The ‘Lightning Process’ (LP), an effective therapy for ME?

11 Responses to The ‘Lightning Process’ (LP), an effective therapy for ME?

• 

  Trish Davis on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 09:54

  Thank you for writing about this. However, I think your comment does not do full justice to the problems with LP. It’s not just ineffective, it is very harmful.
  The Lightning Process is a dangerous scam built on brainwashing and which proliferates as a pyramid selling scheme.
  If you want to understand just how harmful it is, read these patients’ stories told in their own words and translated into English: https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/lp-stories/
  Here’s my summary of what those patients say: https://www.s4me.info/threads/lp-fortellinger-norwegian-website-sharing-information-and-experiences-about-lightning-process-now-available-in-english.24653/#post-411641
  It is truly shocking that such a harmful scam is being pushed by medical authorities in Norway and some other countries, and is being allowed all over the world. I can only assume they either have a financial interest, have not bothered to find out what it really involves, or are so contemptuous of very sick people that they don’t care what harm they are promoting.

  Reply
  • 

    Edzard on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 09:57

    I did state this: We rarely hear about those who deteriorated: https://lp-fortellinger.no/.
    And I very regularly point out on this blog that ALL ineffective therapies are harmful even if they appear risk-free.

    Reply
• 

  Nina E. Steinkopf on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 11:01

  Thank you for writing about this.

  The Lightning Process is becoming a huge problem for ME- and Long Covid patients in Norway. In October 2022 proponents of LP arranged a secret seminar at the University of Oslo: https://melivet.com/2023/03/29/chief-physician-for-the-norwegian-labour-and-welfare-administration-marit-hermansen-attended-a-secret-me-seminar/

  Reply
• 

  Eirik Randsborg on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 11:54

  It is also important to note that in order to be a LP-coach you have to be master practitioner in NLP, coaching and hypnotherapy. The latter explains why the coach keep repeating over and over again that “You don’t have ME, you do ME” and “You have recovered if you use the method right”

  After 3 days of hearing that you have recovered, it is no surprise that they answer “No” on the evaluation question “Do you have ME now”.

  Since the reasearch on LP only use subjective meassures, including this evaluation questions, no wonder they claim high effect.

  Reply
  • 

    Forestvon on Saturday 01 April 2023 at 13:47

    Pls look into the training of the LP consultants -I asked on twitter and a participant had queried theirs, and @postersforME had recorded it.
    In summary training to be a consultant is conducted at one weekend a month for 10 months, followed by an exam, ie 20 days training!
    Pic.twitter.com/jtkzGx2NQF

    Reply
    • 

      Eirik Randsborg on Saturday 01 April 2023 at 19:26

      Our college is the only place where you can train to be a Lightning Process Practitioner. The role requires an in-depth understanding of the use of advanced language patterns, NLP and Coaching so your first step on this journey is to take the Clinical Diploma in NLP, Coaching & Clinical Hypnotherapy followed by the Master Practitioner Certificate in NLP, Coaching and Clinical Hypnotherapy before embarking on this course, the Lightning Process Practitioner Training.

      https://www.philparker.org/lightning-process-practitioner-training-2023/

      To me it looks like who you tweered only were talking about the actual LP Practitioner course and not the requirements to take it

      Reply
• 

  Pete Attkins on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 14:30

  Phil Parker Lightning Process®
  The Skeptic’s Dictionary

  … we can examine what LP’s creator, Phil Parker, has to say about his program. Granted, he may be a bit biased, but let’s examine what he has to say anyway.

  First, Phil tells us that he is a graduate of a school of osteopathy in Britain and that he has been trained in at least two pseudosciences: cranial osteopathy and applied kinesiology. He’s also studied hypnotherapy and neurolinguistic programming (NLP). None of these fields are proper preparation for treating chronic fatigue, depression, OCD, or the like. But perhaps Parker is a genius who just stumbled upon a program that can treat physical and psychological disorders, and can also enhance business and sports performances. What are the odds?

  https://skepdic.com/lightningprocess.html

  Neurolinguistic Programming and other Nonsense
  Steven Novella, MD

  When first proposed there was nothing overtly pseudoscientific about NLP. It was a bit simplistic and naïve, but may have had some merit. But it turns out that the assumptions of NLP, namely that our cognition, behavior and emotions can be “programmed” by mimicking the more superficial aspects of those with desirable attributes (for example posture and mannerism) are wrong. The last thirty years of research have simply shown that NLP is bunk.

  https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neurolinguistic-programming-and-other-nonsense/

  See also: The ‘Lightning Process’: implausible, unproven, hyped and expensive
  https://edzardernst.com/2020/06/the-lightning-process-implausible-unproven-hyped-and-expensive/

  Reply
• 

  German patient on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 16:00

  In my life as an ME/CFS patient, I have observed that adrenaline or positive excitement can mobilise a temporary extra but unsustainable access to energy that “overrides” and masks the overexertion signals often provided by the body in ME/CFS, but results in a crash later once adrenaline has waned. “Pushing” oneself against energy limits in my opinion corresponds to mobilising an extra amount of adrenaline and nervous system arousal in order to be able to keep going. It is similar to what common language knows as “running on adrenaline” or stories where people are suddenly able to lift a car in an emergency situation.

