UK Dr Anna Chellamuthu, GP and Lightning Process practitioner, and her article in a GP journal

I've decided I'm not done with this particular article by Anna Chellamutha.

I'd like to clarify further a comment from my previous post in case anyone new (without any background to understand certain statements made by AC) comes to this thread after the fact.

The piece has been taken down and that is certainly an appropriate decision (even if couched in 'we stand by debate' waffling).

To quote the relevant bit from AC's article:

and:

To quote a part of my post (#883) my post:

I'm not sure this is clear for any lay person. I could be wrong but here's the clarification.

8 years ago in Cornwall (2016) the NICE guidelines would have been clearly recommending CBT/GET not pacing and energy management. It is beyond unlikely that Cornwall would be offering what she is suggesting. Or people who have been opposing this treatment would have been flocking to this service when the NICE recommended service failed them. This never happened and I'm sure there are people from the Cornwall area who can verify this.

The NICE guidelines recommending pacing and energy management (as the regulars here well know) is the brand new guidelines (2021) that have been fought for by many PwME including people here.

This statement by AC alone is quite suspect and makes me question the whole. Along with the statement:

The panel did indeed include ME/cfs researchers. The committee in fact included people with a clear BPS CBT/GET point of view.

Here are the MEpedia entries for some of the committee:

https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Murphy
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Jo_Daniels
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Alan_Stanton
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Bond-Kendall

There are more and if anyone really wants to they can easily search further to verify the MEpedia information.

It seems to me that Euan Lawson likely did not have any idea of the level of misinformation that exists in this area of ME health info. Hopefully this has been a learning curve that has helped to bring some light to the subject of how disingenuous these BPS / lightning process people have been.

See this document for a list of the committee:

 

Seems like one of those things where it depends on the question you ask:

• For the (poor, vulnerable) person, desperate to recover their former life, who pays for this, zero benefit;
• For the person running the class X (Norwegian) kroner;
• For the person at the next level in the scam --- millions (+?) (Norwegian) kroner.

 

This phrase covers a multitude ---- "We will remain a space for lively debate for practising clinicians."

 

I wonder how such an article ended up on the BJGP website in the first place. Someone influential who favours the Lightning Process must have pitched it, I guess.

 

I prefer editorial standards to apply before publication, but after is the 2nd best time.

 

The problem of course being that someone who knew the information was at least misleading had to intervene.

Without that vigilance it may well have still been up and available to read.

I understand that BJGB is a business and as such cannot survive without providing a product.
But . . . a very big but . . . they are not in the business of providing widgets or nuts and bolts out of a factory. They are in the business of sharing information. And as such that is a completely different type of business not just in kind but in responsibility.

Not to say that providing other businesses with defective nuts and bolts doesn't have consequences but it won't break democracy. Misinformation can and will.

It is the responsibility of anyone who can to check and defend against people writing things with the intention to deceive.

It is a win that BJGB did the right thing. And kudo's to them for that but presently the bar is very low. Dangerously low.

 

There is a pretty worrying page on Dr Chellamuthu's Lightning site called 'Christians and the Lightning Process' in which she appears to claim that Lightning is part of Christianity.

Quote:
'I personally have found that the Lightning Process has given me tools to enable me to put my Christian faith into practice on an even deeper level.

‘Be transformed by the renewing of your mind’ (Rom 12:2). I think that the concept that our brains have the ability to actually change according to how we use them is actually a very biblical one.

The Lightning Process teaches tools which can enable us to ‘take thoughts captive’ (2 Cor 10:5). Becoming aware of our thoughts and how they affect us and learning to change this is one of the key parts of the Lightning Process. ‘…whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things’ (Phil 4:8).

The Lightning Process is a way of making this a daily reality. The impact on health is astounding.'

'Christians and the Lightning Process'

https://www.dr-anna.co.uk/lightingprocesschristians





This seems to be highly manipulative, blurring boundaries between sickness and religious faith. Though Lightning ideology is so all encompassing that normal circumspection about professional ethics and all sorts of other boundaries seem to go out the window.


Edit addition: The associating Lightning Process with Christianity with Good Health is also well dodgy.

 

Well done to all especially Prof Jo Edwards of the compromised hearing! I am also afflicted!
A win for common sense, fair play, but most of all sound science and proper process!
Thanks to the Twitter storm too!

 

https://bjgplife.com/mar22
Euan Lawson is editor of the BJGP.

It is somewhat ironic that no sooner was the March issue published where I mention post-truth and we run into a dispute around evidence on BJGP Life. I wrote in the Briefing: “Publishing research is a business that deals with verifiable facts; the BJGP’s commitment is to strive to be accurate and, if we get it wrong, to correct the record with full transparency.”

It has to be emphasised that we don’t publish research here on Life — this is our platform for debate, discussion, viewpoint and opinion. That certainly means that we will publish online content that will sometimes arouse impassioned comment. We do want the content to be accurate and I stand by that commitment to full transparency.

On Thursday 3rd March 2022 we published an article titled: Reflections on NICE, CFS/ME, and the Lightning Process. (It is possible you have been re-directed to this page after clicking on a link for that article elsewhere on the internet.)

We felt there were important areas the article covered: the experience of being a GP parent to a child with ME/CFS; and the experience of working clinically outside of guidance (and this does happen to many GPs in many circumstances) are certainly worthy of coverage.

While we stand by the need to discuss and debate all these areas, we recognise the legitimate concern that this article offered a platform to an intervention and a commercial interest which hasn’t got a clear evidence base. On reflection, after discussion in the editorial team, and in consultation with some members from the Editorial Board, we have taken the decision to unpublish the article. I’m sorry for any distress this has caused. We will remain a space for lively debate for practising clinicians.

Many thanks for your feedback.

 

Just for prosperity and now it has been pulled, I did copy text.

 

Here's an image file of the whole page too.

 

I hope that this has been screenshotted/archived from her page. ASA definitely.

At least Phil Parker wasn't a GP. Just like with those working in 'public life' we all assume there is some sort of code and test that people have the moral character to possess such power as the role and title conveys. What on earth happened/influenced her to be so casually emboldened to go this far? It seems a very strange thing to do/write.

If one big issue re: GMC is concerns about 'losing qualified staff during shortage' then maybe it's time there should be a possibility of a programme by which they are oversighted/only allowed to work in roles where there is limited ability/situations (with those that might have potential issues being flagged for oversight) for such individuals who have demonstrated a likelihood of breaching codes. But also a required changed licence/job titles for articles such as these and limitations on comittees/board positions where interests would be declared and assumed to be kept in check. I don't know how it all works and if it is effective etc?

 

It would be interesting to see the peer review for that BJGP piece.

 

Once again, I find myself looking very much askance at a doctor who runs a website called something along the lines of "www.dr[name].com/org/co.uk". It's getting to the stage where I automatically distrust any doctor who has what you might call a "personality" website. I don't think most doctors behave this way.

 

As this is somewhat for posterity thought I'd heads-up you that 8yrs ago was 2014, so worth checking as it could be the time period was 2014-16 (which makes it even more likely it was GET+cfs-CBT rather than pacing in any of the clinics or GP-based management strategies). Her story indeed states it was 2014 when they moved to Cornwall.

This is definitely a worthwhile question/task to get to the end of. There is an MEA post about a job vacancy in Cornwall where Russell the MEA staff member suggests he knows this service well. Maybe worth an ask there if no response here?

 

I recently came across another NHS doctor who is a trained Lightning Process instructor and claims to help people with chronic illnesses.

What's the appropriate saying? "One is an accident, two is a coincidence, three is a pattern"?

 

I received an email from the editor saying the article had been unpublished, but giving no analysis or apology.

I think there is a strong groundswell of opinion amongst the 'chattering' GP class that would support the article - really not so very different from the sort of disinformation fashions we see everywhere. The main issue for most will be disagreeing with the NICE decision in general so it might seem odd that this gets voiced in the context of LP specifically. On the other hand I can see that someone with a vested interest in LP might be the best person to write a piece for their 'lively debate'.

I am not sure that I know of anyone in British GP circles rooting for LP specifically. There is of course Garner, but he is not in GP. People like Gerada and Stokes-Lampard are for GET or and CBT type things.

I also note that Prof Brendan Delaney has removed his tweet. I don't know much about him but some of his other comments look a bit off target.

 

Prosperity is presumably what motivates Chellamuthu, but it was definitely a good idea to act in the interests of posterity.