Trial By Error: An Open Letter to Dr Godlee about BMJ’s Ethically Bankrupt Actions

Those letters are so good.

I particularly appreciate Dr Oltra raising the elephant in the room that has not been raised sufficiently - the fact that LP is not an openly defined treatment, that can be replicated by others, as any reputable research should provide - and even describes it as a 'sales campaign of a "mysterious product"'.
 
Kalliope said:
Trial By Error: Calls for Retraction of the LP Study

Last week, when I sent Dr Fiona Godlee an open letter about the untenable decision by Archives of Disease in Childhood to republish the originally reported findings from the Lighnting Process trial, I cc’d many of the 55 signatories. Now three of them–Professor Ola Saugstad from the University of Oslo, Professor Racaniello from Columbia University (and host of Virology Blog), and Professor Elisa Ultra of Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Martir–have sent their own forceful comments to Dr Godlee and the others cc’d on the original letter.

All three strongly support the case against the paper. Professor Saugstad and Professor Racaniello explicitly call for retraction. Professor Ultra questions why such a trial was even conducted, given the paucity of information available about the Lightning Process, and calls the published report “unsustainable.”

I am reposting their comments here.
Click to expand...
Thank you for dogged determination.
Are these letters something NICE should be aware of ?
 
Something I noted yesterday from a discussion between Parker and Sten Helmfrid, it seems that the SMILE trial is so unconvincing Parker prefers to either pretend it didn't happen, that it was not a proper RCT (obviously but Crawley and BMJ sure pretend it is) or that it did not resolve questions about its efficacy:



Which correctly admits there is still no reliable evidence, apparently not a problem to continue promoting it, though.

SMILE has been cited a few times already as positive evidence of LP. But it also doesn't exist outside of a friendly audience who is not bothered with details and think any kind of BS treatment is fine here since there is no disease. Bit like the illness model behind PACE, which is a mature framework that also does not exist since all they did was compare treatments. It seems like strength of belief is the only outcome predictor here, as irony would have it.

More research is always needed, more of the same, to test whether it's effective, but it already is if you want it to be, because there is evidence, but it can't be quantified and you can't verify because the first rule of LP is you do not talk about LP.
 
rvallee said:
Something I noted yesterday from a discussion between Parker and Sten Helmfrid, it seems that the SMILE trial is so unconvincing Parker prefers to either pretend it didn't happen, that it was not a proper RCT (obviously but Crawley and BMJ sure pretend it is) or that it did not resolve questions about its efficacy:



Which correctly admits there is still no reliable evidence, apparently not a problem to continue promoting it, though.

SMILE has been cited a few times already as positive evidence of LP. But it also doesn't exist outside of a friendly audience who is not bothered with details and think any kind of BS treatment is fine here since there is no disease. Bit like the illness model behind PACE, which is a mature framework that also does not exist since all they did was compare treatments. It seems like strength of belief is the only outcome predictor here, as irony would have it.

More research is always needed, more of the same, to test whether it's effective, but it already is if you want it to be, because there is evidence, but it can't be quantified and you can't verify because the first rule of LP is you do not talk about LP.
Click to expand...


https://lightningprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/SMILE.pdf
upload_2019-9-3_22-31-41.png

https://lightningprocess.co.uk/who-let-the-trolls-out/
upload_2019-9-3_22-34-3.png
 
Trish said:
Those letters are so good.

I particularly appreciate Dr Oltra raising the elephant in the room that has not been raised sufficiently - the fact that LP is not an openly defined treatment, that can be replicated by others, as any reputable research should provide - and even describes it as a 'sales campaign of a "mysterious product"'.
Click to expand...
The fact that it passed peer review without including a detailed description of the methodology is particularly disturbing. The reviewers and editors need a serious kick up the arse over that alone.
 
Last edited:
I signed a letter which was sent to you on 27 August about the pediatric study of the Lightning Process [...]

Following the e-mails of Dr Ola Didrik Saugstad, MD, PhD, FRCPE, Professor of Pediatrics from the University of Oslo and Vincent Racaniello, Ph.D. from the Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Columbia University, New York, I would like to add some concerns to the serious flaws they already presented [...]
Click to expand...

This could go on like the game "I packed my bag":

I have signed a letter which was sent to you on 27 August about the pediatric study of the Lightning Process.
Following the e-mails of Professor Ola Didrik Saugstad (Oslo, Norway), Professor Vincent Racaniello (New York, USA), Professor Elisa Oltra (Valencia, Spain) ....
I would like to add to the serious flaws they already presented.... (reitering all the flaws already presented before adding another one)
 
Great letters. Reassuring that Tuller and others keep a close eye on this very important matter. From a academic point of view it is vital focusing on the important formal process needed in order to secure that studies are as little biased as possible, the process of registration and protocol and more. Such important procedures are obviously not in place here and seriously in breach with the Helsinki declaration. It is horrific that a journal, that supposedly should be more interested in transparency and procedures than anything else, pay so little attention, bother so little. At least that is what it looks like.