  Many patients know this from situations such as being able to be more functional during a doctor’s talk under high adrenaline, and crashing after the situation. In my personal experience it is even possible to maintain such a state of high adrenaline over a consecutive period of days or weeks, crashing afterward – I last experienced this when pushing myself for an ME/CFS petition over a period of about two weeks – I did not stop myself because it was such a positive experience, and afterwards crashed so hard that I have since then deteriorated permantently and lost my independence.

  This is the basic idea of the Lightning Protocol: Telling yourself that you’re supposedly not ill, ignoring all exertion limits signalled by the body and just pushing over them. (i.e. the basic idea is that ME is not real: i.e. that you’re not really ill, but that patients just think they’re ill).

  This is why I am not surprised at all that patients (in particular these uninformed on the illness) may be able to push themselves into displaying an *apparent* higher functionality over the short period of 3 days of the Lightning Protocol, which however does not correspond to an *actual* and *sustainable* improvement.

  But with ME, it is not like with a broken leg where you can’t walk at all: in particular mild and moderate patients will by power of will be able to push themselves over safe energy limits e.g. by mobilising extra adrenaline or excitory neurotransmitters and so to say squeeze the very last bit of juice out of their energy lemon, but this will result in post-exertional malaise, crashes and sometimes permanent deterioration later on. Postexertional-malaise (PEM) with its oftentimes delayed nature is the cardinal symptom of ME/CFS. Many patients routinely go through many “push-crash cycles” before they learn to pace better i.e. live in a way that respects energy limits and prevents crashes.

  Some of the testimonies of patients who deterioriated on https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/lp-stories/ show exactly that adrenaline or prolonged pushing effect that I mention, such as: https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/02/24/t-knutsen-2/ “It’s incredible how far you can push your body until it completely stops.”; https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/02/24/kristin-stolen-2/ “I simply jumped into my adrenaline rush method.”; https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/03/06/virgun-bidtnes-2/ “We had to sign that we were better. When your body is full of adrenaline, and you have been completely brainwashed, you just sign it. We were completely overrun by the facilitators. (…) Of course, I crashed afterwards. I got really sick for a long time after the course, so I got pretty scared.”

  I really recommend to everyone reading the english language testimonies of patients who deteriorated at https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/lp-stories/: They also show a sect-like structure of the LP course (e.g. https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/02/24/venke-midtlien-2/ “….the message that we could be prosecuted if we shared the course material with anyone”, that patients are pressured into signing right after the end of a 3 day-course that they recovered with the method, and that the method *inherently* forbids patients from critizising it and from saying they’re not well (https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/02/24/kristin-stolen-2/ “On the last day of the course we had to sign a document, a self-declaration that the course had made us recovered. Since the LP method itself is about saying out loud to oneself and others that one is recovered, I signed that yes, I was recovered. Had I not done so, I would have technically “failed” the course and not used the method correctly. In other words this means that I today am still counted among the “recovered” group, even if I certainly didn’t, and still am not. It bothers me, because it most likely helps to influence the “recovery statistic” the course refers to.” ; https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/2022/02/24/venke-midtlien-2/ “On the third and last day of the course we filled out a form where one of the questions was: “Do you have ME?”. We answered “NO” – Because we had learned that we had to stop “doing ME”. Afterwards the forms were collected, with the participants signatures on that we no longer have ME. – Afterwards, these answers were used as recovery numbers from LP-courses.”

  I think comments published from the contested Health politician who supports Lightning Protocol showed that she understood neither the cardinal symptom of ME/CFS (POST-exertional malaise with its oftentimes delayed crash effect) nor that “pushing” can temporarily result in an only seemingly higher functionality with ME/CFS which is neither a real cure nor sustainable, as she seems to have taken the seeming “improvement” reported by LP proponents after a 3-day course as real.

  The LP is very dangerous because it forbids patients from listening to their bodies. It’s also frankly ridiculous because it’s based on the idea that a very real neuroimmunological illness that is by now supported by hundreds of biomedical studies is not real and patients only think they’re ill. It therefore pushes patients to do what is the most dangerous with the ME/CFS cardinal symptom of PEM: to push themselves and ignore the real energy limits of their bodies. This can be very harmful to patients not only by resulting in painful PEM – but with ME in general, PEM crashes can sometimes result in permanent deterioration and loss of functionality. This makes the LP the exact opposite of the recommended pacing concept for managing ME/CFS (i.e. take body signals seriously, stay within energy limits, therefore allowing for a degree of energy regeneration over time). Plus the sect-like concept that forbids patients from publicly speaking about bad experiences and makes it all their own fault if they don’t recover can be psychologically very harmful.

  All in all, LP is just another supposed “cure by positive thinking”, and though I am sure you’d find a few people worldwide who’ll say they’ve cured their cancer/diabetes/(*replace by any other serious illness*) by positive thinking, this still does not make telling yourself you’re not really diabetic and amping up the sugar the recommended treatment for diabetes. Neither is it for ME.

  I stay positive with ME but that looks very different from the LP :-). Thanks for reporting on this and I hope the explanations on pushing/adrenaline and delayed PEM helps.

  Reply
  • 

    Pete Attkins on Thursday 30 March 2023 at 20:00

    German patient,

    That’s an excellent write-up and analysis of your experience, which I think would resonate with many who underwent this coercive process.

    You wrote:
    “It’s also frankly ridiculous because it’s based on the idea that a very real neuroimmunological illness that is by now supported by hundreds of biomedical studies is not real and patients only think they’re ill.”

    Using Barry Beyerstein’s Illness–Disease Distinction below, perhaps we could say:
    “It’s also frankly ridiculous because it’s based on the idea that a very real neuroimmunological illness disease (that is now supported by hundreds of biomedical studies) is not real and patients only think they’re ill.”

    The appeal of nonscientific medicine is largely a holdover from popular “counterculture” sentiments of the 1960s and 1970s. Remnants of the rebellious, “back-to-nature” leanings of that era survive as nostalgic yearnings for a return to nineteenth-century-style democratized health care (now wrapped in the banner of patients’ rights) and a dislike of bureaucratic, technologic, and specialized treatment of disease (Cassileth and Brown 1988). Likewise, the allure of the “holistic” dogmas of alternative medicine is a descendant of the fascination with Eastern mysticism that emerged in the sixties and seventies. Although the philosophy and the science that underlie these holistic teachings have been severely criticized (Brandon 1985), they retain a strong appeal for those committed to belief in “mind-over-matter” cures, a systemic rather than localized view of pathology, and the all-powerful ability of nutrition to restore health (conceived of as whole-body “balance”).

    Many dubious health products remain on the market primarily because satisfied customers offer testimonials to their worth. Essentially, they are saying, “I tried it and I got better, so it must be effective.” But even when symptoms do improve following a treatment, this, by itself, cannot prove that the therapy was responsible.

    The Illness–Disease Distinction
    Although the terms disease and illness are often used interchangeably, for present purposes it is worth distinguishing between the two.

    I shall use disease to refer to a pathological state of the organism due to infection, tissue degeneration, trauma, toxic exposure, carcinogenesis, etc.

    By illness I mean the feelings of malaise, pain, disorientation, dysfunctionality, or other complaints that might accompany a disease. Our subjective reaction to the raw sensations we call symptoms is molded by cultural and psychological factors such as beliefs, suggestions, expectations, demand characteristics, self-serving biases, and self-deception. The experience of illness is also affected (often unconsciously) by a host of social and psychological payoffs that accrue to those admitted to the “sick role” by society’s gatekeepers (i.e., health professionals). For certain individuals, the privileged status and benefits of the sick role are sufficient to perpetuate the experience of illness after a disease has healed, or even to create feelings of illness in the absence of disease (Alcock 1986).

    Unless we can tease apart the many factors that contribute to the perception of being ill, personal testimonials offer no basis on which to judge whether a putative therapy has, in fact, cured a disease. That is why controlled clinical trials with objective physical measures are essential in evaluating therapies of any kind.

    — Barry L. Beyerstein (1997). “Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work”. Skeptical Inquirer. 27: 29–34.
    https://skepticalinquirer.org/1997/09/why-bogus-therapies-seem-to-work/

    https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1997/09/22165002/p29.pdf

    [my formatting for clarity]

    Reply
    • 

      German patient on Friday 31 March 2023 at 11:31

      I’m not a native speaker, so thanks for your opinion that disease is a clearer term for a biomedical pathology.

      Reply
• 

  Christine Sutherland on Wednesday 05 April 2023 at 10:24

  Distraction is not treatment, and the many claims of NLP do not hold up to scrutiny – they are largely BS. Some aspects are very similar to cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) a wildly popular psychological technique which also has no effect in terms of reducing people’s suffering. You can no more “think way” or “talk away” ME as you could think or talk away any other disorder, and ME is a physical disorder, not a psychological disorder as once thought.

  Reply