You can view the page at http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?114-An-MD-on-the-Lightning-Process
I have to disagree Bob (unless I am misunderstanding you). I don't understand why we "have to accept" that those who have been made better by LP have a form of CFS/ME, any more than one would accept a story of a paralyzed person was able to walk after a faith healing. Both are claims, and both can and should be subject to objective and indeed scientific scrutiny, as should any other claim of improvement from a proposed treatment. Why should we "accept that reality" if we do not know it is, in fact, reality? The mere fact that they were diagnosed with CFS/ME does not mean much unless we know on what basis they were diagnosed, by what criteria, etc, given the incredible vagueness of that diagnostic label and its overuse by clinicians.
Orla, I totally understand where you are coming from...
but now imagine that I had gone on a LP course, and I experienced a massive recovery...
How do you think I would feel if you said that LP was a cult and that I had closed my mind to rational argument...
I would say: "But it made me better, so you don't know what you are talking about, and you are being irrational."
Do you see where I'm coming from?
I'm just trying to get us all to see the other side of the coin, so that we can develop our arguments and criticisms, so that they make sense to everyone else.
But oerganix, this sounds like you are having an argument with people who have been on an LP course and experienced a recovery...
I can't see much point in doing that... if someone says they have recovered, then how can you disagree?
I'm suggesting that our arguments should be refined so that we can win the argument, not picking an argument with those who have experienced recovery on a LP course, but by taking their experiences into account, and accepting their reality.
And I think that we need to address our arguments towards the authorities and organisations who will not have been on a LP course, rather than individuals who have gained benefit from LP.
The main concern should be to take on the public, governmental and medical community's perceptions of LP, based on what we know of LP and ME already.
... to educate those who have not undergone it yet about the issues that everyone has raised here, including about the nature of LP itself, and about the physiological (and non-psychosomatic) nature of ME. I agree with Orla that attempting to argue with those who have seen benefit from LP is not likely to be fruitful at all ...
The tutor said that if we tell people about the process if won't work. That's right, to talk about the process means it can't work for you. She also told us that no matter how she feels she tells everyone she "feels fabulous
http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/LP.html
Hi Bob, I suppose for me, with such limited energy as we all have, I try to put what energy I have to good use. I feel that trying to argue with someone convinced of LP wouldn be like banging ones head of a brick wall, and we have enough brick walls to bang our heads off without adding another
Hi Dr Yes, you make excellent points...
I'll explain where I'm coming from on this issue...
I find it impossible to dismiss everyone who has made a recovery on an LP course, as not really having had CFS/ME in the first place...
Again, that depends on who diagnosed them and on what basis, i.e. by what criteria. As you know, a very significant percentage of those diagnosed with Oxford or Empirical CDC criteria CFS have idiopathic chronic fatigue, depression alone, etc..If they had an official diagnosis, then their illness was as valid as ours...
What do you mean by an official diagnosis of CFS/ME? Does that include the Oxford criteria? A CFS diagnosis in the US may be based on the Reeves Empirical Definition, but quite often is also based on the Fukuda criteria. This is where the stringency of diagnostic criteria becomes so important, as we discussed on another thread. If CFS is defined so loosely that it can include many who do NOT have some or any physical component to their illness, then we are burdened with false subsets which may well be muddying the picture of clinical improvement (e.g. in evaluating the efficacy of LP).I have heard of enough individual cases to believe that a significant number of people with an official diagnosis of CFS/ME (which would be a CFS diagnosis in the USA) have been helped by LP.
No Bob, I am not in favor of arguing with, or trying to reason with, those who have done LP. As for them having experienced a recovery, my point is that there is no reason to believe that they have recovered since part of the LP requires them to say they have even if they haven't, ostensibly as a part of their future recovery.
I am unable to "accept their reality" when I know that their version of "reality" requires them to deny their present reality in order to gain some future reality that is premised to be a real recovery only if they are successful in denying their present reality.
Actually, I don't think that's what most people here are chiefly concerned about.. they are more concerned that those who really have ME/CFS will be convinced into thinking that they do not, which would be potentially damaging or dangerous.
Again, that depends on who diagnosed them and on what basis, i.e. by what criteria. As you know, a very significant percentage of those diagnosed with Oxford or Empirical CDC criteria CFS have idiopathic chronic fatigue, depression alone, etc..
What do you mean by an official diagnosis of CFS/ME? Does that include the Oxford criteria? A CFS diagnosis in the US may be based on the Reeves Empirical Definition, but quite often is also based on the Fukuda criteria. This is where the stringency of diagnostic criteria becomes so important, as we discussed on another thread. If CFS is defined so loosely that it can include many who do NOT have some or any physical component to their illness, then we are burdened with false subsets which may well be muddying the picture of clinical improvement (e.g. in evaluating the efficacy of LP).
