Positive Health Online: ME/CFS, NLP and the Lightning Process in the Looking Glass

A critical view on LP as ME-treatment by Nancy Blake.
I am not familiar with either Nancy Blake nor this website, but thought it was an interesting read.

- The purpose of this article is to provide an explanation of the theoretical model and practical processes underlying both appropriate and inappropriate use of NLP in the treatment of patients with ME/CFS.

ME/CFS, NLP and the Lightning Process in the Looking Glass

 

Excellent explanation of the LP ... I remember when I first heard of LP and remember thinking to myself that it also can mean linguistic programming. Thank goodness i did not do LP!!

 

Oh my, i love this! have you read some of her other articles? just excellent & so great to hear psychotherapists engaging in this way. Such a good intro to the mind boggling nonsense of the BPS hypothesis

 

Oh yeah, she's awesome. Can we invite her to join the forum somehow?

 

Love the logical extension of the illogical BPS approach...

 

That is so very good @Nancy Blake. I would love for SW, EC, etc. to have to stand up and read this out loud for all to hear.

 

Oh, nice, she is a member! Thank you, @Nancy Blake!

 

Viewed in isolation, this would be an interesting piece. But the author practices NLP, so I'm finding it quite difficult to square her enthusiasm for promoting good science with that fact...

I suppose I'm confused how one can simultaneously hold the belief that the lightning process is a crock of shit while also being an advocate of NLP in situations that aren't ME/CFS.

 

She's on Twitter as well

https://twitter.com/user/status/959471538062921729

 

It's really very simple. NLP is a tool, which if used correctly is perfectly valid. It's when abused it becomes a crock of shit. A kitchen carving knife is an excellent tool for what it is intended, but in the hands of a murderer is bad. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the person using it. Same as CBT - in the right hands for the right job it is fine, but in the wrong hands it is harmful. It's because @Nancy Blake understands this properly, that she can clarify the ethical/unethical uses of it so well, as she does in this article. I have no problem whatsoever with her advocating its use validly, when she can so clearly show how it is abused.

 

I don’t want to veer off topic into debating purely NLP - but my point was that I fail to see the validity of NLP in any setting whatsoever. It’s pseudoscience.

 

This is well done, showing absurdity by making it "real"

 

Wikipedia disagrees:

More discussion and the sources are in the wikipedia article.

 

My apologies to those who liked or replied to this post, which I have now deleted because in retrospect I included more personal details than I intended. Also not so sure now that NLP is much like what I did when younger.

 

Interesting I wonder what wiki would have to say about the SMILE trial. Not that wiki is a reliable source but it would be interesting to start up a wiki page on SMILE and see what happens and if it gets edited and contradicts the wiki stance on NLP above.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lightning_Process
Research
A registered clinical trial (UK SMILE pilot study) was conducted in England at Bristol University, with results published in 2017.[26] While the results are promising its use is not recommended as of 2017 by the National Health Services in the United Kingdom.[2]

A qualitative study on experiences of the course among a group of young people with chronic fatigue syndrome was published in 2003.[27]

Public reaction to research
Esther Crawley said that "I never expected it would work" and that "This is an important study as it provides another treatment approach that some may find helpful. However, while these results are promising, further research is needed to establish which aspects of the process are helpful, whether it is an effective treatment on its own, and whether it could be used to help more severely affected patients."[19]

Research into chronic fatigue syndrome is often a target of criticism.[4] The SMILE study received some public criticism for recruiting children when adult subjects are available.[28][29][30] The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service.[4][31] The paediatrician supervising the study, Esther Crawley, has commented "If the Lightning Process is dangerous, as they say, we need to find out. They should want to find it out, not prevent research."[4]

Results of the study by Crawley were publicized at the Science Media Centre in September 2017; an editorial on its own presentation of the results of the SMILE study stated: "If you had only read the headlines for the CFS/ME story you may conclude that the treatment tested at Bristol might be worth a try if you are blighted by the illness, when in truth the author said repeatedly that the findings would first have to be replicated in a bigger trial."[32] Reactions to their briefing were stronger than expected: "it was the criticism from within the scientific community that we had not anticipated."[32] The briefing[33] invited four psychologists to make comments on the study,[34] who were mild in their reactions, while the commentary on the September 28, 2017 article evoked detailed, well-referenced but anonymous criticisms of the SMILE study and the Lightning Process in the comments section.[32]

Dorothy Bishop from Oxford University commented that "The gains for patients in this study seem solid. However, while the patient allocation and statistical analysis of the trial appear to be done to a high standard, the intervention that was assessed is commercial and associated with a number of warning signs. The Lightning Process appears based on neurolinguistic programming, which has long been recognised as pseudoscience.”[19]

 

That's interesting thanks.