A Messiah in the Norwegian health system? Lightning Process and the Norwegian medical establishment - Blogpost by Nina E. Steinkopf (2019)

Kalliope

Kalliope

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
This post and the following ones have been moved from this thread.

Blogger Nina E. Steinkopf has written a blog post about Lightning Process and its entry into Norwegian medical establishment.

She draws a parallel to Elizabeth Holmes from USA, who through network and false claims managed to fool people into believing she had developed a revolutionary new way of medical testing. It turned out to be a big fraud. The story is told in the documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

Not sure how well the google translation is, so feel free to tag me if I can help with additional translation. The blog post is an interesting read, documenting quite a lot of the absurd Lightning Process saga in Norway and how naively it was received and accepted despite warnings.

En Messias i norsk helsevesen?
google translate: A Messias in Norwegian health care?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kalliope said:
Blogger Nina E. Steinkopf has written a blog post about Lightning Process and its entry into Norwegian medical establishment.

She draws a parallel to Elizabeth Holmes from USA, who through network and false claims managed to fool people into believing she had developed a revolutionary new way of medical testing. It turned out to be a big fraud. The story is told in the documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

Not sure how well the google translation is, so feel free to tag me if I can help with additional translation. The blog post is an interesting read, documenting quite a lot of the absurd Lightning Process saga in Norway and how naively it was received and accepted despite warnings.

En Messias i norsk helsevesen?
google translate: A Messias in Norwegian health care?
Click to expand...


ETA: BentHHoyre whom Nina E. Steinkopf directed her tweet to, is the minister of health in Norway, Bent Høie.
 
Last edited:
Kalliope said:
Blogger Nina E. Steinkopf has written a blog post about Lightning Process and its entry into Norwegian medical establishment.

She draws a parallel to Elizabeth Holmes from USA, who through network and false claims managed to fool people into believing she had developed a revolutionary new way of medical testing. It turned out to be a big fraud. The story is told in the documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

Not sure how well the google translation is, so feel free to tag me if I can help with additional translation. The blog post is an interesting read, documenting quite a lot of the absurd Lightning Process saga in Norway and how naively it was received and accepted despite warnings.

En Messias i norsk helsevesen?
google translate: A Messias in Norwegian health care?
Click to expand...
Great parallels. Less money but the absurdity of this scam is orders of magnitude above Theranos, since at least blood tests are already a valid process. The innovation was entirely in technology, which is not at all the case here. And medical professionals have always been very skeptical of Holmes' claims, here they embraced them. LP seriously reaches the level of cult, it's so blatantly ridiculous.

Oh boy will this be expensive to the government authorities in Norway who fell for this obvious scam. This seriously warrants criminal investigations, and much more. It's roughly equivalent to Scientology having infiltrated the NIH and other US health institutions, promoting their belief systems into official policies. What a massive failure from the medical professionals involved.

I have no idea why the PACE gang thought it was a good idea to get involved in this. In the end this scam will expose their other scams as being equally worthless and fraudulent. Hubris befalls everyone eventually. To pull this off in such a closely-monitored system as health care is almost impressive, but it also guarantees a very harsh ending.
 
Excellent blog.

Course participants say that they are subject to a duty of confidentiality. Those who are critical must not attend courses. There is no room for negative thoughts or to discuss that someone is getting sick of the method. The attitudes are that those who have become ill due to. The course is not motivated to get healthy, they are not willing to make an effort themselves. An enemy image is created to silence critics, and factual criticism is termed "harassment" and "activism." On Recovery Norway's Facebook page, negative comments are deleted and people who ask critical questions or are skeptical are blocked.
Click to expand...
In other words, they have arranged things so their claim is immune to falsification.

Which is basically the definition of pseudo-science.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I see this is under the UK National Institute for Health Research NIHR. How the heck does NIHR get to register a commercial product being reviewed by the people selling it?
Click to expand...
It's because the database of review protocols PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) is supported by NIHR money I think. The NIHR have no control over who registers their protocols. I see from 1 October they are requiring people register their protocols before they have collected any data....https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#aboutregpage
 
Caroline Struthers said:
It's because the database of review protocols PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) is supported by NIHR money I think. The NIHR have no control over who registers their protocols. I see from 1 October they are requiring people register their protocols before they have collected any data....https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#aboutregpage
Click to expand...

Well if they are paying for it they should be accountable for its use, as I see it!

Prospero comes under NIHR. It is clearly not simply a registering tool. The idea is to guarantee quality, as in:

'We hope that this will reduce the potential for bias by reducing the opportunity for data extraction to lead to conscious or subconscious effects on the review, for instance by influencing decisions to include or exclude certain items in order to shape a review so that it reaches a desired conclusion.'

What is the point of including reviews where bias is guaranteed?
 
benji said:
Yep :(
But not in the latest version, from 31. July 2019. The authors there:
Mr Phil Parker. London Metropolitan Unviersity
Ms Jacqueline Aston.
Dr Lisa de Rijk.
Click to expand...

Organisational affiliation of the review:

London Metropolitan University

https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/

ETA: "Phil Parker is a post graduate researcher in the School of Psychology at the London Metropolitan University, London, UK"

(Latest paper I found:
Parker, Phil, Banbury, Samantha and Chandler, Chris (2018) The utility of measuring flourishing in substance and alcohol use disorders research: a systematic review. European Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 2 (5). pp. 1-13. ISSN 2397-7116.,
https://www.nationalwellbeingservice.org/volumes/volume-2-2018/volume-2-article-5/

(I wasn't aware that PP has an 'active' affiliation to a real Universtity and and there actually is real University's staff co-authoring with him.)
 
Last edited:
Kalliope said:
She draws a parallel to Elizabeth Holmes from USA, who through network and false claims managed to fool people into believing she had developed a revolutionary new way of medical testing. It turned out to be a big fraud. The story is told in the documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

There is a really good book on this "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup" by an investigative journalist John Carryrou

rvallee said:
Great parallels. Less money but the absurdity of this scam is orders of magnitude above Theranos, since at least blood tests are already a valid process. The innovation was entirely in technology, which is not at all the case here.
Click to expand...

Some of the tests they did were very dodgy and with quite random results because the way they handled samples was not correct. They were trying to do blood tests with smaller volumes of blood. They ended up with some whistle blowers due to this but had a very strong legal team and links to the US establishment who kept everything quiet. In the end though they were seen as a startup worth billions and raising capital with false claims hence the spectacular nature of the crash. (For example Murdoch invested $125m in Theranos and lost it all).
 
Rain said:
What was the name of this person?
Click to expand...
Here's the list from @benji 's link

Review team members and their organisational affiliations
Mr Phil Parker. London Metropolitan Unviersity
Ms Live Landmark. Norwegian Business School BI
Professor Børge Sivertsen. Uni Health and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Professor Johan Kvalvik Stanghelle. University of Oslo
 
benji said:
In Nina Steinkopf’s excellent blog, there is a protocol of a LP review which is under way http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=104336&VersionID=1192539
Click to expand...
A systematic review lead by the guy who invented the secret product and personally benefits from it along with someone who has been promoting the secret product and personally benefits from it.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Let's just skip all the hard work and have people rate their own work while they personally benefit from it. Who even cares anymore?

Yet another thing PACE has normalized, with about half the researchers personally benefiting from its success and no one is bothered by this except us. This should be a golden age of science and instead it's down the rabbit hole making the same old mistakes all over again, just twice as stupidly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom