Embargo broken: Bristol University Professor to discuss trial of quack cfs tx

Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
user9876 said:
I think there is an argument that can be made that it is not credible because there is no scientific basis/evidence for the techniques used. There is no science behind NLP and they talk about controlling adrenalin but there is no evidence of this. But the argument is that LP is not credible (for anything).

I also think it is important to explain why Crawley's trial failed to show anything as you simply can't measure such interventions where people are told they will get better if they believe they are with subjective measures. If Crawley was really serious about testing LP she could have used more objective methods and even done things like testing adrenalin.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that requires going into some specifics of the claims made within LP.

They didn't seem interested in testing the claims they make about LP:

The Lightning Process® is an intervention that is used for a variety of conditions including CFS/ME and has been developed from osteopathy, coaching and neuro-linguistic programming. It is a three-day training programme run by registered practitioners and designed to teach individuals a new set of techniques for improving life and health, through consciously switching on health promoting neurological pathways.
Click to expand...

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2017/september/lightning-process.html

Jenny TipsforME said:
Yes tricky

And I think we can turn SMILE around. It will be easier to make LP seem ridiculous and the methodology flaws are very similar to CBT/GET research.

What ME Action Network UK went with was:

"#MEAction Rejects the Findings of the SMILE Trial of The Lightning Process for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Trial Uses Flawed Methodology That Can Lead To False Positives

Following the release of the results of the SMILE trial, Ben HsuBorger of ME Action said: “The SMILE trial of the Lightning Process, a known quack treatment, for ME/CFS, used unblinded treatment coupled with subjective, self-report outcomes. It illustrates that such serious design flaws can produce an apparently positive result for almost any treatment approach. It comes as no surprise that this trial was conducted by the same team that promotes the use of graded exercise therapy and CBT for ME/CFS, based on the same flawed trial practices. ME/CFS is a serious neuro-immune disease as highlighted by the work of Ron Davis, Naviaux, Montoya, Mark Davis and others. It cannot be treated effectively by behavioural interventions. We reject all three treatments and reiterate our call for biomedical research.”

http://www.meaction.net/news/press-releases/
CONTACT: press@meaction.net
Click to expand...

I wondered if use of the word 'reject' has some anti-science connotations?: It could imply being more emotionally or ideologically driven rather that a result of assessing the evidence and disputing the interpretations put forth by others. The same with "It cannot be treated effectively by behavioural interventions" - perhaps one day there will be some evidence of some effective behavioural intervention? For now, we can just pick apart the misleading and harmful claims made to promote behavioural treatments for ME/CFS.
 
Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Bristol Uni said:
It is a three-day training programme run by registered practitioners
Click to expand...

If they are registered, then it must be serious.
So where are they registered?
All practitioners, regardless of their background, have completed a minimum of 12 months intensive client based training with the Phil Parker Training Institute. To graduate each practitioner must demonstrate skills and competence in delivering the training and have an in-depth knowledge of the relevant subjects required. In order to be granted a licence to practice and be accepted onto the Register, our practitioners also need to maintain their Continuing Professional Development, undertake supervision and abide by the Register’s code of conduct.
Click to expand...

Oh, on Phil Parker's register. Sure it can't be wrong.

And always remember:
upload_2017-9-23_16-43-35.png


http://lightningprocess.com/lp-register/
 
Last edited:
BurnA

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
Esther12 said:
I wondered if use of the word 'reject' has some anti-science connotations?: It could imply being more emotionally or ideologically driven rather that a result of assessing the evidence and disputing the interpretations put forth by others. The same with "It cannot be treated effectively by behavioural interventions" - perhaps one day there will be some evidence of some effective behavioural intervention?
Click to expand...


I don't think there is any need to look for hidden meanings or interpretations, lets concentrate on the big issues that face us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back