Explore - A Systematic Review of The Evidence Base for the Lightning Process - 2020 - by Phil Parker et al

Only abstract available.
(ETA: Sci-Hub: https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/...U4v5h1ylqVsUP8g4eGGbK9ISXiH-cAZbFlEeuoMO4YVGk )

Journal: Explore - The Journal of Science and Healing
A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base of the Lightning Process - by Phil Parker, Aston, L de Rijk

Abstract
Background: The Lightning Process (LP), a mind-body training programme, has been applied to a range of health problems and disorders. Studies and surveys report a range of outcomes creating a lack of clarity about the efficacy of the intervention.

Objective: This systematic review evaluates the methodological quality of existing studies on the LP and collates and reviews its reported efficacy.

Data sources: Five databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC (to September 2018), and Google and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies.

Study Selection: Studies of the LP in clinical populations published in peer-reviewed journals or in grey literature were selected. Reviews, editorial articles and studies/surveys with un-reported methodology were excluded.

Data extraction: Searches returned 568 records, 21 were retrieved in full text of which 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (ten quantitative studies/surveys and four qualitative studies).

Data synthesis and Conclusions: The review identified variance in the quality of studies across time; earlier studies demonstrated a lack of control groups, a lack of clarity of aspects of the methodology and potential sampling bias. Although it found a variance in reported patient outcomes, the review also identified an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression. It concludes that there is a need for more randomised controlled trials to evaluate if these positive outcomes can be replicated and generalised to larger populations.

 

Unless somebody can point to a detailed description of some process to which the words allude, this would appear to be a study of the words "the Lightning Process".

 

From Wikipedia about the journal:

Explore has been heavily criticised both for the content it publishes and the beliefs of its editorial team. Its self-description and author information explicitly includes pseudoscientific topics well outside the mainstream of medical practice. Critics have noted this willingness to publish work in areas lacking a scientific basis, and have labelled it a "quack journal" which "doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way [the journal] Homeopathy does," a publisher of "truly ridiculous studies," and as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal."[2][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_&_Healing

 

How can Phil Parker the man behind the Lightning Process be allowed to conduct a review of the evidence base for his own product?

 

At the end of the Wikipedia article it says the following:

Sadri Hassani, a retired professor of physics who maintains the website Skeptical Educator,[27] said of the journal "The editorial board of Explore says it all! [...] When the executive editor himself publishes books on "knowing the future" and the "healing power of prayer;" and when coeditors-in-chief engage in the exploration of phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models and do research on telepathy and psychic healing, what is the purpose of "peer-review?"".[26]

 

From the abstract:

the review also identified an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression

what does physical function mean in this context?

 

Perhaps it indicayes that LP is ineffective for those suffering a loss of physical function.

 

Here's the article on Sci-Hub
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/...U4v5h1ylqVsUP8g4eGGbK9ISXiH-cAZbFlEeuoMO4YVGk

I will add it to the first post in the thread, so it's easier to find.

 

Interesting that this is an Elsevier product.

 

Does anyone know where to find the quote about medical textbooks needing to be rewritten if LP turns out to be correct?

 

Google didn't bring up any info on the other authors from KCL - anyone know anything about them?

 

Neither figure on the King's online staff list.

 

The difference between an NLP Practitioner/NLP Master Practitioner
https://excellenceassured.com/11145...n-an-nlp-practitioner-nlp-master-practitioner
https://excellenceassured.com/product/nlp-master-practitioner
(note NLP = neuro-linguistic programming)

 

see
https://www.s4me.info/threads/covid-19-treatment-scams.14202/page-2#post-260682

 

Say what you like about Phil Parker, I'm sure you will, but he would appear to be probably more reliable that Richard Bandler, the founder with John Grinder , of NLP. Would you buy a used therapy from this manhttps://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-28-mn-39205-story.html
Bizarre Case Shows Flaky Underside of Santa Cruz
By MILES CORWIN

 

And the evidence-laundering machine goes brrrr

Lessons learned from psychosocial quacks: exaggerate everything, lie lie lie, then point at your own lies to support your future lies. All you have to do is put it out there and self-aggrandize, no one will check, no one will object. Once it's out there you just grow the tiny fraudulent core into a larger fraudulent core.

You let one pseudoscience in, you open the door for all of them and give them the way to accomplish it. It's a simple formula, really. It requires absolutely no effort, just patience and time. You can even just do the same things over and over again, no one will actually check. Absolutely no one.

 

Perfect.

 

BPS normalization. When you lower the bar so much it effectively disappears, other things will crawl across.

Peter White was an author of the cancelled IPD review on his own PACE data. The PACE crew were directly involved with the authors of both Cochrane reviews of their own stuff. This is basically normal now.