Brain training that cured a real illness: first-person testimony about fully recovering from [ME/CFS] using the lightning process, 2026, Hartman et al

The title is really silly, isn't it.

The description of LP is pretty detailed and concrete, which is good. Often recovery stories are very vague, focus on how bad they felt before and how good they felt afterwards, probably intentionally to preserve the mystique.

But it left out some things, like how they don't even let you in if you can't convince them that you believe, and how to are encouraged to tell everyone around you that you are fully recovered and have stopped "doing" ME/CFS.
 
Liii said:
The title is really silly, isn't it.

The description of LP is pretty detailed and concrete, which is good. Often recovery stories are very vague, focus on how bad they felt before and how good they felt afterwards, probably intentionally to preserve the mystique.

But it left out some things, like how they don't even let you in if you can't convince them that you believe, and how to are encouraged to tell everyone around you that you are fully recovered and have stopped "doing" ME/CFS.
Click to expand...
To be fair brain training usually cures make-believe illness, I can see why they added “real” /s
 
To allow a title that makes claims about causality based on a personal anecdote is quite something.

Although seeing these names on the editorial board might explain the complete lack of standards:
Jon Stone
Michael Sharpe
Judith Rosmalen
Bernd Löwe
Per Fink
Cédric Lemogne (assistant editor)
 
lelelemonade said:
If someone wanted to write a paper about how they tried LP and it didn’t work, would they be able to publish it?
Click to expand...

This was my question as well. I'd be very curious to see whatever kind of peer review this thing got. The idea that a medical (sort of) journal is publishing someone's personal account in this form is pretty astonishing and makes it clear as someone above wrote that they don't value or understand what constitutes evidence.
 
Utsikt said:
Although seeing these names on the editorial board might explain the complete lack of standards:
Click to expand...

I've written about many problematic papers in this journal, but this one really is the most bizarre--but yes, with all those brilliant minds on the advisory board, what could go wrong?

They allowed Peter White to publish his online GETSET results highlighting only that the intervention group maintained its gains while NOT mentioning that the outcomes in the non-intervention group were the same at the end. I pressed the journal on that and they had to correct that.
 
I think it’s a great article, it terms Lightening Process as being Brain Training.

Therefore, NiCE guidance NG206 which states Lightening Process should not be offered to pwME can now be cited as evidence as to why brain training should not be offered to pwME.

Take that, plucky anti-establishment upstarts er Sharpe and Fink, you counter-culture hippies!
 
Utsikt said:
To allow a title that makes claims about causality based on a personal anecdote is quite something.

Although seeing these names on the editorial board might explain the complete lack of standards:
Jon Stone
Michael Sharpe
Judith Rosmalen
Bernd Löwe
Per Fink
Cédric Lemogne (assistant editor)
Click to expand...
Those names don't just explain the lack of standards, they guarantee them.

dave30th said:
This was my question as well. I'd be very curious to see whatever kind of peer review this thing got. The idea that a medical (sort of) journal is publishing someone's personal account in this form is pretty astonishing and makes it clear as someone above wrote that they don't value or understand what constitutes evidence.
Click to expand...
At least the senior people in their ranks know full well what robust methodology looks like, as they have shown over the years by their quick and legit observations about the limitations of biomed studies.

They know alright.

They just think that psych studies are entitled to use a lower standard, but still claim the same degree of scientific legitimacy and authority based on those lower quality studies.

MrMagoo said:
I think it’s a great article, it terms Lightening Process as being Brain Training.

Therefore, NiCE guidance NG206 which states Lightening Process should not be offered to pwME can now be cited as evidence as to why brain training should not be offered to pwME.
Click to expand...
Good point. :sneaky:

It is clearly not our brains that need retraining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom