Understanding the Lightning Process Approach to CFS/ME; a Review of the Disease Process and the Approach

Adrian

Adrian

Administrator
Staff member
Parker has written a Lighting process paper
Introduction: The Lightning Process (LP) is a neuro-physiological training programme based on self-coaching, concepts from Positive Psychology, Osteopathy and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). It has a developing evidence base for its efficacy with a range of issues, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), but little has been published about its hypothesis on the disease processes, and its approach to this disabling disease.
Objectives: This paper aims to resolve these gaps in the research and contextualise the approach within current theories and research into the disease.
Methods: A literature review was undertaken of the published evidence supporting the main current models of aetiology and disease process for CFS/ME. An evaluation of the LP’s conceptualisation of the aetiology of the disease and the hypothesis behind its approach was undertaken, through a review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with the programme’s original researcher (this paper’s lead author). These models were then compared to identify similarities and differences.
Results: The review identified that the LP adopts a multifactorial, multisystem disease process for the disease, which is well aligned with current research and established conceptual frameworks for CFS/ME pathology. It identified that the LP shared the established perspective that the illness is a physiological, and not a psychological, one. It found the LP applies a self-regulation approach to neuro-physiology processes to influence the physical disease process.
Conclusions: This paper resolves the identified gaps in the research and clarifies the hypotheses behind this approach, which has been identified by the evidence base as providing successful outcomes for some. It is hoped this clearer understanding of the approach will assist researchers, clinicians and those with this disabling disease to identify some additional options for potential recovery.
Click to expand...

Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy, vol. 21, no 2 (82) June 2018

https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_of_the_Disease_Process_and_the_Approach
 
"An evaluation of the LP’s conceptualisation of the aetiology of the disease and the hypothesis behind its approach was undertaken, through a review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with the programme’s original researcher (this paper’s lead author)."

I thought about what I think by reading what I've written and possibly talking to myself.
 
Oh good grief. There's so much wrong with that extract that it's impossible to know where to begin. I guess one thing I can pick to say is: what 'evidence base'?

Also, I think he uses a lot of big words but doesn't really know what they mean.
 
He's making some wild claims:

- That LP training allows people to "develop an awareness of which neurological pathways they are activating" and whether they are healthy or unhealthy.
- That "cognitive, linguistic, embodied cognition and gentle movement techniques" can be used to interrupt those pathways.
- That "structured and detailed re-vivification of appropriate reference desired states/memories" "activate new pathways that encourage improved physiology and restoration of homeostasis."
- That LP can change the physiological response to exercise in ME/CFS.

And probably a few others. He cites a few articles in support. I spotted the familiar names Selye, Langer, Carlson in the references. I'm too tired to go through them but very much doubt that any of them really support his claims.

Importantly, I did not see any reference to an experiment that shows LP change change physiology in any (meaningful) way.

The abnormal response to exertion in ME/CFS is objectively measurable. He risks having his claims actually tested and falsified.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t strictly related but as we’re discussing the validity of the lightning process I thought I’d contribute this thought.

There are lots of people who say they’ve benefited, even been cured by the lightning process. I know of two myself, both of whom are fit and well, and working full time. What are we to make of this? I know that they don’t have the same illness as me (whatever my illness is anyway), but they were clearly ill and are now well.

The only reason I’m so interested in this, is if diagnosis / testing wasn’t such a mess my hunch is that these people would be put into a different pile from people with my specific presentation of symptoms.
 
@Dr Carrot did they convincingly improve exactly at the time of LP? There’s two confusing aspects: genuine/classic ME can fluctuate wildly and sometimes this might coincide with having done something (coincidentally) specific AND once someone has done LP you can no longer trust anything they say about how they’re feeling. If you have severe ME you obviously can’t fake being active but if you have mild ME this might be possible.

Edit: worried I sounded too dismissive of people’s experience. I mean that once you accept a protocol which tells you not to tell other people you feel unwell, if people know that’s what you follow they will stop trusting your words as the means to tell how you are doing (because you say you’re doing well regardless of how you actually feel). It is a step beyond placebo and more into cult territory.
 
