International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018 63
the often-small sample sizes and a lack of
accounting for variables or control factors.
In one of the earliest so-called studies it
reportedly conducted (1990), GWP personnel
distributed healing instruments to 20 people.
GWP asked these people to share the healing
instruments with others, and to follow up with
GWP in 3, 6, or 12 months (WERU, 1997b).
According to Moe, the only way to gather “valid
research” (quoted in WERU, 1997b) was to “let
the instruments go out” (WERU, 1997b) and
wait for feedback (WERU, 1997b). After a year,
the study allegedly demonstrated that most
subjects noticed an improvement in their lives
(or the improvement in the subjects’ lives)
fewer than five percent reported no change
(WERU, 1997b). GWP literature later claimed
that only 15 percent
448F
449 of successful healings
were the result of a spontaneous remission
(WOMR, 1997b).
Miller elaborated on the research that GWP
conducted, stating members “literally gave [the
instruments] to thousands of people and had
those people report back to us on the results”
(WERU, 1997a). Other GWP research models
included studying members as they participated
in a range of activities that included building,
repairing, and sailing boats building and flying
model airplanes and helicopters carpentry and
woodworking and small radio use and repair.
The research model GWP used was
pseudoscientific, falling short of what most
academics hold to be valid scientific inquiry
because, at the most basic level, the tests did not
account for a number of variables that might
have influenced the results.
The main source of evidence for the success of
GWP’s healing instruments were the numerous
testimonials that supporters offered. GWP
leaders claimed that they had received only one
complaint in 20 years. They made it clear,
however, that this complaint was not valid since
the man had “claimed (with no proof) to have
received a FREE [sic] healing and felt he was
not helped” (GWP, 2003b, p. 3). This statement
449 None of these percentages had sources in the GWP material in
fact, GWP cited no studies, thus making these figures questionable
at best.
undermined the validity of this complaint by
questioning the honesty of the one who lodged
it—a clear attempt to counter the complaint by
attacking the source.
The late Dr. Barry Beyerstein (a psychologist
and alternative-health critic) noted that use of
testimonials is common in unorthodox and
alternative-health practices. In fact, “many
dubious health products remain on the market
primarily because satisfied customers offer
testimonials to their worth” (Beyerstein, 1997,
para. 11). The testimonials of the healing effects
of GWP products were varied and abundant.
Some indicated that instrument keepers (IKs)
449F
450
used the instruments in orthodox medical
environments, including on patients before
operations and in an emergency room (GWP,
2003a). In an orthodox medical environment,
those who offer the care and are keepers of
medical information wield power over—and
hold a degree of trust with—their patients. Quite
simply, a tool used by an apparent expert (an
orthodox medical practitioner such as a nurse or
doctor) in an orthodox medical environment
(i.e., a hospital) endows a product or procedure
with a level of authenticity it may not have in
other circumstances.
IKs, those who had spent significant amounts of
money to own various instruments, often were
the most vocal in reporting on their experiences
and offering testimonials. Those who had
invested in the project may not have been the
most neutral responders, and they clearly
demonstrated a conflict of interest. Another
instance of a conflict of interest is the
testimonial of Paul Carreiro (Mary Miller’s
brother) regarding the benefit of the healing
instruments for cancer patients. Not only was he
the brother of one of the leaders, but also GWP
lent him money (Mary Miller dep., 2005, p.
111).
Despite some aspects of testimonials being
questionable, the positive feedback suggests that
some individuals found relief from using the
healing instruments. Recall that most of the
450 Those who bought and possessed GWP Healing Instruments
were referred to as instrument keepers and were expected to share
the instruments with others.
the often-small sample sizes and a lack of
accounting for variables or control factors.
In one of the earliest so-called studies it
reportedly conducted (1990), GWP personnel
distributed healing instruments to 20 people.
GWP asked these people to share the healing
instruments with others, and to follow up with
GWP in 3, 6, or 12 months (WERU, 1997b).
According to Moe, the only way to gather “valid
research” (quoted in WERU, 1997b) was to “let
the instruments go out” (WERU, 1997b) and
wait for feedback (WERU, 1997b). After a year,
the study allegedly demonstrated that most
subjects noticed an improvement in their lives
(or the improvement in the subjects’ lives)
fewer than five percent reported no change
(WERU, 1997b). GWP literature later claimed
that only 15 percent
448F
449 of successful healings
were the result of a spontaneous remission
(WOMR, 1997b).
Miller elaborated on the research that GWP
conducted, stating members “literally gave [the
instruments] to thousands of people and had
those people report back to us on the results”
(WERU, 1997a). Other GWP research models
included studying members as they participated
in a range of activities that included building,
repairing, and sailing boats building and flying
model airplanes and helicopters carpentry and
woodworking and small radio use and repair.
The research model GWP used was
pseudoscientific, falling short of what most
academics hold to be valid scientific inquiry
because, at the most basic level, the tests did not
account for a number of variables that might
have influenced the results.
The main source of evidence for the success of
GWP’s healing instruments were the numerous
testimonials that supporters offered. GWP
leaders claimed that they had received only one
complaint in 20 years. They made it clear,
however, that this complaint was not valid since
the man had “claimed (with no proof) to have
received a FREE [sic] healing and felt he was
not helped” (GWP, 2003b, p. 3). This statement
449 None of these percentages had sources in the GWP material in
fact, GWP cited no studies, thus making these figures questionable
at best.
undermined the validity of this complaint by
questioning the honesty of the one who lodged
it—a clear attempt to counter the complaint by
attacking the source.
The late Dr. Barry Beyerstein (a psychologist
and alternative-health critic) noted that use of
testimonials is common in unorthodox and
alternative-health practices. In fact, “many
dubious health products remain on the market
primarily because satisfied customers offer
testimonials to their worth” (Beyerstein, 1997,
para. 11). The testimonials of the healing effects
of GWP products were varied and abundant.
Some indicated that instrument keepers (IKs)
449F
450
used the instruments in orthodox medical
environments, including on patients before
operations and in an emergency room (GWP,
2003a). In an orthodox medical environment,
those who offer the care and are keepers of
medical information wield power over—and
hold a degree of trust with—their patients. Quite
simply, a tool used by an apparent expert (an
orthodox medical practitioner such as a nurse or
doctor) in an orthodox medical environment
(i.e., a hospital) endows a product or procedure
with a level of authenticity it may not have in
other circumstances.
IKs, those who had spent significant amounts of
money to own various instruments, often were
the most vocal in reporting on their experiences
and offering testimonials. Those who had
invested in the project may not have been the
most neutral responders, and they clearly
demonstrated a conflict of interest. Another
instance of a conflict of interest is the
testimonial of Paul Carreiro (Mary Miller’s
brother) regarding the benefit of the healing
instruments for cancer patients. Not only was he
the brother of one of the leaders, but also GWP
lent him money (Mary Miller dep., 2005, p.
111).
Despite some aspects of testimonials being
questionable, the positive feedback suggests that
some individuals found relief from using the
healing instruments. Recall that most of the
450 Those who bought and possessed GWP Healing Instruments
were referred to as instrument keepers and were expected to share
the instruments with others.
