The organizational similarities between LP and the Perrin Technique are a bit eerie. Aside from the Perrin Technique being based on largely biological causation (but also emotional), they're organized and marketed in nearly identical manners. A 430 euro weekend course is all that's needed to become a Perrin practitioner - though the applicant at least has to have a background in osteopathy, chiropractics, or physiotherapy. That's a slight improvement over the apparent LP requirement of being susceptible enough to believe they were cured by LP in the past.
Yes, there are similarities but they're pretty superficial and there is a slight matter of scale.
For the Lightning Process the total cost to become a practitioner is just shy of £8K (although exemptions are available!). Practitioners can then charge - what is it? - around £700 per person per course, all payable up front, no refunds, thank you very much.
Just 430 euros to train in the Perrin Technique? That's pretty good value for professional fees - are you sure that's right? I genuinely thought it would be more. As you point out, only people from relevant professions are allowed to train. Then they charge their own clients per session, about £45 - £70 a pop depending on the length of the session, i.e. the clients may have a longer session with non-Perrin osteopathic therapy as well. Generally, the fee is payable at the end of the therapy, which is how most decent professionals conduct themselves. The client is free to discontinue treatment at any time.
My main concern is that he seems to be going about it backwards, as the BPS practitioners do. He starts with the premise that his particular specialty is the cure for multiple diseases, and the explanation of pathology to support that cure is then invented with little or no evidence.
It isn't entirely backwards but I understand the comparison. He is an osteopath, not a physician (or psychiatrist), and he is therefore held to a different standard, like it or not.
Perrin discovered the technique when he was treating a former elite cyclist for a back complaint. The cyclist had been diagnosed with ME/CFS seven years before. After five treatments, the cyclist's back was "better" (
whatever that means I take that to mean no more treatment was required) and his ME/CFS symptoms were reduced. He continued with treatment and within two months from the start, he was recovered. And in this instance 'recovery' seems a reasonable word to use because he has been able to cycle again with his former "zeal". [I've edited this paragraph for comprehension.]
So far, so rituximab. A possible connection is noted and interest is piqued.
Perrin started to research the disease. He published an initial paper in 1993 and then embarked on clinical trials. Between 1994 and 2005, he worked in association with the Universities of Salford and Manchester on three trials, culminating in his PhD thesis.
I'm sure he would love to do larger clinical trials if he could get the funding. From conversations I had with my osteopath, which were mentioned previously, he is aware of some of the methodological problems of PACE (and no doubt his own early trials) and wouldn't want to commit similar mistakes.
In the meantime, what should he do? Should he throw up his hands in despair and give it all up?
He doesn't aggressively market his technique, he conducts trials to a much higher ethical standard than Crawley and apparently he has a better methodological understanding, too.
Why is there no evidence of these toxins existing? Which toxins are they supposed to be? Where is the evidence that these toxins "overstrain" the sympathetic nervous system? Where is the evidence that the sympathetic nervous system is "overstrained"? WTF does "overstraining" the sympathetic nervous system even mean? Where is the evidence that the lymph nodes are blocked from normal drainage?
The answer to your questions is pretty much "none", "none" and "none".
Personally, I don't like talk of toxins and poisons etc. All I do know is that the technique is a modified form of lymphatic drainage and I think it's fine for him to speculate about what might be going on but he shouldn't be promoting it as fact. Rather than there being "something in the serum", there may also be "something in the lymph".