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.
 
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.
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)
 
If someone wanted to write a paper about how they tried LP and it didn’t work, would they be able to publish it?

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.
 
Although seeing these names on the editorial board might explain the complete lack of standards:

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!
 
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)
Those names don't just explain the lack of standards, they guarantee them.

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.
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.

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.
Good point. :sneaky:

It is clearly not our brains that need retraining.
 
He accepts the story is his own and may not apply to others - prima facie. But the very claim that he got better from ME/CFS only holds if we accept that ME /CFS is adequately described by a characteristic set of symptoms of uncertain cause, which might respond to LP. Well that is true, in the sense that the diagnosis is arrived at by symptoms, but it is not true in the sense that response to LP is no guarantee of ME and may be reframed as LP responsiveness syndrome not ME.

If full recovery is achieved from abx after Lyme diagnosis - characterised as and long diagnosed as ME, that patient cannot and would not claim to have had ME but Lyme. Common sense, so why doesn't Robert see that he is making an implied claim about other sufferers, by his claim to have recovered form ME via LP, however modest and allowing he may be. All that all we know is that he apparently had LP responsiveness syndrome.

People are happy with "My ME was actually e.g. Lyme" so I suggest "My ME was actually LP responsive syndrome". Lymies don't pretend thya had/have ME, so why to LP responders proclaim they had and object to those who say they didn't. Answer - because they are not in the world of objective medicine and language, which may threaten their system.

I do not doubt his sincerity and I accept that he recovered from certain symptoms and I have no idea whether he would have recovered anyway, a criticism which I do not much respect.
 
@richie wrote: ... 'Lymies don't pretend thya had/have ME'

No they don't. But Unfortunately apparently publicity hungry TV Personality Miranda Hart does say just that.

The Independent 22/9/2026:
' Miranda Hart has opened up about the difficulties of participating in The Celebrity Traitors while living with ME.
In her 2024 memoir, the Miranda star, 53, opened up about her decades-long struggle with lyme disease, which turned into ME (Myalgic encephalomyelitis), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome.'

On the ITV This Morning program (2024) Miranda said she got Lyme Disease which later
"turned into a kind of ME picture of fatigue based condition"
.


Even more unfortunately Miranda also says in her last book (sold over a million copies worldwide) and media interviews:

"We feel we want to conserve energy when fatigued, but actually the energy cells recover with movement, not without it..."

"Thoughts really can make you feel and stay ill. Actual and literal fact."

"if we are in toxic stress, from the negative thoughts, it can lead to pain, inflammation and disease"

"I decided to only do the brain rewiring to recover."

"I discovered that fatigue, lethargy, and apathy are often the energy of trapped anger. If I let out some feeling of anger verbally or physically (my poor cushions!), was amazed how often my fatigue lifted.
The mind-body connection was proved in an instant."

"Cutting-edge neuroscience shows us what spiritual wisdom and teachings have told us through the ages… if we are in toxic stress, from the negative thoughts, it can lead to pain, inflammation and disease. Wow."
.
 
Last edited:
I take your point.

She didn't evidently recover from Lyme. My point was rather that if you recover from X by method Y/drug Z then why proclaim X was ME? Recovered Lymies don't do that recovered by LP do.

I am not against anybody using mindbody/Bret to help with symptoms, just no claims /implied claims about the rest of us or the nature of "real ME". We had one on board a few weeks back , who "knew" we could all be enjoying life like him/her and was jolly frustarted about our stubbornness. Funny how they never go back to a life on the dole in Burnage.

Hope Miranda makes progress but she should be more careful about phraseology.
 
Thank you.

I hadn't realised Hartman's "testimony" was part of a Special Issue - the only part so far, as you point out.

The abstracts of the talks at last years 2 day shindig make interesting reading.

Warning, incoming new buzzword:

systems-thinking​

Katherine Dormandy
Title
: Gatekeeping the Science of Chronic Illness
Abstract: New scientific paradigms have a hard time getting accepted. Rightly so: most revolutionary claims in science fall flat. Yet when new ideas prove their mettle, the gatekeepers of science should acknowledge them. This is easier said than done, not least because proving the mettle of a new paradigm may require upending the assumptions, even the vocabulary, of mainstream science itself. One obstacle is sheer lack of understanding of new paradigms. Piggybacking on this, however, are incredulity and motivated reasoning. I’ll explore how such factors are preventing the uptake of systems-thinking about chronic illness among gatekeepers of science – where these include scientists themselves, but also regulators, the media, and patient advocacy groups who most stand to benefit from systems-thinking.

