Thanks for your feedback, Charlotte! Unfortunately it had been wrongly classified as spam so that we found it first now . Of course, we will take the chance to answer you without further delay.

To ensure the quality, all our practitioners and trainers are certified in accordance to our standards. These have been developed based on the experience of 15 years health education. Although the freedom of therapy is important for us, all practitioners have to act in accordance to our Code of Practice, covering all relevant therapeutical and ethical aspects. The Code of Practice is regularly updated.

Of course, not every therapist will match the needs of every client. Therefore clients have the ability to give feedback to us as the licensing organisation – be it a public testimonial, a notice for information or even a formal complaint. On the other hand we do not take actions against a professional based on hearsay or rumours only.

Regarding the rules for marketing there is room for interpretation, given by the lawmakers. Nevertheless we force our members to ensure that also statements which might be experienced as controversial are well founded.

The main problem is that media campaigns against alternative and complementary therapies are often created and run by radical rationalists, abusing the need for penetration in de facto all media. That’s why we want to attract the public attention that a program like the criticized Kontant is in no way high quality jounalism in accordance to DR’s own ethical principles:

https://www.dr.dk/etik-og-rettelser/dr-etik/drs-etik-bygger-paa-drs-vaerdier

Hi Henrik!

In contrast to Danmarks Radio we have no censorship here and answer also inconvenient questions at our best.

First of all, I like to mention that this is the website of the professional organisation META-Health International, representing Holistic Health Practitioners and Trainers worldwide. This is not the website of Martin Hejlesen, so to use the word “you” in your comment is referring to the wrong person.

Regarding your comments:

1.) If you analyze the recording from the hidden(!) camera accurately, you will find that all what is spoken by Martin Hejlesen is faded out. So if you want to understand him correctly in the context of the dialogue you need to ask DR to hand out the complete raw material. I am doubtful that they will do so. Until now Danmarks Radio seems to be quite uncooperative, disregarding both Press Ethical Rules and their own quality standards.

2.) In accordance to all accessible documentation, the patient was in permanent conventional treatment until the end of his life. So the treatment provided by Martin Hejlesen was not alternative but complementary, and is certainly not the cause for the patient’s death. Quite the contrary, the complemetary treatment had obvious benefits for the life quality of the patient before passing, a fact which has not been contradicted by the widow.

“The bereaved family requested the testimonial of the late client to be deleted from the META-Health Practitioner’s website, but the Practitioner unfortunately failed.”

You are on camera talking about your patient ‘Kim’, that has a tumor ‘as he was healing’… despite the now dead patients wife asking you to stop using Kim as a reference. Kim apparently died of ‘healing’, so no, you did not only fail to delete from your website, you kept using the dead patient as a reference.

Interesting to see if this comment is released- all social media of Hejlesen-Jensen is closed…