Lightning Process to be Evaluated in Research Study on Children

[Dx Revision Watch]

...I think the people involved might look at their views again if they re-read the piece replacing "anti-retrovirals" for "Lightning Process". I think they might not have made the statements they made e.g. would Esther Crawley and the ethics committee have agreed to a trial of antiretrovirals on children (first) just because some children might take it. Risks for pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions appear to be assessed differently.

I was also concerned by the choice of category on the NHS IRAS REC application, with the project being identified as:

"Study administering questionnaires/interviews for quantitative analysis, or using mixed quantitative/qualitative methodology”.


Point 10] of my complaint dated 4 November was:

10] On the NHS IRAS REC Form Section: 2. "Select one category from the list below" the research is identified as: "Study administering questionnaires/interviews for quantitative analysis, or using mixed quantitative/qualitative methodology”. But one half of the projected cohort of 96 are to be randomised to a three consecutive day course of the Lightning Process as an intervention in addition to "specialist medical care". The study is not, therefore, restricted to "administering questionnaires/interviews for quantitative analysis, or using mixed quantitative/qualitative methodology" since an as yet untrialled intervention is being applied as an intervention.

It would seem appropriate for the study to have been identified as “Other clinical trial or clinical investigation” or “Other study”. Was this point raised by the committee at the meeting in July and what was the outcome of any discussion around this point? The application of Lightning Process as an intervention seems to be played down throughout the Protocol.​

As far as I can see, this point was not included within Dr Hugh Davies' collection of representations.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Thanks Suzy,
Phil Parker's got a page dedicated to him on their website, as well:
http://www.bps.org.uk/bps-learning-...PageUUID=1DD5A181-F201-A119-3099-49F234DBED60

It's very discouraging.

ETA. oh, you got there before me.

It was established last year and reported in this thread (with acknowledgement to the person who established this and alerted me) that Phil Parker was in the process of applying for BPS approved external CPD provider status. Now it looks as though Mr P has his feet very firmly under the BPS table.

This BPS approved Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course at:

http://www.bps.org.uk/bps-learning-...PageUUID=1DD5A181-F201-A119-3099-49F234DBED60

is for the:

Diploma in NLP, Coaching & Clinical Hypnotherapy (Phil Parker Training Institute)


Overview

This course has been approved by the BPS Learning Centre for the purposes of Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The course is run by the Phil Parker Training Institute. The information on this page has been provided by the Phil Parker Training Institute.

This course explores the world of personal development through the empowering skills of NLP, Coaching and Ericksonian Hypnotherapy. As you master these fields you will discover that creating great change is as a result of an integrated, compassionate and skilful utilisation of these approaches. After decades of practice and training we've come to recognise that NLP, Coaching and Hypnotherapy, only realise their full potential when combined together etc.

----------

It's worth a skim of the course summary.

The course is the same price as the Lightning Process training course for LP coaches. So if you were to do the Diploma in NLP, Coaching & Clinical Hypnotherapy through the Phil Parker Training Institute prior to doing the LP training course, you'd rack up 9,840 in course fees.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

...

I was alerted to the following, this evening. It is not clear what percentage of the 457 members polled had undergone LP - all 457 or a percentage of 457, that is, was the poll a survey of various treatments, therapies and "training courses" or had all 457 undergone LP?

Does anyone know the current membership of the Sussex and Kent ME/CFS Society?


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/revolutionary-treatment-tops-me-cfs-poll-113341994.html

Revolutionary Treatment Tops ME/ CFS Poll

LONDON, January 12, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- A revolutionary self training course has emerged top in a survey conducted by the Sussex and Kent ME/ CFS Society.

In a poll of 457 members, tracking their experiences over two years, 44 per cent of the society's members found the Lightning Process "very helpful" and 36 per cent "reasonably helpful". Many had their lives transformed by the three-day course.

In a field where many suffer for years, these figures were well ahead of the NHS's own ME/ CFS service - 28 per cent found the Sussex NHS treatment "very helpful", and just 21 per cent in Kent.

The Lightning Process is an empowering training course which enables individuals to influence their life and health using techniques based on the way the brain and body interact.

It has been specifically developed to resolve life's most common and debilitating conditions including CFS, chronic pain, anxiety, depression, addictions, OCD and ME. Celebrities including Esther Rantzen and Austin Healey have turned to the programme for relatives or themselves.

Clients explore the science behind how beliefs and behaviour patterns can affect lives and health, and discover how to turn these into a complete strategy for success.