My bold.

The top 10 revolutionary scientific theories which proved their mettle.

 
Warning, incoming new buzzword:

systems-thinking
We have a thread for that paper in which Katherine Dormandy whines about how LP has proven its efficacy for ME/CFS but everyone in the establishment is stuck too much in groupthink and thus denies NLP the entry into the science olymp.

There are other abstracts from that gathering that are thought-headache-provoking:

Rebecca Kennedy​

Title: Rewiring Belief: Changing Minds About Mind-Body Medicine
Abstract: Dr. Rebecca Kennedy, a U.S. family physician and former lead of the long COVID clinic at Kaiser Permanente, explores why it’s so difficult to communicate brain-based models of chronic symptoms — even when they’re grounded in science. This talk examines the barriers to acceptance, from institutional bias to cognitive dissonance, and offers new strategies for how we might reach clinicians, patients, and the public in more effective ways.
Rebecca Kennedy seems pretty busy going on Brain Retraining podcast, here Raelan Agle's:
Dr. Becca Kennedy, MD: The Way Out of ME/CFS and Long Covid
In this video, Dr. Rebecca Kennedy, MD, talks about how Neural Reprocessing Therapy offers a promising approach to treating ME/CFS and Long Covid,...
Other video titles include:
A Doctor on a Mission to Solve Long COVID, CFS, and Autoimmune Symptoms (Dr. Rebecca Kennedy
Overcoming PEM in ME/CFS and Long Covid and related conditions with Dr Rebecca Kennedy.
The Science Behind the Symptoms: Epstein-Barr, Chronic Fatigue/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

And of course Descartes:

Daniel Wehinger​

Title: Reuniting Body and Soul: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind
Abstract: No one wants to be a Cartesian today. Yet our thinking about the relationship between body and soul remains deeply shaped by the Cartesian framework. I will point to the ongoing influence of Cartesian intuitions in contemporary philosophy of mind and examine both current and historical approaches that move beyond this framework.
Unfortunately, I can't find a published paper for it.
 
Very good, thanks @dave30th.
I note you end with:
The journal seems to. have gone off the rails with this one.
My question is, was it ever on the rails?

Another thought arises. Would Sharpe et al, the editors, ever have dared to present a single first person story of claimed recovery from ME/CFS by GET or by CBT in the journal as research? I don't recall any such papers being published. Their standards were shockingly low in their clinical trials, but did they ever stoop to presenting individuals' anecdotes as research papers?
 
where these include scientists themselves, but also regulators, the media, and patient advocacy groups who most stand to benefit from systems-thinking.​
​
Yeah, it is patient advocacy groups who are the intellectually fossilised, establishment gatekeepers holding up progress into the bold new mind-body enlightenment era that will save us all from... whatever. :rolleyes:

This is Orwellian black is white, up is down, in is out level of hollow political rhetoric, soaked through with textbook industrial grade DARVO, from somebody who thinks all that matters is a cute narrative. All form, no content.
 
Rebecca Kennedy seems pretty busy going on Brain Retraining podcast, here Raelan Agle's:
She doesn't work in the LC clinic anymore. She's set up her own brain training website which I've been delving into. Limited info on the usual stuff involved.

She has a research page. https://resilience-healthcare.com/the-science/

She links to something called the Psychophysiologic Disorders Association (PPDA) which has created an

Annotated Bibliography for Psychophysiologic Disorders and Chronic Pain

Updated January 10, 2024
Compiled by:
Jeffrey Axelbank, PsyD
Georgie Oldfield, MCSP
David Clarke, MD

47 pages of references dating back to Engels 1977 paper. Not more than a couple of research references to ME/CFS. Mostly pain and MUS. I wasn't up to following the links. I don't know who yellow highlighted sections of each reference.


 
I've copied the details of the 2 day workshop on 8-9 July 2025 for the record, in case it disappears from the University of Innsbruck website.

.

