Trial By Error: The Lightning Process Is “Effective”? Really?

Trial By Error: My Follow-Up Follow-Up with Dr Segal about LP Study Citation
5 June 2019
By David Tuller, DrPH

Fans of Bristol University’s team of pediatric ME/CFS researchers could be forgiven if they hoped a recent citation of one of the group’s most high-profile studies would help bolster its wobbling reputation. Yet the suggestion that the Lightning Process is an “effective” treatment for kids–highlighted in the abstract of a pediatric review of “CFS/ME”–has focused renewed attention on the illegitimacy of both the claim and the study on which it is based.
Click to expand...

http://www.virology.ws/2019/06/05/t...low-up-with-dr-segal-about-lp-study-citation/
 
Fans of Bristol University’s team of pediatric ME/CFS researchers could be forgiven if they hoped a recent citation of one of the group’s most high-profile studies would help bolster its wobbling reputation.
Click to expand...
I defy anyone not to chuckle when reading that intro. Followed by this gem of a phrase in the next sentence ...
illegitimacy ... of the claim
Click to expand...
Conjuring up as it does images of promiscuous goings on, a pretender to the throne, and the "b" word.

Splendid writing, just splendid.
 
merged
David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Follow-Up Follow-Up with Dr Segal about LP Study Citation

http://www.virology.ws/2019/06/05/t...low-up-with-dr-segal-about-lp-study-citation/

5 June 2019

By David Tuller, DrPH

Fans of Bristol University’s team of pediatric ME/CFS researchers could be forgiven if they hoped a recent citation of one of the group’s most high-profile studies would help bolster its wobbling reputation. Yet the suggestion that the Lightning Process is an “effective” treatment for kids–highlighted in the abstract of a pediatric review of “CFS/ME”–has focused renewed attention on the illegitimacy of both the claim and the study on which it is based.

Archives of Disease in Childhood published the study online in September, 2017. In December, 2017, I documented on Virology Blog that the investigators violated multiple ethical and methodological principles in the trial itself and the subsequent paper. Specifically, among other concerns, they recruited more than half the participants before trial registration, swapped primary and secondary outcomes based on the early results, and then failed to disclose these irregularities in the published report. This cannot be considered proper science. The study should never have been published. It should now be retracted and the situation should be reviewed as a possible case of research misconduct. The reported findings, such as they are, should not be used as the basis for clinical guidelines or public policy…
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The study should never have been published. It should now be retracted and the situation should be reviewed as a possible case of research misconduct.
Click to expand...
Simple as that. Really shameful behavior from people who really, really should know better, in fact have been trained for and are well-paid precisely because they are expected to know better. I think Segal deserves a hearty passing BOOO here. I'd give one to Crawley as well but she has clearly transcended the ability to feel shame. Lots of people revealing themselves to be completely unworthy of the responsibility of being a medical professional. Brings shame to the entire profession.

I really wonder what the aftermath of this will be in Norway, where it seems the entire medical establishment is promoting this quackery, or at least is fine with its promotion as credible science.

It's not going to be pretty. Bristol and BMJ will look spectacularly foolish and incompetent here but it seems to be on a whole other level over there.

I can't help but picture a raid on a stopped-mid-way orgy, with bright fluorescent lighting on sights that should never have seen anything brighter than passing slight illumination. Lots of floor-gazing, for sure. Hopefully some navel-gazing as well.

I really hope this leads to academic work trying to understand how smart people can delude themselves in what may just be an actual, legitimate, case of mass delusion. How do things even get this bad? A century ago, sure. But now? No excuses here.
 
This is all becoming very strange. Segal must surely have seen that she had an opportunity to extricate herself without undue damage. All she needed to do was admit to not having noticed the caveat. Dave has made it easy for her by emphasising the degree to which the caveat was obscured. Her part in this would soon have been forgotten. However the window is quickly closing.

Presumably a problem with deploying that defence is that it further weakens thee position of the Journal in which the LP paper appeared-a journal in which she seems to have papers published. It would show the caveat to be worthless. An unfortunate dilemma.

Is there furious activity behind the scenes....or total inertia?
 
chrisb said:
All she needed to do was admit to not having noticed the caveat. Dave has made it easy for her by emphasising the degree to which the caveat was obscured.
Click to expand...
I have tried to give Dr Segal the benefit of the doubt. However, I can also say that I would have thought an expert in the field would have known or heard about the editor's note, given that it's been up for a year. She has not bothered to clarify what happened or what she thinks. the longer she is silent, the more questions it would seem to raise.
 
chrisb said:
This is all becoming very strange. Segal must surely have seen that she had an opportunity to extricate herself without undue damage. All she needed to do was admit to not having noticed the caveat. Dave has made it easy for her by emphasising the degree to which the caveat was obscured. Her part in this would soon have been forgotten. However the window is quickly closing.

Presumably a problem with deploying that defence is that it further weakens thee position of the Journal in which the LP paper appeared-a journal in which she seems to have papers published. It would show the caveat to be worthless. An unfortunate dilemma.

Is there furious activity behind the scenes....or total inertia?
Click to expand...
Even without having noticed the editor's note, anyone who seriously finds nothing wrong with LP being trialled this way has some serious self-reflection to do. LP is no more credible than scientology. Either Segal knows what it is, and therefore shows horrible judgment, or doesn't and therefore promotes a black box quack treatment, the details of which are a trade secret.

Either way it's shocking incompetence. A minimal ability to exercise judgment is expected here and the failure is inexcusable. Toying with people's lives this way is incompatible with the entire point of medicine.
 
from an article in the Mail, something else Crawley said
"But she cautioned that there was no evidence the course would work or that it was not harmful if undertaken on its own, without medical care."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...rsial-light-treatment-patients-DOES-work.html

This (ie the fact that it could be harmful) seems to have been completely overlooked.
@adambeyoncelowe

How EC can continue to persuade herself and others that she is doing it all 'for the children' is beyond me.
 
Sly Saint said:
"But she cautioned that there was no evidence the course would work or that it was not harmful if undertaken on its own, without medical care."
Click to expand...
The article also says:

The three-day training programme is taught by non-medical practitioners
Click to expand...

and

some experts and campaigners have condemned the £620 course – which is not available on the NHS
Click to expand...

So if it's not available on the NHS and is taught by non-medical practitioners, what exactly does Crawley mean by "without medical care"? Surely this isn't Crawley-speak for "withut coughing up your money to an LP practitioner"? She's basically saying the magic only works if someone's getting paid for it, and if you try it without handing over your money to someone you'll be cursed.
 
This morning, I sent the following e-mail to Sue Paterson, director of legal services at the University of Bristol.

**********

Dear Ms Paterson—

I recently filed a freedom of information request involving the trial of the Lightning Process as a treatment for pediatric CFS/ME, which was conducted by investigators from the University of Bristol (UoB) and published in Archives of Disease in Childhood (ADC) in 2017. The title of the study: “Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.”

In an automatic response, the FOI office informed me that it was short-staffed and therefore experiencing major delays. Since the request was related to my efforts to safeguard children from recommendations based on questionable science, such delays are not optimal. To expedite matters, I thought I would try to bypass the FOI request process and ask these questions directly of you.
Click to expand...
http://www.virology.ws/2019/06/12/trial-by-error-a-letter-to-bristol-about-my-recent-foi-request/
 
Not infrequently those who have benefited from LP suggest that those who have not benefited or do not undertake LP are negative, defeatist etc. This is cruel and hurtful to many ME sufferers and importantly does not stand up to examination, even in the world of ME/CFS "headologies".

LP is reliant on testimonies from its beneficiaries. There are numerous therapies on the market for ME/CFS sufferers, similarly reliant on testimonies. If negativity were the issue, those who claim no benefit from LP would not go on to claim benefit from Gupta, Rowan Bodymind, MT, RT etc., yet some do (and vice versa). I am not advocating or criticizing any of these here, but motivation is unlikely to have been the issue or they would have failed at all such therapies.

LP, Rowan and Gupta share many similarities but since some patients have/claim success with one and not the other, appropriateness of the therapy was probably the central issue. These therapies differ somewhat in concept (not perhaps greatly). They have some differences in delivery/practice and presentation seems to be important to individual outcomes - all according to the type testimonials/reviews on which LP relies. However that may be, "I did well on therapy X, but not on LP" is not the testimony of a demotivated, negative, defeatist person. Thus, even in the world of ME "headologies", LP insinuations/accusations of defeatism etc. do not stack up.

Of course, since belief/commitment to LP is part of the cure, this may rarely if ever be admitted by individuals who have benefited, but they could testify, if they wish, without attacking others.

All insinuations of negativity if you don't do well at LP or do not do it should be condemned and discouraged immediately by LP and particularly by any NHS associated practitioners/researchers.

For my part I believe LP etc may help some with a diagnosis of ME and am glad for them but ME/CFS is not as yet properly sub-grouped and none of these therapies should claim to treat ME per se or promote accusation of failures/refuseniks.

The broad issue of demotivation as a problem among the chronically ill is a legitimate area of concern: the equation "support/do LP or you are demotivated/negative etc." is an entirely illegitimate accretion.
 
Plus it refers to Esther Rantzen's daughter as getting better using LP.

TV presenter and Childline founder Esther Rantzen, who says it rescued her daughter from 14 years of the disease.
Click to expand...

But since then I'm pretty certain her daughter was found to have Coeliac Disease and that was her latest cure.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...cret-Emilys-14-lost-years-Esther-Rantzen.html

Apologies for the Daily Fail link, :( :wtf: :cry: only one I could find on a quick search. It makes you turn off your ad blocker to read it too. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom