Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Kalliope, Apr 28, 2020.

  1. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,275
    Location:
    Australia
    Unethical approval.
     
    MEMarge, rainy, alktipping and 10 others like this.
  2. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,269
    A deeply depressing decision!
     
    MEMarge, rainy, Sean and 5 others like this.
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,892
    Location:
    Canada
    This makes all the bleating about unapproved treatments especially dumb and hypocritical, especially given that BMJ published SMILE.

    Can't criticize pseudoscience when the officially supported treatments are literally harmful pseudoscience of the worst kind. Even by the standards of political hypocrisy, this is excessive. It's actually hard to be this blatantly corrupt and unethical.
     
    EzzieD, rainy, Sean and 6 others like this.
  4. cassava7

    cassava7 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,051
    To summarize, the NEM committee granted ethical approval after asking that the following conditions be met:
    • that Live Landmark (principal investigator & LP coach) won’t be involved in the recruitment of participants

    • that the data analysis be done an independent statistician

    • that Live Landmark’s financial conflict of interest be “clearly communicated in all writings and publications from the project, including in the information letter to NAV [Norwegian Department of Work and Pensions], GPs and specialist health services”
    • that the anonymized trial data be made available following the FAIR guideline (go-fair.org) even if the results of the trial aren’t published

    • that the trial registration be carefully detailed to “curb possible future objections associated with the choice of outcome measures and statistical analyzes”

    • that a safety assessment be made, but since there is no agreement on whether the method can lead to injuries, this doesn’t seem to be possible (?); “there is a need for more knowledge on the problem”
    A majority of the NEM committee (9 members out of 12) agreed that these measures sufficiently addressed the issues raised by the Norwegian ME Association in their appeal.

    By contrast, a dissenting minority of 3 committee members, including the chair and the deputy chair of NEM, said:

    “The primary endpoint of the study is based on a questionnaire with self-evaluation of symptoms and function. This is less suitable than an objective evaluation if there is real doubt about the researchers' independence, and the validity of the answers also becomes uncertain when a central part of the course consists of learning verbal reformulations of one's own experiences.

    The minority further believes that the potential for physical side effects has not been sufficiently taken into account, as the participants may have unknown underlying diseases. One of the characteristics of CFS / ME, based on the criteria by which the project itself operates, is precisely effort-induced fatigue, and the risk for vulnerable participants therefore appears to be real.”
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2022
    EzzieD, mango, cfsandmore and 15 others like this.
  5. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,117
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    And will the NEM be auditing compliance with their requirements?
     
    mango, MEMarge, Sean and 6 others like this.
  6. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,807
    NEM also asks for the preregistration of the study to be done well. As we know, the preregistration is moot if the final trial reporting consists of other things (which there are examples of in the studies performed by some of the people involved in the LP study).
     
    mango, alktipping, Solstice and 6 others like this.
  7. cassava7

    cassava7 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,051
    As far as I can see, NEM have not stated so.
     
    MEMarge, Hutan, MSEsperanza and 3 others like this.
  8. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,117
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    I assumed not and I think the ‘researchers’ will assume that nobody will bother to check on them so won’t hold back from coming up with their own interpretations of,or excuses why they weren’t able to meet, the requirements.
     
    mango, MEMarge, MSEsperanza and 5 others like this.
  9. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,030
    Location:
    UK
    I see that the University of Bristol are collaborating
    this surely goes against the NICE guidelines (although I don't imagine they are bothered)
     
  10. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,892
    Location:
    Canada
    I assume those only apply to clinical advice, don't apply to research. Clearly "researching" pseudoscience is good and official.

    Of course this is only because this particular type of pseudoscience is beloved, don't try that with any non-official pseudoscience or there would be consequences.
     
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,892
    Location:
    Canada
    I think that responding with this study is the best reply to anyone whining about patients trying untested treatments. When medical institutions are openly supporting pseudoscience, and in fact the current official treatments are basically the same thing, any criticism of untested treatments must apply the same to this junk study, they must denounce this equally, and demand high quality research.

    But of course none of this is happening, no one who criticizes the desperate patients for trying to get better, while the BS official treatments are essentially based on the opposite, wants high-quality research that will properly define Long Covid, almost no one actually supports that, they only criticize the patients for the fact that it's not happening.

    Because there is an entire national healthcare system behind this study, openly supporting pseudoscience that essentially screams: there will never be any treatment for this, we are making damn sure of it. Medicine has to choose between science and pseudoscience, they are fully mutually exclusive.
     
    Sean, alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  12. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,807
    Well, they are required to send the information they give to participants to REK. With NICE guidelines being the newest/most updated on how to handle ME, when they are required to provide updated information to participants re harms etc., will they mention these guidelines recommend against LP? I somehow doubt it.
     
    mango, MSEsperanza, Sean and 5 others like this.
  13. cassava7

    cassava7 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,051
    inox, Lou B Lou, MEMarge and 8 others like this.
  14. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,892
    Location:
    Canada
    Uh. Courage, a rare sight at this level. RIP to their career.
     
