Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

oh dear oh dear..

quote from Reme from the article:

- We have a hypothesis that what the patient brings to the operation determines the prognosis. If you have a lot of anxiety and stress and face a difficult situation in life without much social support, this can affect the outcome of the operation and the way forward.

 

There were two articles about breast cancer and psychological support/patient's attitude in forskning.no today. In the second article the Norwegian Cancer Association seems to sum it up pretty well, in my opinion:

(google translated quote)
According to their surveys and feedback, the patients most want a professional to talk to. This is not follow-up of an extensive or long-term nature.
If cancer patients have more extensive needs and a need for a psychologist, this will have to be followed up as part of the medical. Here, the GP/doctor will have to refer further.

Most cancer patients do not have these needs. Nevertheless, it is important that those who need it also have access to a psychologist. From 2020, it is required by law that all municipalities must have a psychologist, writes the Cancer Association in the email.

 

They literally don't understand that social support isn't some abstract thing? That it means actual support? Tangible, physical in real life.

It's not like someone encouraging you while you're moving out. It's someone actually helping you move out. By moving stuff from where it is to where it needs to go. It's helpful, it's not some state of being.

WTH? Have they gone full spiritual? This is the just-world fallacy again, and basically doesn't consider the actual naturalistic world. Never go full spiritual. Or even part spiritual when other people's lives are involved.

 

Interesting discussion on Vogt's FB page about this:

https://www.facebook.com/HenrikVogt...He3wo3MaohVD1KH36fTbn66GpQvcUMmLmFiBo9RxLj8rl

Also, funny the Vogt introduces his comment with "Below you can read clarifications from Recovery Norway of some misinformation that came up." - He's just created a patient organisation to speak for in his facebook debates.

 

I've uploaded the TV debate to YouTube and added English subtitles.

Thanks to @Midnattsol for the swift translation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LxL_kcna44

 

Thank you for the work to make this accessible to non Norwegian speakers.

Every country needs at least one Nina Steinkopf, if not several.

So frustrating that the Lightning Process activist did not answer a single question directly; such skill to sound apparently reasonable while misrepresenting and misdirecting to such an extent.

 

Nina E. Steinkopf has commented the debate on Facebook.

This is a google translation of the comment:

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1633523327242231825

 

So good when outsiders understand what's going on!

Helmfrid has a short summary in English of the opinion piece in this tweet:

 

Following the publication of the Reuters special report about targeted harassment of ME researchers, Sharpe and Wessely had a twitter exchange in which they admitted that there is no harassment or trolling, rather that there are too many complaints and requests taking too much of their time away from research, that it is those complaints and legitimate requests they call harassment.

It seems like the same claims have been made in regard to this sham study, and that they are also, *shocked face*, complete BS.

It was recently reported that a "storm" of FOIA access has deluged researchers, making them unable to do their work.


Storm of access demands against researchers; What storm, Khrono?
https://melivet.com/2023/03/17/storm-av-innsynskrav-mot-forskere-hvilken-storm-khrono/
https://melivet-com.translate.goog/...khrono/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

On 7 February 2023, the newspaper Khrono published the case " Insynsstorm against ME researchers: - Completely absurd ". Professor of psychology Silje Reme says that the researchers in the project where 120 ME sufferers are to be treated with the alternative method Lightning Process (LP) have received so many requests for access that it disrupts everyday work.
...
Now it appears that a few people have sent a modest number of access requests regarding the LP study. These requirements are mainly dealt with by the administration at the various agencies and not by the researchers themselves.
...
Viktor Håland has applied for access and found that the National Research Ethics Committees, NEM, have received 8 access requests. NTNU has received 9. See Håland's thread on Twitter .
...
I am one of those who have sought access to the LP study. During a three-year period - from April 2020 to today - I have sent 5 access requests to NEM, 5 to REK Midt and 6 to Lørenskog municipality. In comparison, a Morgenbladet journalist sent 18 access requests to UiO in the course of a week in another case.
​

Unethical means to achieve specific ends always end up the same: with unethical ends. The completely unprofessional behavior of these people is a blight on the medical profession and is the exact opposite of what medicine is even about.

As is the fact that they are doing this in broad daylight with no objections within the profession and the institutions that hold it accountable, or fail to anyway.

 

Do you have a link for that?

 

I occasionally respond to (some of) the Ministers correspondence (when we have one - I'm in Northern Ireland!)
If people are playing silly games then respond publicly/via social media highlighting that and maybe tag an elected official - particularly the Ministers party - and the university head (vice chancellor).
When I'm responding I try to do some research --- what's the background? So the Ministers minions/elves/officials should pick up on this and warn the Minister.
The University head may not want employees making false claims --- and universities rely on public funding --- the university head might want these "problem" staff sanctioned/curtailed!

 

I have a screenshot that I posted a few times before, but don't have it with me now.

Also posted on twitter but now Elmo has removed the option to find them, or something.

 

Just including from the google translated letter reasoning why this was "necessary":

"You were recently included in the study. According to information from some people involved in the study, you have over time […] been active in social media with criticism of a biopsychosocial understanding of ME and of professionals who have such an understanding. You have also been critical of the study in social media. This is of course completely legitimate and it is healthy to have professional discussions.

On the other hand, motivation and a hope that the treatment will work is necessary for a psychoeducational method such as the one used in the study to be effective. Inclusion of people who have no motivation to participate in the study can create a situation that challenges the quality of the PhD work and the PhD candidate's study environment, and can affect the other participants. The consequence of this could be that the study is affected in a negative direction, and as the person responsible for research, you understand that I cannot allow that.

On the basis of possible adverse research-related consequences, I conclude as the research manager that you cannot otherwise participate in the study.''