Trial Report The novel application of the Lightning Process to treat Long Covid in primary care - case report, 2023, Finch, Parker et al

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830723001799

THE NOVEL APPLICATION OF THE LIGHTNING PROCESS TO TREAT LONG COVID IN PRIMARY CARE - CASE REPORT

Available online 23 August 2023.

F. Finch, P. Parker, C. Nollett, S Burns

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2023.08.009


SUMMARY

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Long COVID (LC) is now prevalent in many countries. Little evidence exists regarding how this chronic condition should be treated, but guidelines suggest for most people it can be managed symptomatically in primary care.

The Lightning Process is a trademarked positive psychology focused self-management programme which has shown to be effective in reducing fatigue and accompanying symptoms in other chronic conditions including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Here we outline its novel application to two patients with LC who both reported improvements in fatigue and a range of physical and emotional symptoms post-treatment and at 3 months follow-up.

 

No Conflict of Interest info given, at least in the detail viewable by those without access to the full paper.

ETA: It should show that Fiona Finch is, or was, a Lightning Process practitioner, https://web.archive.org/web/20230825114557/https://fionafinchcoaching.com/

And obviously Phil Parker is the founder of the Lightning Process. So no risk of any bias then....

 

In case of interest to anyone:

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/explore/1550-8307/guide-for-authors

Letters to the Editor - Letters discussing a recent article published in EXPLORE are welcome. Letters should be received within 6 weeks of the article's publication. They should not exceed 750 words of text and 10 references.

 

No, no it hasn't. In fact the NICE Guidelines explicitly say not to use it on people with ME. What a shameless lie! How the heck did this pass peer review?

Exactly that.

 

Explore is a quack journal so being published there doesn’t lend the authors any credibility - quite the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_%26_Healing

 

Good point:

Somehow I doubt it makes much difference whenever GPs are being sold this BS in some official context where other GPs are gushing over it, but it actually shows just how easily doctors will peddle pseudoscience when they feel like it, and they can get away with it.

It can't really be argued that it's not alternative medicine when its creator publishes in a journal meant exactly for that. Now if only alternative medicine and pseudoscience weren't super fashionable right now in modern healthcare...

It also lends weight to NICE's warning against it, as is the warning from the advertising authority. But of course the LP "study" pushed by the Norwegian government will somehow be cherry-picked for it anyway. Depending on where it gets published, of course.