Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

I wonder if this will be the last discussion of this in dax18. Henrik Vogt on his Facebook seems to have a lot of things he wants to say, and that this is not the last of it.
He was on the speaker list until an hour before the show, but then they canceled him. According to his Facebook, which is open for everyone to read.
Not sure if that is a good idea or not.

 

Correct. The plan was to have a waiting list control group who would receive the same intervention ten weeks later than the first group.

 

Thanks for the warning.

Did u also pick up on him saying things that contradicts his previous statements in recentl articles and the protocol? Because i was baffled by his reponses, as he didn't come across as someone who would blatantly lie.

Btw, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask:

But is there anyone who remembers who / where it was said that Live held a talk for people who had broken out of conservative religious enviroments? And asked her to leave soon after she started talking, and went on to discuss how people who haid broken out of enviorments like that might be better at others to recognise certain signs? I belive it was a few years ago, on facebook

 

Yes, Nina E. Steinkopf mentioned this in a blog post in 2019:

Google translated quote:

In 2017, Lightning Process Instructor Live Landmark gave a lecture at a seminar for Hjelpekilden. Hjelpekilden is a voluntary organization that provides help and support to people in problematic religious break-out processes. The minutes state:

"It soon became apparent that her method, the Lightning Process, was very similar to the methods used in charismatic religious circles. This therefore led to major reactions from those of our participants who had a background in charismatic circles, and the speaker chose to cancel her speech due to the participants' skepticism.

Despite the fact that there was an unfortunate atmosphere between the speaker and the audience right there and then, the ensuing hour was very positive for the participants. We chose to talk about the different reactions we had, why some reacted, and how this can be a sign, among other things, that you have not finished processing your experiences, since several of the participants were surprised by their own reaction. In addition, we chose to look at various characteristics that characterize us as breakaways, including that our experiences can make us very skeptical of attempts at manipulation ……. "

 

I find it strange that this is common practice. Shouldnt they atleast have 'passive' controls to see how many 'recover' on their own? If i remember correctly, didnt the protocol say they would gather employment data after 1-2 years? Couldnt live simply pick the mildest cases of teenagers who recenlty had mono?

Ah thanks. I must have misread it the first time, as i got the impression that it was the others who asked her to leave.

I would say my coaches tactic where exactly like what one would find in a cult.

Edit: minor typo & removed an inappropriate remark

 

Is he for real?

It doesn't matter what the therapist's intention is.

If a treatment is effective that means it has an effect. Hopefully, applied correctly to the right person, it will have a positive effect. Almost assuredly, incorrect applied or applied to the wrong person it will be detrimental.

There is no such thing as an effective treatment that is universally harmless. Not even aspirin is universally harmless.

I struggle to believe these people don't get this.

Edit - messed up the quote thingy.

 

That sounds like a good idea.

I struggle to belive that these people are allowed to do research.


And would say that Adrian hit the mark.

 

That's his point in his book, that psychological therapies actually can cause harm, but that many people are reluctant to believe this.

I read his book once it was announced that he would be involved in the LP study, and he goes into detail about many ways of how therapy can harm patients, and that many therapists are very reluctant to record harm, or even believe harm is happening, and how researchers don't even have to include harm in their study results if they chose not to.

There were so many examples in the book of how therapies are harmful that perfectly describes ways the LP is harmful. It made me wonder why ME patients shouldn't also be protected from harm.

 

Wait. What?

Did this guy have a straight face when he was doing that interview?

Once again I'm struggling here to believe someone can genuinely have a blind spot the size of a large planet.

If Kennair genuinely can't see the problem then he really shouldn't be involved in patient research.

If he can see the problem....then, he still shouldn't be let loose.

The good thing is he can't deny he has expressed either viewpoint.

The third option is genuine discrimination against pwME.

 

I don't understand how in any way a committee can prevent a ME patient being harmed by this trial. The harm is done from the moment they are told that they "chose to have ME" - would the committee have stepped in already in the first minutes of the course?

What good is a committee when patients are traumatized and get permanent worsening from being told to do more because they must decide they don't have ME anymore?

 

Is Kennair saying here that they did actually have objective outcomes? What outcomes is he talking about?

Also, this logic that because ME is defined subjectively that means that subjective questionnaire outcomes are sufficient is extraordinarily bad reasoning. It's like saying the news I see is defined by what I see on my computer screen, so if I use inspect element and change what the headlines say, that means that the news has changed. Or since left-handedness is defined subjectively, humiliating a student until they say they're no longer left handed means they're no longer left handed, as happened many years ago. It's just terrible reasoning, and it beggars belief that reasoning is taken seriously at all.

ME/CFS is defined subjectively, but if you use methods that make questionaires less reliable, objective outcomes can actually give you a better measure of the patients' subjective experience (because nothing actually directly measures the patient's subjective experience, unless medicine has advanced more than I thought). And ME/CFS is also defined behaviorally, not just subjectively.

 

Do you know if they were going to do that as a long term follow up, or just check at the end of the ten weeks?

 

Which conveniently eliminates the possibility to collect long term followup comparisons.