Dr David Tuller: Do the “Vast Majority” of Lightning Process Participants Achieve “Lasting Change”?


Senior Member

Trial By Error: Do the “Vast Majority” of Lightning Process Participants Achieve “Lasting Change”?
21 April 2021 by David Tuller 5 Comments

By David Tuller, DrPH

is an excellent news organization focused on international stories related to the misuse of science and technology, among other topics. Today, it published a piece of mine about the training program called the Lightning Process. Sites devoted to the Lightning Process are full of tales of recovery from prolonged illness. I included one such account in my Coda article along with accounts from others who reported suffering severe relapses after the training. The article also points out that the scientific claims cannot withstand scrutiny.
To be clear, I’m not telling people whether they should or should not do the Lightning Process. If someone checks it out and thinks it could help them, that’s their call. My concern is that it is promoted as scientific, when it is not. And despite the glowing testimonials, it is easy to find people who say, in contrast, that they experienced serious harms. Their stories are not posted on Lightning Process sites but nonetheless deserve to be shared as well.

While working on the story, I sent an e-mail with a few questions to Lightning Process founder Phil Parker, a British osteopath and psychologist. Within a few days, he responded with a gracious note, along with his answers and a list of supporting references. I have included all the references below, so others can make their own assessments of their merit.
In the Coda story, I mention these references once. In relation to Parker’s statement that the “vast majority” of Lightning Process participants “achieve good and lasting change,” I indicate that the references do not “reasonably support this conclusion.” Obviously, the precise definitions of “vast majority” and “lasting” are up for grabs. But we don’t need to overcome these linguistic challenges to demonstrate that the claim is not grounded in the data. .............
Second star to the right ...
It's extremely kind of the author of the article quoted above to regard determinedly misleading syntactical bullshite as "linguistic challenges" .....

I'm not as nice, and I qualify them as deliberately vague, misleading, and unprovable statements regarding the value of something unmeasurable without considerable and very expensive, well-designed testing and research, something these 'protocols' creators seem very shy about producing ....