Innsbruck Center for Philosophy of Religion

Systems Thinking about Chronic Illness: Scientific Controversies and Gatekeeping
University of Innsbruck, 8–9 July 2025
Faculty of Catholic Theology, Karl-Rahner Platz 1, Dekanatssitzungssaal

Organizers: Katherine Dormandy, University of Innsbruck; Bruce Arroll, University of Auckland.

With thanks for generous funding to EPoS and the University of Innsbruck's Public Relations Office.

Health science is vulnerable to infiltration by bad science or pseudoscience, and relies heavily on gatekeeping to maintain its integrity. Gatekeeping, though necessary, is perilous. The history of science shows that gatekeepers may let in bad science or pseudoscience while keeping out important new ideas, due to cultural waves or commitment to entrenched frameworks. In the science of chronic illness, there is reason to think that just this is happening. The orthodox “biomedical model”, which posits body-mind dualism and sharp disciplinary boundaries, falls short in understanding and treating chronic illnesses, especially those for which clear physical causes are elusive. Yet promising systems-thinking alternatives, which posit mind-body unity and strong interdisciplinarity, are often dismissed by gatekeepers – including scientists, regulators, patient advocacy groups, and the media – as bad science or pseudoscience. Poor gatekeeping in health science can have disastrous consequences for patients and society. This interdisciplinary workshop brings together health psychologists, medical scientists, and philosophers of science to understand the situation and explore a way forward – both for chronic-illness research, and for illuminating the promise and pitfalls of gatekeeping in health science. (Program)

Tuesday 8 July
9:00–9:40

Welcome and Mutual Introductions

9:45–10:45

Michael Sharpe (Oxford, Psychiatry)
Mind, Morals, Medicine and ME (Abstract)

11:00–12:00

Rebecca Kennedy (Oregon, Medicine)
Rewiring Belief: Changing Minds About Mind-Body Medicine (Abstract)

Lunch

14:00–15:00

Phil Parker (London, Health Psychology)
Can New Ideas Overcome Outdates Ones? A Case Study of The Lightning Process – A Systems Thinking Approach to Health (Abstract)

15:10–16.10

Enno Fischer (Dresden, Philosophy)
"Excited Delirium Syndrome" or Asphyxiation? Evidential Practices in Forensic Medicine (Abstract)

16:25–17:25

Katherine Dormandy (Innsbruck, Philosophy)
Gatekeeping the Science of Chronic Illness (Abstract)

19:00

Informal dinner

Wednesday 9 July
9:00–10:00

Jason Busse (McMasters, Canada, Medicine)
Challenges and (Potential) Solutions to Management of Persistent Physical Symptoms (Abstract)

10:00–11:00

Daniel Wehinger (Innsbruck, Philosophy)
Reuniting Body and Soul: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind (Abstract)

11:15–12:15

Diana Walther (Fribourg, Medicine)
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: the condition, the controversy and an exploration of a way forward (Abstract)

Lunch

14:15–15:15

Karin De Punder (Innsbruck, Psychology)
Early Life stress-induced Accelerated Biological Aging as a Risk Factor for Disease Susceptibility over the Lifespan (Abstract)

15:20–16:20

Bruce Arroll (Auckland, Medicine)
Concluding Remarks (Abstract)

16:40–17:40

Brainstorming future work

19:00

Workshop dinner

Abstracts
Michael Sharpe
Title: Mind, Morals, Medicine and ME
Abstrac
t: How did we come to separate the mind and the body in medicine, why is it so hard to put them back together and what can we learn from controversy over the nature and treatment of CFS/ME?

Rebecca Kennedy
Title: Rewiring Belief: Changing Minds About Mind-Body Medicine
Abstract:
Dr. Rebecca Kennedy, a U.S. family physician and former lead of the long COVID clinic at Kaiser Permanente, explores why it’s so difficult to communicate brain-based models of chronic symptoms — even when they’re grounded in science. This talk examines the barriers to acceptance, from institutional bias to cognitive dissonance, and offers new strategies for how we might reach clinicians, patients, and the public in more effective ways.

