1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Lightning Process study in Norway - Given Ethics Approval February 2022

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Kalliope, Apr 28, 2020.

  1. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    Thanks for sharing. It is interesting. I used to meditate and thought it would be a way to control the illness but eventually gave up because it made things worse. I know from this practice that one can learn to reach blissful and other pleasant and powerful emotional states through meditation. LP might be a way for some to do something similar. But the idea that this is a treatment for illness is an illusion.
     
    Invisible Woman, Wonko and Legend like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,808
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    I've posted this in the main thread on the Crawley trial but thought it worth posting this here due to
    https://edzardernst.com/2020/06/the-lightning-process-implausible-unproven-hyped-and-expensive/

    ETA: His tweet
    https://twitter.com/user/status/1267366911727337472
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    Thanks Andy. I think it could be useful to leave comments to show that this is an important topic. Maybe it will help attract some attention from readers that otherwise have no contact with the topics ME/CFS or LP.
     
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,848
    Location:
    UK
    School attendance is a difficult one in the UK for age 16 and over. Some may leave education, some may attend colleges where attendance is only recorded in classes you have to attend and if you don't have a class you can be at home, and during exam periods you only have to be there for the exams and can study or whatever at home in between.

    So school attendance registers post 16 may not be a good outcome measure. The researchers knew that perfectly well before they set up the study. They could have found ways to allow for that by, for example, making sure outcomes were recorded mid term, not at exam or holiday times, and including whether a student was studying a full program requiring daily attendance or not.
     
  5. Keela Too

    Keela Too Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    One has to wonder whether this has now become some sort of design feature for these trials?

    - Set up some apparently strong objective outcomes that would make the trial look fantastic if the outcome measure produced positive results.

    - When setting these objective outcomes, make sure in advance that there is a readily available “reasonable flaw” that can be “discovered” in the process of the trial.

    - Set up easily manipulated subjective outcome measures as secondary outcomes.

    - Implement the “reasonable flaw” if the primary (objective) outcome measure fails to produce the desired result.

    - Substitute a secondary (subjective) outcome as the primary outcome so that the desired result may still be reported??
     
  6. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,488
    Location:
    Belgium
    Edzard Ernst asks:
    Could anyone from Norway give the latest info on this?
     
  7. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    I wrote a reply. Just named the main supervisor Kennair at NTNU and Wyller at UiO as co supervisor, with Esther Crawley as an external expert as those are the names I remember. There were some others involved, I think. Research is funded by Research Council of Norway and by certain muncipalities (Viken?).
     
  8. Marky

    Marky Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    Norway
    NTNU (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology) is involved with the study and Live Landmark is doing a PHD on this project. Some of it has been funded by involved communes, and the rest i believe is from the research council of Norway.

    Maybe @Midnattsol knows more specifics

    Edit: Never mind shes already answered :D
     
  9. Marky

    Marky Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    Norway
    Thanks for the info Trish. Yes that`s what i originally wanted to say, that this would have been easy for the researchers to investigate prior to starting the study. I guess if they were to do a similar study again, they should use actometers (and actually publish the results mind u)
     
  10. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    I also added that Live Landmark is the phD candidate and is herself an LP instructor :)
     
  11. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,819
    Location:
    Australia
    Exactly.
    If cognitive and/or behavioural therapies actually led to remission, we'd all be in remission by now!

    It boggles the mind that anyone could think that LP could be any more effective than generalised CBT.

    Stoic, is that a nice way of saying laid-back and lazy? :p
     
  12. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    I also added a link to the research council's funding page, but that might be confusing as the leader for the project mentioned there is not Kennair. I was thinking about adding the study protocol that was sent to the research council which includes all the names but since it is written in norwegian I didn't do it. I'm in a bit of brain fog today..

    Edit: I added the link to the protocol and some more info for clarity. Kennair is the main supervisor at NTNU, but as this is a public actor ph. d project there is also a supervisor/mentor at the public actor institution (which is the one listed at the research council's page).
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  13. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,290
    Location:
    Canada
    This all really sounds like things they easily should have planned for. If the plan is "paint myself in the corner" you can't really use the fact that you are stuck in a corner as an excuse for being stuck there. This is typical for BPS but totally inexcusable of journals and various oversight and funding bodies to be OK with this being a systemic pattern.
     
    Invisible Woman, Trish and Legend like this.
  14. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,290
    Location:
    Canada
    Pretty much :)

    Although I think of it more as "energy efficient". I have to say it comes in handy when having to deal with the ME monster, I was energy efficient before I had to be.
     
  15. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    Jørn Tore Haugen has written a letter to Dagbladet criticising their article. It's also available as a guest blog at Sissel Sunde's blog "Life With ME By Sissel".
    The letter is available in both Norwegian and English.

    Simplifying, one can say that Wyller, Flottorp, etc. builds their line of arguments, and for which Dagbladet makes speeches, on 2.3% (35/1499) of the total research, and neglects everything else.

    It all becomes even more absurd when none of these 2.3% studies are done on CFS/ME-patients defined as recommended by the Norwegian Directorate of Health, NAM/IOM, the CFS/ME Center at Aker Hospital, the Norwegian ME-Association and most others who have worked with the disease for a long time.


    Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet's biased reporting on CFS/ME
    Dagbladet's skjeve reportasjeserier om CFS/ME
     
    Invisible Woman, Wonko, Atle and 11 others like this.
  16. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    I like it, but I feel a lot of the points he makes are easier for those of us "in the know" to pick up on, while a regular reader would not necessarily understand.

    As an example, I could ask people in my classes at university about primary, secondary, objective, subjective outcome criteria and get a blank stare (this will of course vart between different fields of study, but one of mine is in healthcare and thus relevant for a lot of the target audience that needs to understand this). Which is a shame as precious words must be used to explain such terms and how they must be interpreted to understand the critique against many of the studies of cbt/get and the like. At least if it is to be presented in the media.
     
  17. Peter

    Peter Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    239
    Carl Sagans ECREE may have been stated with outer space in mind, but it surely points out the important principles of all scientific disciplines. Under all circumstances, one could also say that LP have some outer space touch to it.

    ECREE = Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    When dealing with LP we have the nerves and slippery tongue and words of snake oil salesmen. They claim that a study from UK proves that LP works. Among other obscure things, a minor qualitative study from Norway some years ago supports that claim. There are claims, speculation, faith, whatever, but there are absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

    Then they promote LP as some sort of cure to everybody again and again. They’ve done it long before any study at all on LP. Last few years they can point to a couple of studies that have no evidence to it.

    When confronted with unsubstantiated propaganda, they will at some point, it takes a lot to get there, finally back down and say something like, “it works for someone”. The response is, why must you be vexatious activists? All we have done is that we first say that LP works for everybody, which is not true, which you vexatious patients points out, so then we say that LP at least works for somebody. And they don’t understand why patients react? Obviously they do. It is cynicism to perfection, always adjusting wording just as it pleases them.

    They also have this final ace to sort of stop any discussion. If confronted with what is meant as constructive opinions, like what we actually do know of harm, concerns regarding methodology and other concerns. If such things are brought to attention and they don’t have any arguments left, they do this magical switch from we have studies showing this and that, to suddenly:

    We just don’t know. We need to check this out. We cannot continue to discuss the efficiency of LP, meaning that almost any study imaginable on LP are legitimate! That’s how we get rid of vexatious patients, all ethical concerns, everything! It is almost just as magical as LP itself.

    At the moment I think it is fair to say that these people claim that LP helps everybody. As above, there are inconsistent arguments. If challenged, they will at last back down and say “works for someone”, but the impression they give and want to get across in public, is that LP is some kind of cure for ME patients in general. So what they make is this extraordinary claim. If so, and if the study sees light of day, what should one demand when it comes to extraordinary evidence? I can think of a couple of things.

    - that long term severe patients that have been trying but deteriorated over years, bounce back to full work. Measured and followed up for at least 3-5 years.

    - that long term severe patients that have little physical capacity and experience serious PEM suddenly bounce back to do whatever activities without experiencing any PEM.

    - that long term severe patients bounce back to do whatever it takes that is considered normal for that age group.

    And so on.
     
  18. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    Signe Flottorp, research director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI) sent a letter to the Norway's National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM) in April this year, before the Dagbladet article. In the letter she asked them to retract and apologise for their, in Flottorp's view, erroneous risk assessment of Lightning Process.

    She received an answer from Miek Jong, Head of Nafkam (who writes in English).

    The Norwegian Directorate of Health were put on copy and the correspondence was thus available by a FOI request.

    Attached are the letter from Flottorp with answer from Miek Jong and a google translated version of Flottorp's letter.
     
  19. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Edzard Ernst replies to one of his LP blog article's commenter:

    https://edzardernst.com/2020/06/the...-unproven-hyped-and-expensive/#comment-123663

    Just spotted the abstract of the Cochrane exercise review among those links --- which, when retrieved on the PubMed website doesn't even show the link to the editor-in-chief's comment or any other hint that Cochrane decided an update and a new approach ist needed.(*)
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31577366/?from_term=cfs,+me.+therapy.+review&from_sort=pubdate&from_pos=3

    Anyone feels up to provide Ernst with some discouraging facts about the review and that most (all?) of the trials the Cochrane reviews included are having methodological issues similar to the SMILE and planned LP trial etc?

    And that actually the majority of ME research is bad science, not only if it's asspciated with too obvious pseudoscience like the magical LP?

    Perhaps the links to the Cochrane IAG spreadsheets will help?

    (Apologies for just popping in -- have not been able to catch up with the thread yet.)

    Edit 1 -- for clarity.

    Edit 2 to add: Not able to check now, but I bet all the other papers have references to the Cochrane review.

    Edit 3 to add links to the Cochrane IAG and the editor-in-chief's comment.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  20. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    Referencing the letter in Varden some time ago is just.. I don't know. It includes the lie that it was patient organizations that forced the research council to not support research at Ahus (I think it was another LP study, I don't remember). The research council has publicly stated this is not true.

    I have some other comments but brainfog :confused:
     

Share This Page