ETA - okay a bunch more posts since I started this one.. can't keep up! Btw, Bob, rest assured that I have been reading your posts and arguments in their entirety, but isolated certain passages and addressed them only because I saw their points as discordant with the rest of your argument. I do agree with the other points you have made.
Bob
Mithriel, I completely agree with everything you said in your message...
With reference to the above quote... I omitted Orla's personal references in my quote... and I was partly referring to those... so please don't read my message in isolation...
But also, as I said in my previous message... I think that the best way to win our argument isn't to accuse other people of suspending their critical judgement, nor to complain that people are complaining about us when we criticise them...
Personally... and this is a personal opinion... I think that we would do better to be clear about the issues, just as you were in your own message Mithriel
I tried to keep giving my updates on here but gave up due to upsetting remarks back
I took the opinion before i did the LP that i was fed up hearing negative comments on something that people hadn't tried themselves. Every time someone said it had worked for them they seemed to get abuse, it's ubsurd
Things are not going in the right direction i'm afraid.
Strangely i seem to have taken on a new set of ME symptoms that i didn't suffer from before.....[continued]
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...-go-on-this-week&p=69781&viewfull=1#post69781
<Coxy
Please refrain from commenting on something you know nothing about, you are stopping a lot of people on the forum from giving it a go and maybe getting their life back.>
Coxy
I just get annoyed now when i hear so many jibes at it
My point is that if someone has experienced a subjective increase in the quality of their life, then how can we can't dispute that?
For example, we can't tell someone that they are not happier than they used to be, especially if we don't know them... how could we possibly know?
Have we got a right to disbelieve people who have experienced a recovery?.. it is invalidating their personal experience of life, and it's not dissimilar to someone telling us that ME is not real... it invalidates our personal experience of life, and it makes us angry.
I am proposing that we develop our arguments to take into account the subjective success stories of the Lightning Process, otherwise we undermine our own cause.
Any thoughts?
...I am dead serious when I say that cooperating with the practice of "fake it until you make it", when it comes to ME/CFS, is not good for such patients. (I doubt it is good for a lot of the sick people the LP claims to cure, but that would be another thread.) It could even kill someone, and already has caused permanent or long term damage to some. This is the same thing as the exercise advocates telling people to "push through" their exhaustion and pain. If you have been following the threads on that subject, you will already know that that advice is contraindicated in this disease. So I do not only see LP as a ripoff and a fraud, I also see it as dangerous to some. This snake oil has some venom in it, for some.
You ask if we have a right to disbelieve people who have "experienced" a recovery. Not only do we have a right when the "treatment" calls itself a "training" in order to avoid scrutiny as a bona fide treatment, we have, IMO, a duty to disbelieve such a recovery. It is not so much disbelieving the person as it is believing in acknowledging that ME/CFS is a physical illness, not subject to erasing it by disbelieving it. LP is nothing more than a very expensive course in "changing false illness beliefs" and it should be outed as such. I wouldn't cooperate with anyone claiming that CBT rid them of mitochondrial damage, HPA axis imbalance, PEM, brain damage, MCS, EBV, etc., so why would I accomodate the same garbage from LP?
Just wanted to support two of your points in particular oerganix: the danger to ME/CFS sufferers of LP (I note Coxy say words to the effect of "no-one dropped dead of the LP" in one of her posts?); and your last paragraph. We are, rightfully, sceptical of claims of miraculous recovery by CBT/GET, because of the biomedical knowledge already available (especially where some people have been relatively lucky in getting the investigations done that throw up these abnormalities. Not many in the NHS do unfortunately) as well as the ideological base of the CBT/GET model being flawed in its reasoning etc.
You are right - we do not attempt to persuade those people (who claim cure) of the veracity of our objections to CBT/GET models (and psychogenic explanations). Nor should we. Unfortunately, we are also facing a credulous public/medical profession/state, and these are the people easily persuaded by zealous quasi-religious promotions in personal testimonials (both regarding CBT/GET and LP). We do need to show why these might not be the "true story" of "miracles".
At the moment i'm feeling really nervous about going back to the trainer, i scared to death that she's going to tell my son off for not trying hard enough or something. I feel that i would lose my temper if she suggested that! I'm almost tempted not to take him at all.
I have to say, I actually do see some large similarities between the LP and CBT/GET approaches, in terms of ideology, claims made, forms of fallacious reasoning, use of rhetorical language in 'patient testimonials', even problems as summarised by Bob above etc.
These are evident in the PACE manuals discussed in 'Magical Medicine', in the Liverpool CFS clinic literature supplied and analysed by Orla and others, some of the testimonials on certain literature, including the PACE newsletter and the Oldchurch 'Chronic Fatigue Unit' website, as only a small selection of examples.