from Dr. Abhijeet Satani (a neuroscientist and medical professional), who ensured their training content aligned with current research and ethical standards.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Ad (a) referred to “depression” and ad (b) referred to suicidal feelings, substance misuse (cannabis addiction) and infertility problems, which were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment must be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
The ASA acknowledged that ad (a) had been removed and BCCR had agreed to make future changes to their ads. However, we had not seen evidence to show that belief coding was provided under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We considered that in the absence of such a professional, the ads discouraged essential medical treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. The ads therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
Ad (a) stated, in reference to belief coding, “It works for everything… anxiety […]” and ad (b) referred in the testimonials to assisting with help to quit smoking, bed wetting, ear pain, back pain, anxiety and fibromyalgia. We considered consumers would understand from those claims that belief coding could effectively treat all the conditions listed. We therefore expected to see evidence that related specifically to the use of belief coding, and which substantiated that it was a successful treatment for the listed conditions.
BCCR provided a paper published in a science and research journal and authored by Jessica Cunningham, the founder and CEO of belief coding. The paper provided an introduction to belief coding, explained its methodology and its application in a clinical setting. The paper however did not cite any clinical trials for belief coding. Because the paper was not a systematic review or a primary research study, it therefore did not represent evidence to substantiate the claims.
BCCR further supplied a controlled trial of 60 women who received belief coding therapy under monitoring of an electroencephalogram (EEG) system, which measured activity in the brain. Six women formed the control group who received the procedural elements of belief coding without the active therapeutic components. Results from the EEG showed increased brain activity, measured by alpha coherence, gamma synchronisation and delta-theta coupling, for those who used belief coding, as well as decreased beta activity. Those results were not shown for the control group.
The trial paper made no reference to medical conditions or treating addiction. However, it stated that reduction in beta wave activity, as found in the results, had a significant correlation with decreased symptoms of anxiety.
We understood that the criteria for those entering the trial were women who possessed “limiting self-identified beliefs that affect emotional functioning or behavior”, but there was no indication that the participants had formally been diagnosed with anxiety. We further noted that while the trial monitored temporary changes in the brain, when the belief coding was being delivered, it did not report on long-term outcomes of the therapy or if the changes in the brain reported in the study had longer lasting effects beyond the belief coding session. Further to that we noted that the sample size of six women for the control group, was very small.
We considered that BCCR had not supplied adequate evidence to substantiate the claims made about the efficacy of belief coding in treating anxiety, nicotine addiction, bed wetting, ear pain, back pain and fibromyalgia. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told BCCR Ltd to ensure they did not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. They should also ensure they did not make claims for the efficacy of belief coding in treating health conditions unless they were supported with adequate objective evidence.