Osteopath and renowned personal development expert Phil Parker designed The Lightning Process at his London clinic. It builds on the concepts of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Osteopathy, and Life Coaching.

Last year, 90 practitioners across 13 countries trained more than 2,000 people. The recoveries included some walking for the first time in years; others returning to work after years of illness; and many travelling the world, and achieving their dreams.

The success of the Lightning Process programme is increasingly recognised by a range of authorities.

Phil Parker, creator of the Lightning Process said: "The research confirms the remarkable life changes we see day in, and day out - all possible in just three days.

"We survey our own clients rigorously, and 81 per cent say they have seen real benefits."

Cathy Fry saw a huge change - she had ME for 20 years, and lost her job when it took over her life 10 years ago. A chronic fatigue clinic diagnosed her "capability level" at just 40 per cent. The clinic recommended the Lightning Process and Cathy has never looked back.

Now, with a capability level of 100 per cent, she is a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childcare Trust and an administrator for Yoga for ME in Hove.

She said: "I couldn't believe how much I improved in such a short period of time - now I work up to 30 hours a week, and find it very rewarding."

Zoe Chanas, Tel: +44-207-544-0016, email: zoe@murraypr.com


SOURCE Lightning Process

I have left the following question on Phil Parker's Lightning Process blog (comments are premoderated):

"In a poll of 457 members, tracking their experiences over two years, 44 per cent of the society's members found the Lightning Process "very helpful" and 36 per cent "reasonably helpful". Many had their lives transformed by the three-day course."

The statistics quoted are unclear. Out of the 457 Sussex group members who had completed the poll, how many had completed the section on undergoing the Lightning Process? That is, on what number of individuals are the percentages quoted based? I'd be pleased if you would clarify. Thank you.

----------------

ETA: Phil Parker's blog posts says that the full report and figures can be found on the Sussex and Kent ME/CFS Society website, with a link here:

http://www.measussex.org.uk/Latest-News-About-ME-and-CFS-|-M.E-C.F.S-News/pacing-helps-me.html

where there is a report and data. The data on the Sussex and Kent ME/CFS Society site does not provide the actual numbers of those who had tried each approach/treatment. So it is not possible to establish how many of the 457 polled had completed the section for LP.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Parker's LP blog.

Next planned project an "outcome study" - announcement in next few weeks. Unclear whether this refers to ME or MS research or what.

http://officiallightningprocess.blogspot.com/2010/11/research-lightning-process.html

Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Research Lightning Process

 

[Snow Leopard]

As a parent/carer, I really cannot understand how parents are prepared to let their children and young people sign up to these agreements or sign on their behalf. The standard application form is even worse.

The sad part is that this self selection process (those who agree to the application form) can and will bias results.

How are the questionnaires undertaken? The problem may exist even if they are anonymous. Children can still easily be compelled to give false answers if they believe that otherwise it would reflect badly on themselves.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

The sad part is that this self selection process (those who agree to the application form) can and will bias results.

How are the questionnaires undertaken? The problem may exist even if they are anonymous. Children can still easily be compelled to give false answers if they believe that otherwise it would reflect badly on themselves.

So fear and deference confounding effects are possible. Especially with the 'evangelical' nature of LP.

 

[Bob]

I have left the following question on Phil Parker's Lightning Process blog (comments are premoderated):

"In a poll of 457 members, tracking their experiences over two years, 44 per cent of the society's members found the Lightning Process "very helpful" and 36 per cent "reasonably helpful". Many had their lives transformed by the three-day course."

The statistics quoted are unclear. Out of the 457 Sussex group members who had completed the poll, how many had completed the section on undergoing the Lightning Process? That is, on what number of individuals are the percentages quoted based? I'd be pleased if you would clarify. Thank you.

----------------

ETA: Phil Parker's blog posts says that the full report and figures can be found on the Sussex and Kent ME/CFS Society website, with a link here:

http://www.measussex.org.uk/Latest-News-About-ME-and-CFS-|-M.E-C.F.S-News/pacing-helps-me.html

where there is a report and data. The data on the Sussex and Kent ME/CFS Society site does not provide the actual numbers of those who had tried each approach/treatment. So it is not possible to establish how many of the 457 polled had completed the section for LP.

Interesting that Phil Parker does not state that 20% (1 in 5) of the participants, who were surveyed by the Sussex and Kent ME Society, found the Lightning Process either unhelpful or harmful, and so completely wasted 500 or 600 on the course, which was not refundable.