To the academic process above, I would add the importance for BMJ and other major players to actually look at and consider the costs and results of LP for many patients more closely. It just might be damn testimonies in someone’s eyes, but let’s not forget what LP actually means to many patients in the real world. As we know for start, there are all kind of diagnostic problems with ME, ME/CFS, chronic fatigue, fatigue, burnout, lots of different labeled as one, that give room for all kind of experiences with LP. Alarm bells should be going off.

What is an undeniable fact though, is that many patients, patients experiencing PEM, patients already squeezing every inch of health for upholding life, they experience further decline when taking on LP. And to lose even more of “health, getting harmed is the ultimate price.

Patients barely able to participate may try LP and they end up even worse, when literally standing on paper on the floor telling themself that they are DOING ME. Every patient brainwashed, may go out after three days saying they are fine, but what happens in the longer run, some months, a year, two years. What was the patient able to do before LP and after? What is quality of life before and after LP?

LP has significant potential of harming patients with devastating and long lasting effect. If doing the total opposite of what in fact is needed, if totally missing out on what is really the problem, it’s not hard figuring out that consequences can be dramatic. That is the case for many patients.

A journal knowing the extremely muddy waters of “ME”, knowing that many patients get seriously harmed without any chance to just bounce back to prior to LP, a medical journal should never ever publish this piece of crap or anything else related to LP that not even has got the regulatory sides of a scientific process right. Those bloody alarm bells.
 
The other big issue with the LP for children may be outside the science but is surely relevant. Parents are desperate for a cure for their kids but they also have the additional psychological pressure of not doing something that could have cured their kids.

Years ago a woman on an ME forum with 2 sick kids phoned AfME and Mary Jane Willows assured her that LP would help her kids. She was trying to work out how she could borrow the money to pay for it.

Having a positive scientific paper published in the BMJ can only make the situation worse.
 
Mithriel said:
Years ago a woman on an ME forum with 2 sick kids phoned AfME and Mary Jane Willows assured her that LP would help her kids. She was trying to work out how she could borrow the money to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I suspect that was AYME rather than AfME?
AYME was firmly behind Crawley which I suspect lead to its closure as it was becoming toxic for anyone who knew anything about ME.
 
Mithriel said:
The other big issue with the LP for children may be outside the science but is surely relevant. Parents are desperate for a cure for their kids but they also have the additional psychological pressure of not doing something that could have cured their kids.

Years ago a woman on an ME forum with 2 sick kids phoned AfME and Mary Jane Willows assured her that LP would help her kids. She was trying to work out how she could borrow the money to pay for it.

Having a positive scientific paper published in the BMJ can only make the situation worse.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Barry said:
https://lightningprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/SMILE.pdf
View attachment 8301

https://lightningprocess.co.uk/who-let-the-trolls-out/
View attachment 8302
Click to expand...
Of course. Just like PACE was the definitive, final trial, that settled the matter once and for all but also "we are being silenced from doing more research". Even though PRINCE is basically a half-PACE with the same dubious methodology and there's some weird FITNET-part-deux or whatever ongoing. More research is happening but also it's being silenced. A RCT would settle the matter but also look at this RCT which settled the matter. Zero accountability or anyone even bothering with being self-consistent.

Weird how the "double-blinded placebo-controlled" has disappeared from the gold standard, as does the implicit rejection of unblinded trials and self-reported outcomes. But only for arbitrary exemptions, obviously.
 
Peter said:
To the academic process above, I would add the importance for BMJ and other major players to actually look at and consider the costs and results of LP for many patients more closely. It just might be damn testimonies in someone’s eyes, but let’s not forget what LP actually means to many patients in the real world. As we know for start, there are all kind of diagnostic problems with ME, ME/CFS, chronic fatigue, fatigue, burnout, lots of different labeled as one, that give room for all kind of experiences with LP. Alarm bells should be going off.

What is an undeniable fact though, is that many patients, patients experiencing PEM, patients already squeezing every inch of health for upholding life, they experience further decline when taking on LP. And to lose even more of “health, getting harmed is the ultimate price.

Patients barely able to participate may try LP and they end up even worse, when literally standing on paper on the floor telling themself that they are DOING ME. Every patient brainwashed, may go out after three days saying they are fine, but what happens in the longer run, some months, a year, two years. What was the patient able to do before LP and after? What is quality of life before and after LP?

LP has significant potential of harming patients with devastating and long lasting effect. If doing the total opposite of what in fact is needed, if totally missing out on what is really the problem, it’s not hard figuring out that consequences can be dramatic. That is the case for many patients.
Click to expand...
Including financial costs. LP ain't cheap.

Getting pretty low when your business model is fleecing sick desperate people.
 
Sly Saint said:
reminds me of this
https://www.s4me.info/threads/magical-treatments-and-lack-of-peer-review.9798/

would be good to see a proper "expose' " of the LP ; ie not just the usual celebrity endorsements (eg Martine McCutcheon currently the 'poster girl' on the LP website, wonder how much she gets for that?)
View attachment 8336

and their 'research' section
https://lightningprocess.com/research/
Click to expand...
How well is Martine McCutcheon? Visibility wise I havn't seen a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom