Lightning Process - discussion thread

Barry

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Lightning Process- is CFS/ME psychological or physical?



So, Phil fully acknowledges ME is wholly physiological ... but feels he needs to remind people how the LP can fix all that very nicely for you. Clear up some misconceptions ... :rolleyes: :sick:

ETA: Is this even legal? @dave30th
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, but in my book someone who continuously retrains as lots of different things is either:

Training in cr@p things that don't work and feels the need to keep offering ither cr@p to keep clients coming back

Or

Is cr@p at lots of things.

It certainly doesn't mean the person is any good, or even experienced at delivering any of those things, even if one believes any of the things he's trained in works.
 
Something has clearly happened in the UK to prompt them both doing this. UK parliament? NICE guideline stuff? I did think that as the NICE guidelines started the consultation process that we’d see jockeying for position among third parties who catered to ME/CFS.
I'd think it's the guidelines that they are concerned about. They want their magic treatments to be included in the review so as to give them a veneer of respectability, their worst result is if they weren't included at all.
 
Well, maybe what Parker says about the brain being able to change the physiology is true, because my physiology felt like it was going to upchuck my lunch after my brain observed those videos, whereas prior to watching them, I didn't feel like that.
I'd think it's the guidelines that they are concerned about. They want their magic treatments to be included in the review so as to give them a veneer of respectability, their worst result is if they weren't included at all.
That does sound a likely motive.
 


So, Phil fully acknowledges ME is wholly physiological ... but feels he needs to remind people how the LP can fix all that very nicely for you. Clear up some misconceptions ... :rolleyes: :sick:

ETA: Is this even legal? @dave30th

Does this video still count as a form of advertising? Irrespective whether it does in law, it most certainly is in practice. And must surely breach the issues previously addressed by the ASA? It's so blatant. If not covered by the ASA, could it be addressed directly to YouTube on the basis of recent concerns about false information on social media, using the ASA ruling as evidence?
 
Back
Top Bottom