I've had a look at the figures, from the survey on the Sussex and Kent ME Society website, and it's possible that only 25 people answered the questions about the Lightning Process.

If 25 people answered the questions, then the figures would be as follows:
5 people (20%) found The Lightning Process 'not at all helpful' (this category includes those who found it harmful.)
9 people (36%) found it 'reasonably helpful'.
11 people (44%) found it 'very helpful'.

So the survey might be saying that 20 people, in total, found the Lightning Process helpful, and 5 people found it harmful.

As the actual numbers of participants are not shown, then we are forced to assume that these might be the actual numbers of participants who answered questions about the Lightning Process in the survey.

 

[Min]

The Sussex and Kent ME Society is infamous for supporting and promoting the Wessely approach to M.E. & the NICE guidelines.

I imagine that anyone with neurological M.E. has left long ago in disgust, leaving just those with mild fatigue due to psychological problems.

 

[boomer3]

I hate reading a title with the words lightning process. The subject should not be allowed on me/cfs sites, except as jokes. I think the British people who push the lightning process (I won't call them scientists if they push lp) should be fired. If there is no money for science, then there is certainly no money for this.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Interesting that Phil Parker does not state that 20% (1 in 5) of the participants, who were surveyed by the Sussex and Kent ME Society, found the Lightning Process either unhelpful or harmful, and so completely wasted 500 or 600 on the course, which was not refundable.

I've had a look at the figures, from the survey on the Sussex and Kent ME Society website, and it's possible that only 25 people answered the questions about the Lightning Process.

If 25 people answered the questions, then the figures would be as follows:
5 people (20%) found The Lightning Process 'not at all helpful' (this category includes those who found it harmful.)
9 people (36%) found it 'reasonably helpful'.
11 people (44%) found it 'very helpful'.

So the survey might be saying that 20 people, in total, found the Lightning Process helpful, and 5 people found it harmful.

As the actual numbers of participants are not shown, then we are forced to assume that these might be the actual numbers of participants who answered questions about the Lightning Process in the survey.

Phil Parker has not let my comment through onto his blog yet, nor provided a response.

It isn't possible to tell from the data whether the percentages for LP have been rounded up or rounded down or are whole numbers. But if the percentages are whole numbers, then 25, 50, 75 etc would work.

It would also be interesting to know if any dropped out part way through the sessions and also what category of severity - mild, moderate, severely affected they were.

Suzy

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

The sad part is that this self selection process (those who agree to the application form) can and will bias results.

How are the questionnaires undertaken? The problem may exist even if they are anonymous. Children can still easily be compelled to give false answers if they believe that otherwise it would reflect badly on themselves.

Just to clarify, Snow Leopard, I was refering in the post you have quoted to the initial application forms for applying to do an LP course with a practitioner not to the completion of surveys. I don't know whether any of those completing the Sussex Society survey would have been children of carers who were members of the group (I don't know whether the group accepts children and young people as members).

But if some of them were children or young people completing the Sussex Society survey, then I agree with your concerns.

And yes, the application process for acceptance onto a course of LP is based on self selection and the willingness of the LP coach to accept the applicant as being "ready" or "suitable" to undertake the training. So data from patient surveys on the application of LP do not stand up to scrutiny for several reasons.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Oh, to be clear, my post was actually referring to two separate issues, as you have guessed.
I was reflecting on the prospective results of the SMILE trial, which will be primarily questionaire based.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Oh, to be clear, my post was actually referring to two separate issues, as you have guessed.
I was reflecting on the prospective results of the SMILE trial, which will be primarily questionaire based.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Phil Parker has now responded to two comments left on his LP Blog:

http://officiallightningprocess.blo...lutionary-treatment-tops-me-cfs.html#comments

 

[Bob]

Here's a very interesting open letter written to Joan Kirkbride, Head of Operations, National Research Ethics Service...

http://dancingwiththesandman.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-review-of-ethics-approval.html

The letter has 67 co-signitories so far, and it is still possible to add your name if you follow the instructions at the top of the page.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Here's a very interesting open letter written to Joan Kirkbride, Head of Operations, National Research Ethics Service...

http://dancingwiththesandman.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-review-of-ethics-approval.html

The letter has 67 co-signitories so far, and it is still possible to add your name if you follow the instructions at the top of the page.

That letter is very long and has been posted double spaced on a webpage with an all over background of spots. If you find text on patterned backgrounds on websites difficult, this does not faciliate comfortable reading. I was however, sent a copy of the letter some days ago, via email.

