Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

I'm sorry if I'm adding to your cynicism now, but that is what seems to be the plan. This is what prof. Wyller said last year in a news article about LP (my translation)
- LP has worse research basis than cognitive therapy. The research is lagging, but with more research one will in time be able to show what the effect is. When the documentation is in place, the public health system can approve it and cover the treatment.

 

In a way, this is what has happened with IAPT. We were used as a testing ground - the fact PACE successfully demonstrated they were wrong was glossed over.

Remember when GET worked, but only worked if it was done by a therapist trained by them (not too dissimilar to LP practitioners in that regard). Now their less fussed about that and clung to CBT.

These days Trudge Chalder has even moved on from that to ACT.

It will eventually all come crashing down. It is just a matter of when and how long & how many of us have to suffer until then. The current BPSer's don't really care as long as they've already moved on to the next big thing.

Like apps that won't work for IBS.....

 

Well, let 'em lick that electric socket. It would backfire massively, essentially beclowning the medical authorities in the process. It's not as if it would make things worse anyway, it's already as bad as can be. Nothing reveals a scam better than putting dollar signs on it.

Because meanwhile evidence of the horrible outcomes accumulates, not even counting COVID and all the spotlights this will shine on the entire BPS ideology.

What a bunch of actual clowns, though. And just like with real clowns, no one's actually laughing.

 

From Phil Parker's Lightning Process(TM) website on what he claims to be "Research which supports the theories of the Lightning Process":

"Dr. Bruun Wyller says: ‘[...] Based upon our findings, we have formulated a theory of sustained arousal in CFS, which seems to correspond quite neatly to the theoretical considerations underlying the Lightning Process.’ "

https://lightningprocess.com/research-which-supports-the-theories-of-the-lightning-proccess/

 

sustained arousal is contrary to the (sometimes claimed) burned out HPA axis

mindfulness is contrary to the stop technic of the Lightning Process (There was a Norwegian article in which a doctor defended LP even though she herself claimed to have recovered through mindfulness.https://www.s4me.info/threads/lightning-process-study-underway-in-norway.14876/page-8#post-260972 )

ACT is contrary to CBT https://www.s4me.info/threads/uk-im...blogs-and-discussion.14318/page-2#post-262978

It isn't about the "illness model" or the method of the therapy. It's about telling patients that they don't have a medical problem and that they can get better if they just would make an effort.

 

Sigh.
Wyller has repeatedly tested and failed to find an empirical foundation for his "sustained arousal" hypothesis. I suggest the same will be true for the "Lightning Process".

 

The newspaper Dagbladet has published a response from the Norwegian ME Association about their article on the LP study.

In other words, the Norwegian ME Association welcomes research on ME or on chronic fatigue, but then clear requirements for ethics and quality must be made. And that is why we are so skeptical of this study.

Commercial research must be funded without public support, treatment must not be able to make patients worse and good method must be ensured.

Vi er ikke imot forskning
Google translation: We are not opposed to research

 

13 years ago in another Norwegian newspaper ....

Google translate:
"Not depression. My daughter Jennie and I were very surprised by the debate post "ME: Both body and soul" by Vegard Bruun Wyller, Kirsti Malterud, Bjarte Stubhaug and Lillebeth Larun on November 19."

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Qxw9q/me-bare-kropp

https://translate.google.de/transla...sten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Qxw9q/me-bare-kropp

 

I still have no response from Dagbladet to my letter--any thoughts on what I should do?

 

Only a suggestion, but is this letter something @trudeschei in the Norwegian ME Association can translate and publish on their website, from you?
As she offered to @Jonathan Edwards on post #238 in this thread.

 

Does anyone have a copy of the Wyller piece? I couldn't see it, but am stuck speaking English only.

 

Voilà -- the Larun/ Wyller/ Malterud/ Stubhaug piece:

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/B3wbQ/baade-kropp-og-sjel

https://translate.google.com/transl...o/meninger/debatt/i/B3wbQ/baade-kropp-og-sjel

 

Sure, but at least Jonathan got a response from Dagbladet that they got his letter. I didn't even get that.

 

It is interesting to see the backwards Descartes claim put so clearly.

Many believe that the soul and the body - "psyche and soma" - are two separate sizes with no connection to each other. This performance has deep historical roots; both the 17th century philosopher Descartes ...Other philosophical directions have contested this division of man, and in recent times have received solid support from the natural sciences.

Mental conditions.
Modern brain research unequivocally shows that thoughts and feelings are directly linked to functional changes in the brain, which in turn can affect the function of other organs

You have to be peculiarly stupid to write that. Nobody in the science community thinks soul and body are separate. They think they are the same thing considered from different perspectives. It was Descartes who claimed they were distinct and INTERACTING - which is the Wyller/Larun/Sharpe/White view. Modern brain research does not show thoughts and feelings linking to functional changes - it shows an association that we take to reflect the occurrence of the thoughts and feelings.

 

Did you check your spam filter? ;-)

How about: ask i f they received the letter, attach the letter again and give them 48h(*) to tell you whether they will publish it, before you'll publish it on Virology Blog?

see also re: Jonathan's letter:

Anyway, did you see how the Dagbladet puts "external contributions" into 'context'? (English text by google translate)







https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/vi-er-ikke-imot-forskning/72498179
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/vi-er-ikke-imot-forskning/72498179

(*) Edited to give them 24 more hours.

 

And make sure political editor ger@dagbladet.no also gets the email

LP proponents have been really successful in Norway for many years, and I suspect one of the reasons is because they have been really watching and correcting what comes in media about LP. Maybe we can learn from that. Meaning that if Dagbladet fails to correct their faults, maybe write an e-mail to PFU about it (Norwegian Press Complaints Commision) pfu@presse.no

 

As if there would happen progress now, indeed interesting. Descartes theory and related ones probably never haven´t been that much in charge, not say in the 17th century and not say in shamanism. Maybe in the pyramids.

Best might even be to sidestep the considerations on body vs mind, and simply to ask to which extent deeds and thoughts would be on a regular basis able to induce any changes.

Yes, maybe there can be anecdotal huge success for very specific reasons in the complex machinery. And interestingly the whole of all actions may have effects on parts, this I would admit, and maybe this can be in some sense an important issue.

But much more striking is that the machinery, which is a prerequisite for a psyche, is utmost complex and vulnerable. There is a technical basis, influenceable e.g. by alcohol. There is simply no point to rather deny this other than to make oneself more important than one essentially can be.

 

The Norwegian ME Association have written a long letter to the Research Ethics Committee NTNU (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology) about ethics and methods in the LP-study.

Original, Norwegian: Brev til NTNU
Translate, English: Letter to NTNU

 

I think they write this in response to patients not believing that thoughts have the awesome power to cause such a severe illness as ME/CFS often is.

Maybe they do in some instances but there's nothing wrong with patients saying they do not recognize themselves in the model proposed by the BPS people.

Essentially patients are disagreeing with this aspect of BPS model and the BPS people respond with a philosophy lesson, totally missing the point. They also often respond to this by claiming this disagreement reveals a bad attitude towards mental health conditions, again missing the point.

 

They're thought-terminating clichés. Their intent is to kill debate with irrelevant waffling. Pure sophistry and completely inappropriate considering this is not a debate at all, there are millions of lives at stake and debating ignorant opinions is a sideshow to distract away from the evidence.

Generally speaking, cheap philosophy has no place in medicine, outside of fringe forward-thinking research. When it comes to clinical guidelines and recommendations, it's blatantly absurd and shows disqualifying incompetence. It also shows these are not serious people who should not be responsible over so much as a sandwich.

It's also very, very poor philosophy. Immaterial but still, we are not exactly dealing with intellectual heavyweights here. It's one thing to be able to do rote memorization, it's a whole other thing to push away the limits of knowledge and not everyone is capable of this. These people are evidently not.