  15. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    How did the ethics committee ensure that participants in the "trial" would be given sufficient information to enable them to give "informed consent"?
     
    Cheshire, mango, Sean and 4 others like this.
  16. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    USA
    Personally, I don't think anyone within the orbit of Pluto who is involved with LP should be involved in the recruitment of participants.
     
    mango, CRG, MEMarge and 9 others like this.
  17. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,269
    Presumably the Lighting Process organisation will still have someone selecting potential participants’ readiness for the ‘course’, somewhat defeating excluding any individual trainer, ie Live Landmark from the recruitment process. Also there is still plenty of opportunity for highly partisan ‘researchers’ to introduce bias at subsequent stages. In general when evaluating bias, even when researchers are completely unaware of their impact, if there is an opportunity to introduce bias it will be found.

    Also presumably LP practitioners, including Live Landmark, will also be involved in undertaking the LP sessions and facilitating the evaluation. It strikes me, unless they have a meaningful control, allocate to the trial arms randomly, have evaluation facilitated independently by a neutral third party blinded to who was in which trial arm and have objective outcome measures there remains considerable scope for introducing bias.
     
    mango, MEMarge, Sean and 9 others like this.
  18. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,892
    Location:
    Canada
    This is being shared a lot in response to the study's approval, how they recruit participants and how obviously any such trial fails at randomization, you can't have a randomized cohort while also selecting for the people most open to being manipulated (or likely to recover on their own anyway, only the mildest of mild cases). Especially while people are whining about giving false hope when this is being hyped like Zeus on a cracker.

    Is there an English version of this? It would make a bigger splash, could be shared in response to all the whining about unevidenced treatments while there is currently not a single ongoing clinical trial and the medical profession has clearly and openly made the decision to do nothing at all about this major disaster, for which medicine is itself responsible in the first place.

    https://twitter.com/user/status/1547270670052106242
     
  19. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,659
    Location:
    Norway
    It's two pages from an application form. Don't know if it's still in use.

    Here's a quick translation:

    Application form
    The Lightning Process seminar

    Am I ready for the training program?

    Fill out this application form and send it to us. Once we have received it, you will get a place on our waiting list. When time is near, we'll call you to find out if this process is right for you at this current time.

    The Lightning Process (LP) is a training program. Our experience indicates that those who use the methods from the teaching of LP can start a change of old thought-and behavioural patterns that are influencing their health.

    As in any training program, the instructor can only take responsibility for teaching and training to the best of his or her ability. Then the participant must acquire the knowledge and methods him or herself. If the participants don't follow the course plan and teaching, they'll obviously see little of the benefits. We recommend that you think carefully before enrolling in this course. Does it appeal to you and do you think it sounds sensible, something you can commit to?

    If you feel insecure, skeptical or just want to try it out to see what happens, then this is probably not the right time for you. It's important that you are honest with yourself and this application. Wait until you feel certain, talk to others who have done the process, see what else is available, so you don't have to waste both time and money.

    How the training takes place.
    A lot will be required from you over the three days of the course, but if you take the challenge, the rewards could be formidable.

    The course leader has a demanding role in assisting the participants as they go through this challenging process. There are some special ground rules and understandings that will make the training easier for you and them.

    The course leader will do his or her best for you to get the result you want. As a result:
    - They will not tolerate any behavior that prevents you from achieving the success you deserve
    - They will give you honest and important feedback, do not misunderstand this as they not caring.
    - They will not always say what you want to hear.
    - If what you do will be at the expense of your success, they will tell you, even if they risk you getting annoyed with them.

    -----------------------------

    4. How ready are you.

    How big do you think the possibility is that you can get back your life with the help of the Lightning Process? Use a scale from 1 to 10, where ten is the highest...____

    Give a score on the following claims on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 means that "I agree completely with this claim".

    Claim 1.
    I will solve all my challenges. ___

    Claim 2
    It's possible for me to solve all my challenges. ___

    Claim 3.
    I am capable of learning how to solve all my challenges. ___

    Claim 4.
    It is suitable for me to solve all my challenges and I am prepared to do what it takes to make these changes. ___

    Claim 5.
    I am willing to change negative life style patterns, thought processes and limiting beliefs. ___

    Claim 6.
    I am responsible of solving these challenges and have power to do so. ___

    Claim 7.
    I deserve and am worthy enough to solve the challenges. ___

    Claim 8.
    When it comes to my challenges and my abilities to follow instructions, I am similar enough to all the others who have used the process to get back their lives, so that I can achieve the same change-results as them. ___

    I have decided to become the next success story YES/NO/MAYBE

    5. X-factor
    Write a few sentences about what you feel is needed from YOU through The Lightning Process to achieve the same changes others have made.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2022
    Sly Saint, rvallee, mango and 13 others like this.
  20. Willow

    Willow Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Midwest, USA
    My aspiration: Hope no one falls for this BS.
     

Share This Page