Have experts or medical boards responded to claims by Jack Polanski about breast growth?
Executive summary
Zack (Zack/Jack) Polanski’s past work as a hypnotherapist — including media reports that he offered sessions to “enlarge” women’s breasts by suggestion — resurfaced after his Green Party rise and prompted apologies and denials in 2025 [1] [2]. Coverage is mixed: some outlets report he admitted performing such sessions and apologised [1] [2], while others say he denies believing the method worked or that he ran the sessions as described [3].
1. How the claim entered the record
The story traces to a 2013 newspaper article describing hypnotherapy sessions in which a reporter was allegedly guided to visualise larger breasts; that article and subsequent resurfacing of it have been cited repeatedly in 2025 coverage [4] [1]. Multiple news outlets republished or summarised the original sting and linked it to Polanski’s earlier hypnotherapy practice on Harley Street [1] [5].
2. What Polanski has said in response
Reporting records two competing threads in Polanski’s own responses. Some interviews and articles state he apologised for claiming he could increase breast size “12 years ago” and apologised again after the story resurfaced [2] [6]. Other pieces record him insisting he was “misrepresented,” saying he “never believed” that hypnotherapy could literally make breasts bigger and denying that he ran the sessions as described in the sting [3]. Available sources do not mention whether any formal investigation verified the precise content of the 2013 sessions beyond the original article and follow-ups.
3. How medical or professional bodies responded — short answer
Available sources do not mention any statement, investigation or sanction by recognised medical boards or professional hypnotherapy regulators responding to the breast‑growth claim (not found in current reporting). Coverage focuses on political fallout and media commentary rather than formal professional censure [2] [5] [7].
4. Media and political reactions: rapid amplification
After Polanski’s leadership bid and election, Labour and other political actors amplified the story as a line of attack; Labour’s press channels circulated extracts of the original article and opponents mocked the practice [2] [5]. Opinion and tabloid outlets seized on the anecdote for ridicule or critique — from satirical takes to long-form condemnations — increasing public attention [7] [5].
5. How outlets framed credibility and context
Reporting shows differences in framing: mainstream outlets like The Independent emphasised the apology and electoral context [2], local London sites mirrored that coverage [6], while tabloids and opinion writers emphasised sensational aspects or criticised Polanski’s past work as disqualifying or laughable [5] [7]. Metro records Polanski’s pushback that he had been misrepresented and did not believe in literal breast growth via hypnosis [3]. These divergent framings signal editorial choices about what to emphasise — apology versus misrepresentation.
6. What this controversy reveals about sources and agendas
The story’s persistence owes to three factors visible in the reporting: (a) an original undercover-style newspaper piece with sensational claims that is easy to summarise and share [4]; (b) political opponents using it as rapid digital attack material after Polanski’s rise [2] [5]; and (c) opinion writers exploiting the anecdote to advance broader critiques of Polanski’s competence or politics [7]. Each actor had an implicit agenda — tabloids seek clicks, opponents seek political damage, and commentators seek polemical leverage — and those agendas shaped what aspects of the record were amplified [2] [7] [5].
7. What remains unreported and why that matters
Key factual elements are not covered in the available reporting: there is no cited evidence here of clinical outcomes from the sessions, no regulatory inquiry or disciplinary record presented, and no peer‑reviewed medical assessment referenced about hypnotherapy producing breast growth (not found in current reporting). Those absences limit ability to judge the professional legitimacy of the practice or whether any health regulators considered action — important context that is missing from the political and tabloid narratives.
8. Bottom line for readers
The published record shows both an initial sensational report of hypnotherapy “breast enlargement” sessions and conflicting later statements from Polanski — apology in some articles, denials of belief or misrepresentation in others [2] [3] [1]. There is no coverage in these sources of medical boards or regulators weighing in. Readers should treat the episode as a contested media narrative used in political debate rather than a settled medical or professional finding [2] [3] [1].