In some ways, LP could be helpful to us, as a way of illustrating the quackery of Chalder's approaches and manipulation of patients. LP is less good at hiding it's quackery, but if people do think that the way LP practitioners treat patients is wrong, this makes it hard for them to then go on to defend Chalder's approaches imo.
There's no doubt in my mind that LP is profoundly inappropriate, both for children and adults with ME, but it's difficult for the patient population to get traction in the battle of ideas/facts. The authorities, health professionals, the academic community and the media tend to believe, regurgitate and amplify what they are told by people in authority.
Considering how difficult it's been to shed light on the PACE trial, and to win the battle of ideas/facts, I do not relish a new battle of ideas/facts over LP. It's not a battle that we have any certainty of winning, especially over the short-term.
However, LP would probably be easier to expose than CBT/GET, in terms of its inappropriateness, and its lack of actual (objective) therapeutic effect, as it is (put simply) purely a positive thinking course.
The LP trial might demonstrate that small to moderate improvements are to be expected in self-reported outcomes, solely after self-imposed brain washing (or however the psychological aspect of LP is best described. e.g. positive thinking or faith healing.) So if the LP trial were to have the same outcomes as the PACE trial, then it would make it easier to argue that the improvements seen after treatment with CBT/GET in the PACE trial are purely response bias.
But a 'successful' LP trial would make it easier to argue that CFS/ME is a cognitive-behavioural disorder. We'd have an enormous struggle countering the propaganda associated with a 'successful' LP trial, alongside countering the PACE trial propaganda.
