An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms, 2025, Arroll et al

Relevant bits about participants:

The LP practitioner agreed to participate in an independent audit of patients completing treatment and obtained permission to provide the study team with names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers. Our interviewer followed up with participants who were not initially contactable to avoid responder bias. The sample size was determined by the number of participants the interviewer could do during her student vacation.

Of 20 patients completing the LP, 12 (60%) were contactable; all agreed to be interviewed
 
If the samples size was determined by the number of participants they would be able to interview, it suggest that the total pool of participants was larger.

It’s also unclear who the instructor gained permission from, although I guess it was from the participants. If so, it’s weird that only 12/20 were contactable if they already gave permission for the team to get their contact info.

Based on the wording, it’s also not possible to rule out that they asked for 20 names from the instructor, and that the instructor chose 20 from a larger pool.
 
Utsikt said:
Of 20 patients completing the LP, 12 (60%) were contactable; all agreed to be interviewed
Click to expand...
Dunno if this is just empty grumbling, but I am annoyed at the use of contactable. Obviously it was possible to contact everyone, which is the definition of contactable. 12 were contacted, but all 20 were obviously contactable.

I just can't find this an honest mistake, and it is minor, but damn is it just lowering expectations for academics to not expect that they use basic words correctly. It just screams to me of how spammers mangle language on purpose, because anyone annoyed by it would be a poor mark and they'd just lose their time.
 
rvallee said:
Dunno if this is just empty grumbling, but I am annoyed at the use of contactable. Obviously it was possible to contact everyone, which is the definition of contactable. 12 were contacted, but all 20 were obviously contactable.
Click to expand...
I believe contactable means to be able to communicate with someone, as opposed to just being able to send them a message of some kind.

Your interpretation makes more sense, but the English language is weird sometimes..
 
rvallee said:
Dunno if this is just empty grumbling, but I am annoyed at the use of contactable. Obviously it was possible to contact everyone, which is the definition of contactable. 12 were contacted, but all 20 were obviously contactable.

I just can't find this an honest mistake, and it is minor, but damn is it just lowering expectations for academics to not expect that they use basic words correctly. It just screams to me of how spammers mangle language on purpose, because anyone annoyed by it would be a poor mark and they'd just lose their time.
Click to expand...

I had read this to mean the other 8 (40%) were not contactable, though that doesn’t make sense if it is the case that the researchers only had resources to interview the 12. Perhaps they intended to communicate that all of the 12 they chose to interview were contacted without any problem, but that they knew nothing about the contactability or otherwise of the remaining 8 as they did not attempt to contact them.

Though this begs the question how they selected which 12 to contact. There are so many levels of selection here, either self selection or LP practitioner selection or researcher selection.
  • clients selected themselves by being interested in pursuing LP
  • LP practitioner selected who to allow into the LP programme
  • clients self selected in terms of dropping out or completing the course
  • the practitioner selected which clients to approach to pass on to the researchers
  • the clients then selected whether or not to agree to this, though the implication is that none of the approached clients opted out at this stage
  • the researchers selected who to contact to interview, with an implication that at this stage none of the approached clients declined to be interviewed
There seems limited information about how each of these stages of selection were conducted, which is worrying if, as the authors seem to ultimately claim, these clients are to be taken as representative of Long Covid patients, especially as there was no actual verification of the clients’ Long Covid status in the first place. So even before the research began there were five stages of preselection, with a final selection process by the researchers.
 
I have today received the following from my GP:

Hi XXX,
I suspect you may know about this already knowing that you are very well read about CFS-ME. However, passing this on in any case. I read a very small snippet this morning in NZ Doctor magazine about The Lightning Process for use in Long Covid which has a lot of similarities to CFS-ME. They mentioned a NZ study showing 11 of 12 people using The Lighting Process having some improvement from that.

I know there are some online options for this treatment as well as face to face practitioners in NZ.

In any case, I thought of you and just passing on the information.

Hope things are ok for you at the moment.
Kind Regards
Click to expand...

I have replied, with information about the Lightning Process including my letter to the RNZCGP and a link to this thread, and noting the the RNZCGP withdrew its endorsement of the NZ Doctor article. It is utterly horrifying to think about the effect that article will be having on people with ME/CFS in New Zealand.
 
Throwing no shade on your GP who was caring enough to pass on the information to you in good faith but GPs have so much respect for Bruce Arroll & trust him unquestioningly. Undoubtedly there will be many patients receiving similar recommendations. Fortunately most cannot afford to do the training - but GP’s who were understanding of MECFS & LC being biological are at risk of pivoting to psychosomatic based on BA’s say so.
 
Hutan said:
I have today received the following from my GP:



I have replied, with information about the Lightning Process including my letter to the RNZCGP and a link to this thread, and noting the the RNZCGP withdrew its endorsement of the NZ Doctor article. It is utterly horrifying to think about the effect that article will be having on people with ME/CFS in New Zealand.
Click to expand...
Is it even ethical or legal to share that kind of information with the patients in that way?

It reads like an endorsement of LP (because they talk specifically about how to get access to LP), and there are no assessment of risks.
 
Hutan said:
I have today received the following from my GP:



I have replied, with information about the Lightning Process including my letter to the RNZCGP and a link to this thread, and noting the the RNZCGP withdrew its endorsement of the NZ Doctor article. It is utterly horrifying to think about the effect that article will be having on people with ME/CFS in New Zealand.
Click to expand...
So sorry Hutan. I have read all your stuff on DR Arroll and his lightening process work. Quite unbelievable that your GP sent this through to you. Hope you can find a new GP.
 
Holinger said:
Hope you can find a new GP.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Unfortunately that is very difficult.

Almost all GPs in my city are not taking on new patients. And, I'm sure that, of those that are, most are not interested in taking on a patient who is not happy with their existing GP and who has acquired a diagnosis of ME/CFS and/or health anxiety (the two diagnoses seem to be synonymous in the minds of many GPs). And then there are the GPs who do advertise as having an interest in ME/CFS but have dodgy ideas. I tried to find a new doctor a couple of years ago and gave up.

The most profitable patients for GPs given the government capitation fee system are those who sign on as a patient but who rarely visit the doctor. (Never mind that I rarely visit my GP, it will be assumed otherwise.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom