I didn't see this. Where is this information from?
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
BBC: Long Covid course [LP] is ‘exploiting people’, says ex-GB rower, 2024, article and radio program
- Thread starter Deanne NZ
- Start date
I didn't see this. Where is this information from?
Your comments @bobbler remind me about Lightning Process practitioners who are the parents of people who underwent the course. e.g. Jenny Oliver, as quoted in a Stuff article
There was a Facebook thread that I read in the last couple of days, where a mother and daughter had been very public about the daughter's recovery, but in later posts over the years it was clear that the daughter's health had been up and down a lot. In the last posts, she was not well, but she claimed that the Lightning Process training had helped her remain optimistic through the health down-turns.stuff article said:
It's a very seductive thing for a parent - you want your child to be well, and, if you think you found the way to fix them, you want to tell everyone about it. You might ignore anything that suggests that the child has not in fact recovered, including the child telling you that they aren't well. You might 'help' the child adhere to the LP principles by reminding them about the need for positive thinking.
Yes. As my grammar mistake in that quote suggests, I started with democracy, and then realised that the human race was at stake too, and added that. I agree, there is a good chance that humans won't make it. But, if we do, journalists will almost certainly have played a significant part in making sure that lots of people understand what is at stake in all the complicated issues of our time, not just the "scientists". We need them to do a great job.
Yes, as I think I said above, I'm sure the BBC journalist was doing the best she could, and I'm sure too that she is an intelligent and fair-minded person. And yet, the portrayal of a COFFI-member as just your average busy single mother who recovered from Long Covid thanks to the Lightning Process was an error that will contribute to harm. I wonder how the journalist came to ask the COFFI-member for her story? If the woman was suggested by Phil Parker, that should have rung alarm bells. Even if the journalist found the woman by googling, the journalist should have also seen the inconsistencies and conflicts of interest that are there in the online presence.
That's a great thought. There are currently 20 UK LP coaches with photos (including Parker) on the LP website. I can't work out the map - according to that, there looks to be 41 coaches in the UK, but it changes depending on how zoomed in you are. That certainly is not a very high yield.
Where would disgruntled ex-Lightning Process Practitioners hang out? Checking archived versions of the directory pages might identify people who were Lightning Process coaches but aren't now; who have perhaps realised that there is quite a lot of potential to do harm.
I almost wonder if the Lightning Process is more marketing than product. I wonder how many courses are in fact run. Perhaps Parker gets funding from elsewhere to maintain this active marketing presence for the idea that people with ME/CFS and Long Covid can be cured by positive thinking? I wonder how Rachel Whitfield has monetised her involvement with the Lightning Process.
@dave30th - You will find Rachel Whitfield easily enough on FB in LC forums & Optimum Health etc - posting links to her being interviewed about her recovery in a couple of different YouTube & podcasts and bemoaning the negativity in the BBC doco.
Her professional experience is here https://www.ksl-training.co.uk/about-us/our-training-consultants/rachel-whitfield/
She is on twitter as @Whittyconsult - she had the audacity to reply to Whitney Dafoe that its fear that keeps people stuck and that brain retraining is the way out.
Editing to add this tweet;
https://twitter.com/user/status/1439293179489042440
She did GUPTA, Secrets of Success with OHC, Samo (?) and it was LP that fundamentally worked for her.
Her professional experience is here https://www.ksl-training.co.uk/about-us/our-training-consultants/rachel-whitfield/
She is on twitter as @Whittyconsult - she had the audacity to reply to Whitney Dafoe that its fear that keeps people stuck and that brain retraining is the way out.
Editing to add this tweet;
https://twitter.com/user/status/1439293179489042440
She did GUPTA, Secrets of Success with OHC, Samo (?) and it was LP that fundamentally worked for her.
Last edited:
On that last bit there was a classic line from sarah Tyson that springs to mind.
it would be one thing trying one brainwash but even those laypersons pushing it to get us to shove off would be wondering why you’d do more than one if it worked [the first time] and more than one if it didn’t ?
Last edited:
Peter T
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Since the Iraq War, particularly through the political turmoil of the last eight years, in part because of ongoing Government pressure, the BBC has struggled with balanced reporting. They have an over obsession with being seen as getting both sides across, which can often, as in their climate change reporting, result in giving far too much air time to essentially crackpot theories. Further in their attempt to seem ‘fair’ they can be unfair giving a disproportionate amount of time to some minority views as in their more recent political reporting.
I suspect here as in other areas they feel they have to give the ‘other’ side of the story a fair crack, but often this, as in this case, gives the most articulate, outspoken or high profile advocate that role without questioning whether they are as they seem.
I support what @dave30th says about the need for unbiased reporting, but as in this case the BBC can struggle to do that without introducing imbalance or unfairness.
And of course for children with CFS and the hostile environment created with the FII accusations and Pervasive refusal syndrome black hole
then perhaps we simply need to map out what tactical options any parent has - and in the absence of either medical care or them not being harmed what blag snd cover might keep them safest (as safe is off the table) / least harmed permanently of those on the table.
given enough medics eulogise the LP for no good reason it’s a sensible bluff that if your child is ill then they’ll get more leeway with them and school if you pretend you are both brainwashed / 'doing it'.
I remember I think in Jonathan s witness testimony that it’s one thing testing if people change their mindset another testing if said changed mindset made health worse or better. Those who believe aren’t going to call out those who are true believers for their kid still being ill because that would mean ‘it’s not working’
yes the world is that mad /corrupt /blind /dirty
but would it be that different a tactic to us all learning that you don’t walk into an appointment and cry or be tricked into saying things that can be twisted , and indeed make a point of showing our mental health is ok because of the implications if they can try and hang it on that
these kids are worse off than workers who some of them might be able to get part time or find jobs nearer or more appropriate or get adjustments. That’s not to say enough workers or that it’s enough or does the trick but it sounds like once in the radar even if a kid forced themselves through full time and PE they’d ’already be on the radar’ and observation in itself is intimidating and intimidation plus there’s always some keeno who might imagine something even if it’s not there etc if you don’t find something to change the record and make people think ‘you’re on the case and alls fine’
I could imagine how a pantomime that harms cfs 50% and makes life impossible and unliveable might just mean the strategic sick days go under the radar vs the hell that could be unleashed if you didn’t run the pantomime
Last edited:
The question of balance has been debated a bit in the UK over the last 20 years or so.
There was quite a lot of criticism of the BBC in particular and the media in general for false equivalence in coverage of climate change. It was pointed out that by attempting to give equal billing in every mention of climate change to the tiny minority who don't believe (interesting word I think when applied to scientific evidence) in climate change, the BBC and the media in general were giving deniers a spurious credibility.
This argument was accepted and coverage was changed to more accurately reflect the scientific consensus.
It was a point I made in private to Ethan.
Of course as ME patients we are all too aware of the dangers of false consensus. I guess we're back to a (different kind of) question of balance again.
There was quite a lot of criticism of the BBC in particular and the media in general for false equivalence in coverage of climate change. It was pointed out that by attempting to give equal billing in every mention of climate change to the tiny minority who don't believe (interesting word I think when applied to scientific evidence) in climate change, the BBC and the media in general were giving deniers a spurious credibility.
This argument was accepted and coverage was changed to more accurately reflect the scientific consensus.
It was a point I made in private to Ethan.
Of course as ME patients we are all too aware of the dangers of false consensus. I guess we're back to a (different kind of) question of balance again.
Reminds me of an unsavoury character(s) who was languishing in prison (Romania?) who made money out of training the gullible - interesting that Parker gets the money upfront from the trainers!
That would be good old fashioned convalescence, which is very much out of fashion today.
Worth repeating.
There is a very serious psycho-social factor in play here. But it is the damage being done by inappropriate assertion by the experts that the problem is primarily a psycho-social one, when it is actually a secondary consequence, not a primary cause. It is not an inherent defining feature of the condition. It is contingent, completely unnecessary. It is entirely due to the way the profession and society views and responds to the primary problem.
I have long suspected that the Great Filter is self-destruction.
How this does not automatically and permanently disqualify its proponents from any further involvement in science or treating people, defies belief. That the profession has allowed this utter crap to become 'legitimised' shows only how intellectually & morally bankrupt this area of medicine has become.
I think their crafty way of getting around all the medical ethics and science issues is that they call what they do 'training' not 'treatment'. That puts them in the category more like personal trainers, so not needing any recognised qualfications or evidence.
Lou B Lou
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
In Treatment the onus is on the treatment inventor and provider of the treatment to ensure it works and is not just hot air (ha, I know that doesn't apply in the BPS world).
But Lightning is a Training. So the responsibility is with the client to apply the training, and if they don't recover then it's because they didn't apply the training well enough, or properly.
.
Evergreen
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think it's important that the BBC critiques the LP and am glad this journalist did so. When you have NHS clinicians on the LP bandwagon, critique is essential. I think most listeners will have understood the message - that this is an exploitative, nonsensical, ridiculously expensive thing to be avoided. I appreciated that the reporter actually did the LP herself - the description of jumping around on a piece of paper while some randomer issues instructions via Zoom was...evocative. That the LP people contacted the Olympic athlete and offered her a free course was also damning. The reporter spoke so clearly throughout - you couldn't miss the outrageous price of the LP, for example.
I don't think the piece would be as strong without the positive anecdotes, because if they weren't there, you just invite the usual criticism of "But it helps so many people! I recovered!" etc. By including them, those counterarguments are shut down, and the critique is stronger. It made the "anti-recovery activists" line look even more daft than it did by itself. Could more context have been given? Maybe, and in some cases definitely, but the strength of the piece was that it showed rather than told, and sometimes less is more.
Leaving out the positive anecdotes is a bit like educating young people about recreational drugs without acknowledging the enjoyable aspects. My understanding is that research has shown that education is more effective when it does.
The requirement for balance does hamstring journalists a bit, and people have made valid points eg about Whitfield (lots of others too, just can't pick them all out). There will always be those who are desperate and may actually find their way to the LP thanks to hearing about it this way, or have it foisted on them, but that was happening anyway, and I'd rather the critical voices be heard rather than stifle the critique for fear of free publicity. People have made good points about how it could have been improved, but overall, I appreciated it.
I'd quite like the Occupational Therapist who handed me a slip of paper 14 years ago with "Lightning Process" on it to hear this piece. And I think they would be more open to the critique when the positive anecdotes are also included. (Thankfully I had already heard about it and knew it was...not for me.)
I thought Peter made good points here:
For me it comes down to who this piece is directed at. The intended audience, in my view, was people with long COVID who are desperate for help. My guess is that most have heard about the LP already, or similar NLP shenanigans. And I think that in order to get the message across to them that the LP is not a road they should spend their money on (if they have that kind of money), acknowledging some of the good stories had to be done. Otherwise they google them themselves and might be more likely to go for it. I think after hearing this piece, people would be forewarned. If other people recommend the LP to them, they will be better equipped to respond to that recommendation.
On that last quote there is an episode of the West Wing (series 5, 10) where a tiny part of it is where there is mention of 'is there government/DOD research into mind control' and there are lots of surely not faces and the like as they check the answer, with a few dry puns ("are you doing it on me now?" "maybe").
I don't know what date it was made but goes to show how it really is true of the revolving door of 'certain areas and ideas' being hounded out by science proving them nonsense then reforming, renaming and coming back in a new disguise to begin the whole thing again. I do wonder whether the same storyline would be the same today?
Is it what people are getting away with marketing-wise, and the decline of oversight in science and journals that is the only issue along with regs. It certainly feels like the manifesto style of 'paper' has been becoming acceptable as someone's almost entire output or 'proof of claims' etc. sometimes. Even though there is supposed to be all this increased transparency from having the internet and social media and so on.
Or somewhat that is interacting with a more general 'forgetting' of what might have been more on the news in the past etc. People just don't seem to see or be reminded of how without proper science and safeguards and oversight checking that the outcome is good rather than bad it is really just 'getting people to do stuff' or 'telling people to think differently' but without proof that was a good thing at all. Maybe the reminders of all the past stuff eg Zimbardo (I know that's another one that has had recent questions) and so on that meant psychology tried to develop and did get more scientific methods certainly in some of its areas just aren't fresh enough or are no longer being properly not just taught critically as they matter but done so in something that might be assessed (so people actually have to pay attention and study it).
On a side note Sometimes I can't help but think back to was it the 80s when it seemed like there were items about cult leaders on the TV (news) a lot and kids would have to have it explained to them what was going on and why and so on, but either it went more underground and was on the TV less or something changed? I could name other things that you see documentaries about less that were big topics up until a decade ago and now might just get the odd mention or one-liner of 'being an issue in x', I've seen the odd mention in the odd netflix thing or story based on a historical story where past 'bad research' might have got a mention but not up with it recently.
So is some of this more cultural acceptance of these things, or just not having also those reminders of how stuff can go wrong?
I find it all very intriguing if it wasn't for the fact I see which is that mostly (even when its someone claiming recovery) it is people pushing it being great for others
Medicine as performance.
Lou B Lou
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think that assuming the majority of listeners or readers will apply any level of critical thinking to programs and articles featuring, or just including, ME 'cures' by mind over matter methods, is too optimistic.
And discounts what a powerful drug 'Hope' is. The refrain 'But it can help some people' is everywhere, disastrous to new and desperate patients.
And responses from the general public to the mind body 'ME cures' are that they've been told, and believe, that people with ME will only get better if they want to, that thinking positive will cure ME, and that people with ME are perverse and deluded, and victim playing to want their disease recognized as serious, physical, and disabling (and needing research funding).
Sample quote from one of the nationals in response to one of the 'My CFS was cured by me me meee and my positive mind', and buy my new coaching course, book, or whatever it is being sold.
"..... The lady got better without conventional medical interventions in the end. Make of that what you will but constant pleading to be regarded as an invalid is hardly a recipe for encouraging recovery. Particularly if , as appears here, recovery relies on the sufferer wanting to get better.'
Just one of very numerous and perpetual cynical comments about ME sufferers from the general public, who apparently never tire of dismissing and denigrating people with ME. Loads of other members of the general public are over eager to state that 'mind body cures' confirm that ME is 'all in the mind', and they seem to get some kind of kick out of believing that. Can't see that has changed in 30 or 40 years.
.
Last edited:
personal trainers have qualifications.
But I see your point, like whether something is a supplement that falls into medicines or food or something else puts it under different regulation
I think manipulation of that term 'recovery' is probably pretty insightful of the strategy for the area , pretty different from cancer-free and well, fully functional, 5yr prognosis, back to full mobility and independence and indeed even terms like significant clinical improvement (I've picked up from certain papers that clinical rather than statistical is important there)
motivational speakers don't. And I guess TedX etc has been a big thing
but if the constant propaganda of misinformation shut down it would on the other hand not heal anyone but remove the disability and harm caused and added by that in a not insignificant to liveability of life and getting somewhere with managing the condition way.
Given we hear of courses from NHS sources I don't think we are hearing the full extent of what money is going into these things.