Phil Parker
Title: Can New Ideas Overcome Outdated Ones? A Case Study of The Lightning Process - A Systems Thinking Approach to Health
Abstract:
Healthcare is starting to move beyond outdated Mind-Body Dualism as growing research highlights the benefits of Brain-Mind-Body approaches. In this talk, Dr. Phil Parker shares how research backed systems thinking approaches, exemplified by the Lightning Process (LP), are demonstrating significant benefits for people with chronic illnesses. While the persistence of dualistic thinking still creates barriers to patient choice and access, there is a clear shift towards more integrated, empowering healthcare models. We'll explore how with continued research and collaboration, the future looks hopeful for transforming chronic illness care and helping more people recover.

Enno Fischer
Title: “Excited Delirium Syndrome” or Asphyxiation? Evidential Practices in Forensic Medicine
Abstract
: “Excited Delirium Syndrome” (ExDS) is sometimes considered a potential cause of death. However, it has been argued that its sole purpose is to cover up excessive police violence because it is mainly used to explain deaths of individuals in custody. In my talk, I examine the epistemic conditions giving rise to the controversial diagnosis by discussing the relation between causal hypotheses, evidence, and data in forensic medicine. I will also focus on studies examining the main competing diagnosis: asphyxiation. In particular, I will address the role that experimentation plays in assessing associated causal claims.
This talk is based on joint work with Saana Jukola (University of Twente).

Katherine Dormandy
Title: Gatekeeping the Science of Chronic Illness
Abstract
: New scientific paradigms have a hard time getting accepted. Rightly so: most revolutionary claims in science fall flat. Yet when new ideas prove their mettle, the gatekeepers of science should acknowledge them. This is easier said than done, not least because proving the mettle of a new paradigm may require upending the assumptions, even the vocabulary, of mainstream science itself. One obstacle is sheer lack of understanding of new paradigms. Piggybacking on this, however, are incredulity and motivated reasoning. I’ll explore how such factors are preventing the uptake of systems-thinking about chronic illness among gatekeepers of science – where these include scientists themselves, but also regulators, the media, and patient advocacy groups who most stand to benefit from systems-thinking.

Jason Busse
Title: Challenges and (Potential) Solutions to Management of Persistent Physical Symptoms
Abstract:
Management of persistent physical symptoms is often challenged by patient-related and environmental factors. This presentation will explore some of these barriers, as well as potential solutions to optimize patient care.

Daniel Wehinger
Title: Reuniting Body and Soul: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind
Abstract:
No one wants to be a Cartesian today. Yet our thinking about the relationship between body and soul remains deeply shaped by the Cartesian framework. I will point to the ongoing influence of Cartesian intuitions in contemporary philosophy of mind and examine both current and historical approaches that move beyond this framework.

Diana Walther
Title: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: the condition, the controversy and an exploration of a way forward
Abstract:
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) remains a condition surrounded by considerable debate and controversy. This presentation will delve into the current scientific understanding of EHS, the lived experiences of those affected, and the efforts of the Swiss Medical Advisory Network for Non-Ionising Radiation in addressing this issue. We will introduce a conceptual framework for understanding EHS, along with treatment recommendations. Finally, we will explore what EHS can teach us about other chronic conditions, and reflect on its broader implications for health communication.

Karin De Punder
Title: Early life stress-induced accelerated biological aging as a risk factor for disease susceptibility over the lifespan
Abstract
: Stressful events in early life, including prenatal stress and childhood abuse, represent significant risk factors for the onset of many chronic physical and mental conditions that are associated with changes in neuroendocrine stress and immune system function, as well as with accelerated (immuno)cellular aging. This is further reflected in a large body of human research linking early exposure to psychosocial and environmental stressors to shortened telomeres in immune cells. The shortening of telomere length is a hallmark of both cellular and organismal aging and is considered to have widespread consequences for the overall fitness and health span of the organism. In contrast, biopsychosocial resilience factors and positive health behaviors have been linked to longer telomeres and a slower rate of telomere shortening. Hence, interventions targeting these factors appear to be a promising approach to promoting health. Together, the transdisciplinary research findings presented here support the potential benefits of a systems thinking approach to better understand the etiology of stress- related health conditions and to develop multifaceted therapeutic interventions combining conventional, social, psychotherapeutic and lifestyle strategies to attenuate chronic disease.

Bruce Arroll
Title: Concluding Remarks
Abstract
: I draw together the thoughts from the workshop so far, in preparation for further brainstorming about the way forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom