If HOTS' claims are even a fraction of what they're cracked up to be, then what are they worried about? There's two reasons why they shouldn't (or mayhaps they are, and that's why they daren't, certainly shouldn't bring up the issue further, certainly legally):
1- They would be hammering the doors of James Randi's JREF off the hinges to willingly demonstrate their amazing 'abilities' under strict independent laboratory conditions, to determine the exact nature, mechanisms & processes at work when HOTS 'heal' people; the 'why's having no relevance whatsoever, but concentrating on the hows, thus said scientists being able to replicate said 'abilities' themselves or via artificial electro/mechanical methods, so as to make such techniques widely available to the medical establishment. Hey, revealing how it's done is a small price to pay for getting your hands on Mr. Randi's $1 million eh, 'faith healers'...?
2- Submit a paper to the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, detailing the exact nature, mechanisms & processes at work when you 'heal' people; with diagrams, (chemical) formulae, equations etc, giving the full & precise workings of how you use this 'faith', and the neuro-psionic procedures & manipulation techniques necessary when you 'heal' someone.
...and that's when HOTS's claims screech to a halt. Aye, there's the rub indeed. In both cases, just two words completely annihilates not only your claims, but your right to even think about making such a claim: Peer Review.
Because any medical procedure/process/pharmaceutical product/service to be passed into general use by private medical facilities, never mind the National Health Service, has to be cleared by the British Medical Association - and it's precisely by rigorous peer review in such august publications as the BMJ & The Lancet, that any potential new procedure/process/technique/product is discussed, argued, improved, re-discussed and ultimately passed for use by the medical establishment. I'm afraid that just five words 'Belief and faith in God' won't cut it with the consultants, specialists, nay, Emeritus Professors of medicine/surgery etc that make up the BMA.
My former physician - as well as being a doctor - had a private practice as a surgical/dental anaesthetist. Today, he's retired, but with the many papers he's submitted to the BMJ & The Lancet, to say nothing of being an eminent surgical assistant, he's a senior adviser to the BMA in the field of anaesthesiology and related procedures & techniques, and how such relate to various surgical practices; my current physician had studied many of his papers whilst in training as an anaesthetist himself.
'Faith' is going to eliminate the pain of even the most basic dental treatment, never mind complex invasive, nay, transplant surgery...?! Go ahead, HOTS, submit a paper to the BMJ & The Lancet. I'm no medical expert, but I'm pretty sure what the reaction of all the other experts in the field of medical science will be when they read that:
image
...then say 'Oh, you were being serious?':
image
'Let us laugh harder.'
And that's before you even get to court. PROTIP: The BMA has lawyers. Frankly, you haven't got a snowball in Hell's chance, HOTS.
You do realise, HOTS, that to practice any form of medicine, either in the UK, the US, or any other country without the legal authorisation, licences, qualifications etc, is illegal. Well, that's what you're doing: 'Faith healing'. As in Medicine.
There's a very good reason why such is draconically controlled, nay, monopolised in all civilised countries governed by rule of law. The phrase 'Rule of Law'. The clue's in the third word, y'see; as in the phrase 'malpractice suit'. It exists for a reason.