I won't be adding my signature to this communication for a number of reasons - which is a personal decision and should not be viewed as discouraging others if that is what they wish to do, themselves, having read and considered the many points being raised within the letter.

One of the reasons I won't be signing is that the letter states:

"Perhaps Mr. Parker is unaware that a case for legal action against him is being prepared. Did the NRES request evidence of this from the complainant to check the accuracy of this claim?"

References to legal cases were presumably made in letters of complaint to the REC/NRES which were addressed in the response issued by Joan Kirkbride, on 6 January.

In the NRES response, it states:

4 Mr Parker is shortly to attend court for making false claims about his product

The Committee noted the correspondence submitted by Dr Crawley from Mr Parker and the refutation of this. The Committee considered this but had no further comments to make on this point

Since I have not had sight of documentary evidence that a legal case is in progress or in preparation, and am not party to the current nature or status of any legal case involving any party in relation to the Lightning Process;

Since I have not had sight of the specific wording of any letters of complaint submitted that had included references to a legal cases or cases;

Since I have not had sight of the correspondence submitted by Dr Crawley from Mr Parker and his refutation of this claim since these documents have not been made public by NRES then I am unable to put my name to a letter in which references are being made to legal cases.

Suzy

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Some further comment to add, Bob, to what I've just written above:

I would apply the same stringent criteria when deciding whether I could legitimately put my name to the content of any letter authored by someone other than myself, or to send a form letter authored by someone other than myself, or forward a document authored by someone other than myself regardless of the author, the nature of the letter or document, its purpose, its recipients and any individuals named within it.

If I were to ask you whether you know who it is who is claiming to have instigated legal action against a named party and whether you know the real name of this individual, what class of legal action this is and through what means it is being brought to court, whether by an individual or an agency, when proceedings were instigated, what the current status of the case is and at what point in the process the subject of any legal action and his legal advisers would have been informed that a case was being brought against this named individual, I suspect that you may have no idea.

Yet, presumably, you have been prepared to put your name to the content of this letter or are considering putting your name to it?

Have you satisfied yourself that the information it contains and to which you would be putting your name, can be relied upon?

Suzy

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Also, are individuals being asked to sign this letter in their own names or is anonymity being offered - and if the latter, how meaningful is a letter to which others have signed up, anonymously? What weight is that going to lend this communication?

 

[Bob]

Also, are individuals being asked to sign this letter in their own names or is anonymity being offered - and if the latter, how meaningful is a letter to which others have signed up, anonymously? What weight is that going to lend this communication?

I got the impression that the details of the signatories would be included with the actual letter sent to Joan Kirkbride, but that they would not be made public. The first paragraph of the letter says that the letter should be considered in the public domain, excluding the details of the signatories...

Please accept permission to re-post this reply and consider the content to be in the public domain, except for the personal details of the co-signatories to this letter.

 

[Bob]

Some further comment to add, Bob, to what I've just written above:

I would apply the same stringent criteria when deciding whether I could legitimately put my name to the content of any letter authored by someone other than myself, or to send a form letter authored by someone other than myself, or forward a document authored by someone other than myself regardless of the author, the nature of the letter or document, its purpose, its recipients and any individuals named within it.

If I were to ask you whether you know who it is who is claiming to have instigated legal action against a named party and whether you know the real name of this individual, what class of legal action this is and through what means it is being brought to court, whether by an individual or an agency, when proceedings were instigated, what the current status of the case is and at what point in the process the subject of any legal action and his legal advisers would have been informed that a case was being brought against this named individual, I suspect that you may have no idea.

Yet, presumably, you have been prepared to put your name to the content of this letter or are considering putting your name to it?

Have you satisfied yourself that the information it contains and to which you would be putting your name, can be relied upon?

Suzy

Hi Suzy,
Yes, it's a horribly laid-out blog isn't it, but it's possible to copy the entire text and paste it into a text editor for easier reading.
I haven't added my name to the letter because I haven't read the entire letter yet (I've been too busy and tired but I've printed it out to read soon).
I started reading the letter, and found it interesting, which is why I posted the link on this thread, so other people could look at it, and decide if they want to put their names to it themselves.
From what you've said in your post, I share your concerns about the letter. Thanks for pointing out these issues to me and everyone else.
I can't give you any more feedback until I've read the whole letter, except to say that I share your concerns about the issues you've raised. It's not wise to sign a letter unless one understands the contents, and it's probably best to stay clear of legal issues unless one knows all the details and understands the legal technicalities.