Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

Plus there seems to be the added thing of paywall ing and saying a different result in the abstract (only but available to most without paying) to what you had to admit in the results/conclusion?

 

I don't recognize the LP study here. I recognize the entire biopsychosocial formula universal to psychosomatic medicine. They all do this. All of them.

Well, aside from the last point, where it's instead common to just make stuff up, even change outcomes to turn a null result into a false positive. Then go to court to hide data from reanalysis. Then when reanalysis shows the fraudulent change just escalate commitment to the fraud, since they can get away with it.

But if only this was just about psychology research. It may rely on psychology standards, but most of this is medical research. In fact it overrules better medical research, placing it above, lower standards actually erasing basic rights and the entire value of why science matters and what it's entirely about.

 

Everything else being equal is such an important factor that it's drilled into every economics class and textbook. It's sprinkled all over the place, in intro classes you'll hear or read it dozens of times. And it's economics, not exactly a hard science. It's also the basis of most statistical analysis. In addition to correlation being very different from causation.

Here instead it's basically nothing else is equal. They maximize ambiguity precisely so that it can't be determined what influenced the outcome.

 

Trial By Error: Norwegian Lightning Process Trial Ejects Questioning Participant

"The administrators of a controversial study of the Lightning Process currently being conducted in Norway have ejected a participant who expressed critical views about the biopsychosocial approach to ME, according to MELivet [MELife], Nina Steinkopf’s invaluable blog. This decision appears to be an acknowledgement that the intervention only works if you believe it will work."

https://virology.ws/2023/10/05/tria...process-trial-ejects-questioning-participant/

 

The reasoning for dropping this participant from the study is that a skeptical patient is an Environment, Health and Safety issue for the PhD candidate LP coach Landmark. This is too absurd!

 

Honestly this dropping of a participant is small potatoes compared to the screening process that requires people to believe in the treatment, and the direct involvement and supervision of someone with a huge financial stake.

This isn't about one participant, the whole thing is ridiculous biased and corrupt. If it's what makes some people clue in to this, fine, but the selection process is explicitly biased towards a favorable outcome, as otherwise it wouldn't be a fair evaluation of the treatment, which has always required to affirm belief in the treatment to be accepted. Which is all about as valid as a trial of the healing power of prayer from religion X, only accepting people who believe in religion X's healing power of prayer.

Bit absurd, even. This is part of the basis for why the project was controversial to begin with, and initially rejected. Then some fiddling behind the scenes, and likely lots of pressure, made it pass anyway. Because nothing is too corrupt or biased in so-called evidence-based medicine.

Hey, at least it's exposing how intellectually and ethically bankrupt this entire model is, but this is only going to matter in years. Meanwhile real people continue to be harmed. This is revolting.

 

The letter says “A randomized controlled study”, however if subjects are preselected it is not randomised unless the control group undergo the same preselection and the randomisation only happens after the preselection, and even then it is only meaningfully controlled if the control arm undergoes an activity which is comparable in activity levels and contact with trainers/other participants.

But even then the study, without objective outcome measures is totally at risk of bias given it is open label.

 

That likely explains the reason for being excluded. Rational critical thinkers not welcome!