Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
lol, I'm not sure if I've seen that specific word before! Love it!psychoquackers
Last edited:
lol, I'm not sure if I've seen that specific word before! Love it!psychoquackers
I saw it somewhere else on the forum as 'psychoquakers'.lol, I'm not sure if I've seen that specific word before! Love it!
Let's not toss all the water out with the baby... .
I would be very happy to toss all the water out with this baby.
Hehehe... Anyone who can work out what's wrong with "tossing all the water out with the baby", gets a Phoenix Rising prize for having a good brain day! (Warning - the prize might be disappointing.)Don't mean to be pedantic, but aren't you supposed to avoid tossing the baby out with the water?
I think the odds of curing me/cfs by the lightning process are about the same as the odds of actually getting struck by lightening.
Whatever therapists following this line of argument are doing, it is completely irrelevant to solving the corresponding public health problem, except possibly in the same sense as shooting sick people reduces public health problems.
I don't want to take this thread off at a tangent, but what annoys me about the assisted suicide debate that were having in the UK at the moment is that many patients and elderly aren't offered comfortabe and dignified "assisted living" whereby they are enabled to live in safety and comfort in a facility where the fear of being unable to look after oneself is lifted. e.g. we need hospices for ME patients where we can be looked after when times get (unbearably) tough. I think this could have avoided a number of suicides of our friends and associates.I'm starting to think that perhaps suicide is becoming official state policy. Our Dear Leaders know damn well their policies directly contribute to patient despair and suicide, and they can't even be bothered to give lip service to the problem.
They all keep an eye or ear on what goes on here one way or another. ... We are usually 'that forum' rather than PR, but why should we complain. After all we even have the opposition writing articles about how naughty we are.
Mahatma Gandhi said:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I think the ME Association in the UK has been instrumental in making that change: The ME Association has made complaints that were upheld by the appropriate authorities in relation to inappropriate promotional material that mentioned 'cures', 'recovery' and 'treatment' etc. So I'm not sure if it was a willing and proactive change on the part of the lightning process practitioners: it was forced upon them by legal process.I read that even Lightning Process therapists don't talk much about cures these days, but rather amelioration of ME/CFS symptoms; in other words, they are being more realistic, probably as a result of years of experience of not curing the vast majority patients, but perhaps improving the symptoms of a reasonable percentage of ME/CFS patients.
I read that even Lightning Process therapists don't talk much about cures these days, but rather amelioration of ME/CFS symptoms; in other words, they are being more realistic, probably as a result of years of experience of not curing the vast majority patients, but perhaps improving the symptoms of a reasonable percentage of ME/CFS patients.
We will have to wait for the results of Esther Crawley's trial of the Lightning Process to get a better handle on how many patients it may help.
One of the things that really annoys me about this stuff is this idea that the patient groups are all powerful
AKA temporary brain-washing. Messing with the minds of the gullible. Sick mental manipulation of the desperate.The Lightning Process could simply be a highly optimized method for obtaining strong placebo effects.
Actually an old joke, but still funny.I thought it was called the lightning process because they are lightening our wallets.
I saw it somewhere else on the forum as 'psychoquakers'.
The Lightning Process could simply be a highly optimized method for obtaining strong placebo effects. This would create a temporary impression of improvement in disease, as long as one avoids objective measures, long term follow ups. It's also impossible to compare these psychological interventions to a placebo.
I don't think the LP study can strengthen the case for LP.
It could be, but it's interesting that even with all the hype touting CBT as a successful treatment (thus creating the right expectation conditions for a strong placebo effect), if you look at the ME association survey I cited above, only 2.8% said they were greatly improved by CBT, compared to 25.7% for the Lightning Process.
If were just the placebo effect, why that order of magnitude difference?
If they are not trained in the programme they will not have the requisite skills or knowledge base about this very specialised field to assess you.
Lightning process Trainers don't talk about curing ME any more, not because they are "realistic", but because they would be breaking the law. The UK Advertising Standards Authority found the Phil Parker Group (Lightning Process) and other Lightning Trainers guilty of making false health claims. The only advertising left for Lightning Trainers is testimonials.
Phil Parker even attached himself and his Lightning Process to XMRV publicity in 2009, 'hypothesising' that Lightning Process appeared to be having an effect on a retrovirus!
As I've said, it could simply be due to LP being designed to elicit greater placebo responses.
I remember reading about a LP practitioner that was screening potential customers to make sure they had the right mind set, even refusing skeptical patients. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a standard practice. Just by selecting the right patients one can make a treatment look really effective. CBT, outside of a research setting, doesn't have this advantage (or at least less of it). Patients are being referred for CBT even when they are not motivated or skeptical or have heard from other patients that it doesn't work.
The indoctrination also seems much stronger in LP. It goes as far as instructing patients to knowingly pretend to be healthy, telling them that this is necessary for the treatment to work.
Treatments that are more expensive also tend to elicit greater placebo responses (possibly because the more expensive the treatment, the more likely it is that only very motivated patients decide to try it).
One has to compare treatments in a controlled setting to eliminate as many of these influencing factors as possible.
PS: also very important: it is easier to produce placebo effects in children, and children are presumably more likely to spontaneously recover, and I suspect teenagers are also more likely to report fatigue states that aren't CFS. I don't think it's a coincidence that LP is being tested on children.
Here is the big secret of what we had to say while standing on paper circles –
WHEN YOU FEEL A SYMPTOM
SHOUT- STOP! (stand on the paper STOP)
SAY- I HAVE A CHOICE ( stand on the paper CHOICE)
SAY- YOU CAN CHOOSE THE PIT OR THE LIFE YOU LOVE ( you then stand on the LIFE YOU LOVE circle)
SAY- I CHOOSE THE LIFE I LOVE
SAY- WELL DONE, YOU ARE A FANTASTIC GENIOUS, YOU ARE ON TRACK! I AM WITH YOU EVERY STEP OF THE WAY (you are being your own coach here)
ASK YOURSELF – WHAT DO I WANT?
ANSWER YOURSELF- I WANT ENERGY AND HAPPYNESS LIKE (you say something that means energy etc. to you)
ASK YOURSELF- HOW WILL I GET THIS?
TELL YOURSELF- BY STOPPING EVERY NEGATIVE THOUGHT
EVERY NEGATIVE EMOTION
AND DOING THE LIGHTNING PROCESS.