"You don't have ME, you do ME" - mantra on LP course
Lightning Process (LP) teach you cognitive techniques to recover.
It's based on neuro linguistic programming,
and was developed by Phil Parker, a former healer and medical clairvoyant
who trained others in how to diagnose peoples’ ailments-
-through aura, tarot, energy paths, “spinning of pendulums”-
and communication with spiritual helpers.
This is accessible via Phil Parkers’ old website via Wayback Machine.
LP is trademarked and can only be carried out by certified instructors.
The course lasts for 3 days and costs appr. $2.000 in Norway.
A royalty is paid to Phil Parker.
he course teaches you to replace bad thoughts with good ones.
You counter your symptoms by stretching out your arms and say STOP.
The process can be illustrated like this,
and is repeated until the disease disappears.
You're told that it's up to you to recover,
and the disease is reduced to a question of willpower.
"You don’t have ME, you do ME".
For further insight, see this Facebook-post from a patient-
-where he describes the course in detail.
CBT could cause great harm for ME patients.
Many also get worse from LP.
A fact known by the authorities.
In 2011, The National Research Center for alternative medicine (NAFKAM),
sent a message of concern to the authorities.
In 2012, The ME Association reported that out of the patients who had tried LP,
49 % got worse.
8 out of 10 worsened or had no effect.
The report showed that LP is among the worst things you could do.
In 2014, 35 patients with a negative LP experience-
-sent a message of concern to the health authorities.
In 2015, NAFKAM reported that there is no solid scientific basis for the claim that LP works.
In 2020, they maintained that LP is associated with risk.
Phil Parker, the founder, has been required to remove-
-undocumented and misleading health claims in his marketing,
like the course’s ability to treat MS.
No Norwegian physicians recommend LP to MS patients,
which in turn says a lot about physicians’ view on ME.
A view that is reinforced when Parker have claimed-
-that nearly 90% of ME patients recover from LP.
In 2020, British health authorities advised against LP for ME patients (proposal on hearing).
LP has made it hard for negative experiences to emerge.
Patients are interviewed in advance.
They have had to accept that they will not criticize the content-
-or discuss it with the outside world,
as this may negate the healing effect.
In order to get well, you have to tell yourself and others that you feel fine.
This is in turn used as evidence for the course’s effect,
misleading the public and authorities regarding the effects.
One example is in the magazine “Physiotherapy in private practice” from 2009,
which covered a survey conducted by Norwegian LP instructors/course licensees.
The survey reported that 15 weeks after course participation,
97% of patients reported improved quality of life,
with an average rise from 3 to 8 on a scale from 1-10.
This is sensational, as the general population average is 5.5
The findings were presented to Norwegian health authorities.
The LP course recruits patients with all types of fatigue.
For some the course works, which is great.
The problem is those benefiting who are deemed to suffer from ME,
in reality may suffer from something else.
This does not exclude that some ME patients have benefited from LP.
But this is a minority,
and many get worse.
Still, the marketing towards these patients continues.
Some people’s LP-recovery is used as evidence for ME patients in general.
As a former psychologist wrote that her physiotherapist concluded;
”when people recover after a three-day course, ME is psychologically in nature”.
Many are scared to share their negative experience in fear of negative attention,
and that it may be used against them by doctors, the welfare system etc.,
who believe that recovery depends on motivation.
Some patients have become too ill to tell.
Still many share their experience.
Kristine tells that you were not allowed to question anything.
She was reprimanded when she almost fainted and had to throw up.
She “was negative and ruined for the others”.
She was told to say ”stop“ and not throw up.
She had to sign that she did not do ME anymore,
and was pushed to rate her symptoms more favorably.
Kristine ignored her symptoms as told.
This led to her being bedridden
She felt ashamed, as it was her own fault if she did not recover.
She felt so dispaired that she wanted to take her own life.
It led to permanent damage.
Lisbeth describes the course as a religious ceremony.
She experienced a total collapse, and became sicker than ever.
Maria describes how she collapsed after the course.
She had to move home to her parents
Torbjørg says she was brainwashed, she was the one who had “done ME”.
She had a total collapse, and must now use wheel chair.
Trude describes the course as almost sectarian,
and got worse than ever.
Venke also worsened.
Sadly, a participant on her course got life threatening ill.
Another severely ill patient wishes she had never participated at LP as a 19 year old.
It caused prolonged damage.
They told her that LP could cure cancer.
Stories like these show why a psychologist has compared LP-
-to 1970’s Christian revival meetings aiming to cure gays;
- The suggestive techniques, media coverage and warnings against listening to others.
As well as in how unethical methods can get a foothold.
Live Landmark is the person behind LP in Norway, earning millions.
She has taken a very active public role,
and speaks about her own ME-recovery after LP participation.
Shortly after, she became an LP instructor.
In this article, she stated that it’s about having ME patients leaving the victim role,
and that “the vast majority fully recover during the course”.
Despite all the stories on how LP has harmed many ME patients,
Landmark continues to claim the opposite.
Like here, when she in an 2018 op-ed-
-claimed there are just a few people that don’t have effect,
and that their stress and disappointments-
-must not prevent the majority’s chances for recovery.
As ME-scientist Professor Olav Mella, stated in 2017;
“Among those who meet the critical criteria for a ME diagnosis,-
-we believe most will have a biomedical disease”
“A psychological approach may, however,-
-be beneficial for those with other variants of fatigue”.
This is very important.
Patients with other fatigue conditions-
cannot set the standard for an ME disease they don’t have.
The same applies to the minority who falls within a ME diagnosis,
yet are able to recover through GET/CBT.
Do I know exactly what criteria and treatments will look like in the future,
and who will recover from what?
No!
And it may be different phases,
where different interventions work at different stages.
But it’s important that the diagnosis is set by experienced experts,
as todays’ criteria not always will be sufficient.
To get an ME diagnosis from recognized diagnostic criteria,
a psychological cause has to be excluded.
Unfortunately, many doctors fail to do this.
TV2 published an article in which a GP warned against LP.
He asked how the authorities can let this happen,
and called it grave economic exploitation of sick people.
He believed that those improving from LP have some other form of fatigue.
Despite the doctor’s negative experiences,
and the fact that Landmark year after year is confronted with such stories,
she told TV2 that she knew no one who got worse from LP.
Her focus appeared to be that;
“10 out of 12 course participants were completely back to their lives”.
Landmark also seemed to have forgotten that-
-a 13 year old had tried to end his life after LP.
According to the father,
they were told that it was your own fault if you did not recover.
The boy collapsed after two weeks.
He was unable to recover and full of guilt.
The father called the course instructor and told what had happened.
He asked them to stop offering this course to ME patients, especially children.
The course instructor’s answer was to offer a new course - for free.
In 2018, Landmark wrote about ME patients that-
-“not everyone is able to take responsibility for their own health”.
She also wrote that some of those struggling with LP scores high on neuroticism.
In her book, she compares a relapse after LP to;
“being on a strict diet to lose weight, and not follow the diet.-
-Then it is easy to feel like a failure”.
This is victim blaming and discredits patient’s negative experiences.
Landmark labels objective scientific criticism as “activism”,
In this post, she described patients as “activists who sharpens their knives”,
pointing to “harassment with the force of a hurricane”,
and that “doctors and health personnel who don’t share the activists’ view are intimidated”.
In Aftenposten, she compared those opposing her view to-
-“international movements whose truth is reflective of sectarian beliefs”-
-and “vaccine opponents”.
When former parliament member Laila Dåvøy criticized psychologically based involuntary-
-hospital admission of ME patients,
Landmark asked; "how dare you call it a tragedy when the patients get help?”
Who is attacking who?
A young boy wrote in Aftenposten how the Child Welfare Authorities got involved,
since both he and his brother had ME.
He had not attended school for years,
and his mother was accused of being overprotective.
Landmark tweeted; “poor, poor little fellow, where are the parents?”
This was despite that the boy wrote that he had tried LP,
was told that it was his own fault if he didn’t recover,
and underlined that there have been suicides following LP.
Who is attacking who?
The following year, Landmark blamed the mothers,
when she wrote that ME children could recover if their parents-
-“change their focus from their child’s symptoms to their own fear and despair”.
A former psychologist wrote that this reminded her-
-of the stigma mothers of autistic children faced in the 1980s,
when it was indicated that these mothers didn’t provide warmness in their care.
The well-known radio personality Lise Askvik-
-commented that it was unbelievable-
-how Landmark could step on a patient group in this way,
and asked if Landmark wanted to help patients,
or just get rich from LP?
Landmark has in-depth knowledge of media,
and a network in an industry that provides her course free PR.
She is a journalist, author, and lecturer.
Former blogger for The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association.
Written more than 40 op-eds about ME in both medical publications-
-and Norway’s largest news outlets.
She is interviewed by the national media,
and is active on her own website, Twitter and Facebook,
where she reaches her 4.500 friends,
including well-known editors and journalists,
Norway’s Director of Health and Health Minister,
the director of The Norwegian Institute of Public Health,
the President of the Parliament,
the Auditor General,
other current and former ministers,
several other politicians,
as well as influential people within health,
law and order,
business,
PR and communication,
culture,
as well as the Royal Family.
Hence, Landmark has established herself as an expert-
-on such a devastating biomedical disease.
In 2017, she stated that she was contacted-
-to be an expert in a documentary on ME.
A lot could be said about the “science” the LP supporters refer to..
In 2014, Landmark wrote that “we are not deceived by the number of supporters,-
-but base ourselves on research.”
The first was a user survey from 2008 among all LP participants,
regardless of their condition.
Six months later, she wrote in Medicine Today that-
-the data from this survey were collected externally.
Her own presentation of the results,
shows that it was her own company “Aktiv Prosess” that collected the data.
The company behind LP in Norway.
At that time, the company had two employees including her.
Landmark also referred to a study from 2012.
Although the study was published in a UK psychology journal,
two of the investigators were British and one was Norwegian,
and the patients were recruited in the UK,
NRK Nightly News presented the study as a Harvard study:
“A Harvard study that was published today look, for the first time,-
-at the use of therapy to heal ME patients."
The link to Harvard was that one of the investigators was a post-doc there.
The patients were recruited from an internet advertisement after LP-participation,
and chosen based on “opportunistic sampling”.
The objective was not to measure effect,
but through telephone interviews get their experiences.
Landmark wrote in Medicine Today that 7 of 9 adolescents with a ME diagnosis-
-told that they felt better or had fully recovered after LP.
The criteria applied only demanded fatigue for a period of time,
during which it was present for more than 50% of the time.
Landmark also gives the impression that-
-this was a study measuring LP’s effect.
This was a survey where 7 out of 9 who chose-
-to participate reported an effect.
So when NRK stated that the study-
-measured LP’s effect on ME patients,
that was exactly what it didn’t do.
Landmark promoted the study to the now Norwegian PM,
who responded.
In Medicine Today, Landmark marginalized those not improving,
stating that one participant worsened due to being disappointed.
She failed to mention that those without positive outcome-
-reacted to course methods of blame and dishonesty.
The last study Landmark referred to-
-was published in the nurse publication Sykepleien.
This was also survey based,
with the objective of obtaining experiences-
-from patients who had already completed the LP-course.
The effect was not measured,
and participants were recruited from e.g. an online forum.
The study highlighted how some participants-
-had become bedridden after LP.
Later, a new larger study on ME and LP has been published in the UK.
A study Landmark has described as the gold standard of research.
So feel free to judge for yourself.
The lead investigator, Esther Crawley at Bristol University,
got the second most funding for ME research in UK from 2006-2016.
Crawly too, portrays objective, scientific criticism as harassment.
Like during this 2017 lecture,
where she claimed that request for data is evil tactics,
tactics also performed by fake people.
She referred to ME children as poor and criminal, with substance abuse.
It turned out that also Crawley’s SMILE study on LP,
failed to comply with scientific standards.
As with the PACE trial, she changed the criteria along the way.
With the original primary endpoint,
children’s’ school participation 6months,
the study would have shown no significant effect.
After having seen the data for a large part of the patients,
she changed the primary endpoint to the-
-subjective endpoint of self-reported physical functioning.
Classic outcome switching.
All this was omitted when the study was published.
Met with heavy criticism,
the investigators argued in a correction that pupils transitioning-
-to A levels made school participation an inaccurate endpoint.
A premise known before the study started,
which could have easily been taken into account
The use of wide diagnostic criteria,
makes it impossible to tell how many actually had ME.
The sickest patients were excluded.
And less than one third of the qualified patients chose to participate.
Only 13% of those qualified ended up completing the LP course.
In other words: the patient selection was not representative for ME.
In 2019, a correction was added to the study,
admitting significant faults and errors.
Later that year, more than 70 scientist, professors, physicians etc. from universities like-
-Columbia, Stanford, Harvard, Melbourne, Wellington and Berkeley,
sent a letter to the editor of the publishing journal,
expressing dismay of the study’s ethical and methodological lapses.
Professor Edzard Ernst, with over 1000 peer-reviewed publications,
and having been ranked as nr 1 in the work of-
-evaluating the objective proof of alternative medicine,
as well as former Editor-in-Chief of three medical journals,
called LP pure quackery,
and compared the study to giving ice cream to children,
since it e.g. did not control for placebo effect.
There you go, “the gold standard”.
The study has obviously no credibility, when British health authorities-
now advice against Lightning Process for ME patients (proposal out on hearing).
Their review found that the study’s findings were of-
-“low to very low quality”, due to the risk of bias.
For more on this study, see the links in the description.
It is this study Landmark referred to,
when she in 2020 wrote on NRK.no that LP is safe.
Was it safe for all those who got worse?
What about this patient,
who was guided to the course by NAV, and ended up bedridden?
A cognitive behavioural therapist writes how he struggles with guilt-
-after sending his child on a LP course,
which he now considers abuse.
He witnessed the course himself.