Last edited:
Dr Carrot said:
There are lots of people who say they’ve benefited, even been cured by the lightning process. I know of two myself, both of whom are fit and well, and working full time. What are we to make of this? I know that they don’t have the same illness as me (whatever my illness is anyway), but they were clearly ill and are now well.

The only reason I’m so interested in this, is if diagnosis / testing wasn’t such a mess my hunch is that these people would be put into a different pile from people with my specific presentation of symptoms.
Click to expand...

With a fluctuating disease its hard to draw conclusions from a few cases which is why trials are needed. My feeling is that sometimes as people start to improve and feel a bit better they look around for new things to try that may help them. Then they try these and attribute improvement to them but this is where I think they may have improved anyway. So I'm always cynical about recovery and improvement stories that attribute the improvement to a cause. I did come across one person who was ill for two years and then just improved and was then well (he didn't mention any particular reason).
 
Jenny TipsforME said:
@Dr Carrot did they convincingly improve exactly at the time of LP? There’s two confusing aspects: genuine/classic ME can fluctuate wildly and sometimes this might coincide with having done something (coincidentally) specific AND once someone has done LP you can no longer trust anything they say about how they’re feeling. If you have severe ME you obviously can’t fake being active but if you have mild ME this might be possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah in both cases they worked as marketed, I.e. a lightning cure. I just don’t know what to make of it...can you have ME-like symptoms that can be corrected by some sort of psychological process? The reason I bring it up is that as long as these genuine stories exist the waters will continue to be muddied regarding diagnosis and treatment.

Edit: I’m sorry for taking this thread off track a bit - please keep discussing the paper.
 
Last edited:
Dr Carrot said:
Yeah in both cases they worked as marketed, I.e. a lightning cure. I just don’t know what to make of it...can you have ME-like symptoms that can be corrected by some sort of psychological process?
Click to expand...

As far as I know there is a long history of claims that psychological factors can meaningfully affect disease processes but it always turns out to be nonsense.

If LP can cure people in three days, it would be easy to prove that it works in ME/CFS by first demonstrating presence of PEM in patients via 2 day CPET, having them do LP, and then demonstrating improvement/absence of PEM.
 
NelliePledge said:
is this a credible journal?
Click to expand...

http://jep.ro/en/

The journal valorizes and releases studies, original research, Romanian and international scientific contributions in the field of personal development, experiential counseling and psychotherapy, therapy of unification (T.U.) – a Romanian humanistic-experiential method of standard and experiential psychodiagnosis, applied in the assistance offered to adults, children, couples, families, transgenerational relationships, organizations and communities.


00_Coperta_revista_SPER__home_site_v2.jpg


The journal promotes a holistic, unifying and integrative view, spirituality, freedom, creativity, tolerance and efficiency, individual and collective responsibility. It supports all efforts aimed at the practice of an ecological and transforming psychology in order to improve the human and health condition. It also promotes up-to-date research in the clinical and extra-clinical field, in the recovery and prevention of psychic and psycho-somatic dysfunctions and disorders. In addition to these, the journal supports psycho-social integration and adjustment, the harmonization and stir of the collective evolution process. It addresses the specialists from the humanistic fields (psychology, psychotherapy, counseling, medicine, social care, sociology, psycho-pedagogy), as well as all those interested in the dynamics of health, experiential education and human transformation.

The Scientific Board includes prestigious university teachers and experts from Romania and other countries such as France, Germany, United States of America, Australia, Netherlands, Italy, Rep. of Moldova, Israel and Spain.

The journal is open for publishing to specialists from all over the world.
Click to expand...

NelliePledge said:
who the hell would have been the reviewers for this article?
Click to expand...

http://jep.ro/en/to-authors/reviewing-the-articles

All articles submitted for publication to the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy undergo a process of double blind peer view. The evaluation process of the scientific works (peer-review procedure) consists of the critical analysis of the scientific manuscripts, conducted by expert evaluators, members of the Editorial and Scientific Board of the journal.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom