Talk:The Lightning Process

Reason To Keep

Hi, i've already added this to my page, but not sure if will show up here as well by default so,... Hi, This is my first attempt at adding something that is missing from the encylopedia, so please excuse any foolish newbie errors. The Lightning Process is a reasonable topic for inclusion in the wikipedia, as it's a subject of much interest to sufferers of m.e, reportedly achieving results that are simply unavailable using standard medical approaches. I feel the piece is unbiased, factually accurate, well referenced begining for a subject that is just not covered anywhere on wikipedia. I would suggest editing rather than removal, and welcome suggestions. Joanna2008 Joanna2008 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I think this topic needs a wikipedia good entry

Joeh9 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wyller

I've removed the following for now:

Recently there seems to have been a number of independent research articles, especially by V Bruun Wyller which appear to support the Lightning Process' perspective on the mechanism of causation of M.E/CFS, which may go some way to more main stream medical acceptance of this approach.

It might be ok, but having read the paper I'm not sure that using it isn't falling afoul of WP:OR - the paper isn't directly related to The Lightning Process, and thus making that connection is something I would be wary of. However, it is mentioned on The Lightning Process website, so there may well be a case for adding it back. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References from Bilby

Wyller 2

I noticed this quote from Wyller has been added to the Lightning process site..does it justify inclusion, let me know your thoughts
"Dr. Bruun Wyller, who is considered to be one of Norway's leading experts on M.E, says: 'Recent research on CFS pathophysiology has revealed alterations of cardiovascular regulation and thermoregulation, characterized by enhanced sympathetic nervous activity and increased secretion of epinephrine. These findings indicate a state of permanent distress response – sustained arousal – in CFS patients. Based upon our findings, we have formulated a theory of sustained arousal in CFS, which seems to correspond quite neatly to the theoretical considerations underlying the Lightning Process.' Joanna2008 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

This article needs some input from the non-alternative medicine folks, or some mention of the opposition to this therapy. Right now it's a little too close to ad copy, and tells us nothing about the "process", does not mention that it's a fee-based service, and so on.

Feyandstrange (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vikki Rimmer won the PR contract for Phil Parker, designer of The Phil Parker Lightning Process

This article had only 2 refs. The LP homepage, and an article in Positive Health, apparently independent of Parker's LP. But it was written by Vikki Rimmer who "won the PR contract for Phil Parker, designer of The Phil Parker Lightning Process," [2] More of her shameless PR can be read on blacklisted ezine articles: "1,000-People-A-Year-Cured-Of-ME-Thanks-To-A-Lightning-Strike" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.34.27 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More Vikki Rimmer

Readers might like to know that the Vikki Rimmer who wrote the article cited on the wikipedia page, and the ezine piece mentioned above also wrote about having M.E. herself, on the BBC's website. So she at least knows about what she's writing about, even if she doesn't disclose her connection to Parker in her PositiveHealth article. I agree with Feyandstrange above, it would really helpful to read a proper medical study of Parker's method and its efficacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.202.217 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it claim to treat?

Shouldn't we have something on this?

I found this, but am new to wikipedia, and don't know how to best integrate it in to the article:

People using the Lightning Process™ have recovered from, or experienced significant improvement with the following issues and conditions

• ME, chronic fatigue syndrome, PVFS, adrenal fatigue
• acute and chronic pain, back pain, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine, injury
• PMT, perimenopausal symptoms and menopause
• clinical depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety and panic attacks, OCD and PTSD
• low self-esteem, confidence issues
• hay fever, asthma and allergies
• candida, interstitial cystitis, urinary infections, bladder and bowel problems
• IBS, coeliac disease, crohns disease, food intolerances
• blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes, restless leg syndrome
• hyper and hypo thyroidism
• insomnia and sleep disorders,
• autistic spectrum disorder, dyspraxia, ADHD
• lymes disease, glandular fever, epstein barr
• weight and food issues, anorexia
• multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, parkinsonian tremor, motor neurone disease

http://www.simpsonandfawdry.com/userimages/new/pdf/Guide-to-the-Lightning-Process.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatronal (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

edited to add 'claim to' Flatronal (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we have to follow WP:MEDRS, which states that all medical information should come from reliable, preferably secondary, sources like high-quality journals, peer reviews, etc. In the case of The Lightning Process, I don't believe there are such sources. If we report anything at all on what it's supposed to treat, the wording would have to use words like "supposed", "purported", etc., which generally isn't encyclopaedic. Honestly, I think this article already borders on advertising and may not even meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Unless and until it has good-quality studies on its effectiveness, we should try to reduce or eliminate any unsourced claims of its uses or effectiveness. – RobinHood70 ^talk 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Flatronal, the source have linked to is a sales brochure. Robin, why might the process not meet notability guidelines? Span (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - to be clear I meant 'what does it claim to treat', which is why I thought the link to a sales brochure from an official rep might be a worthwhile source. Currently the article seems really ambiguous even about the claims made about LP, never mind whether any of them are true/well supported by the evidence.

Flatronal (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Span: My concern about notability falls under WP:NRVE and WP:NTEMP. There are mentions of The Lightning Process in various media, yes, but my impression is that it's not well-known outside of promotion that the creator of the process may, himself, have done. I also get the impression from various sources that this would constitute a fad cure, which would inherently fall short of the "not temporary" guideline. I'm not convinced it's not notable either, though, or I'd slap a notability template on it. :)

Flatronal: If you use wording such as "claims to treat", then yes, the brochure would be an appropriate reference. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just whacked it in. It's a bit more solid information. I'm not sure how I should have formatted it. Flatronal (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For WP:NPOV we should probably point out that there is no evidence that it actually helps with any of these conditions, perhaps with some referenced criticism. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

SW, the article does state that there is no trialled evidence that the LP works. "Claims to treat" is tricky. From the mouth and literature of the creator Phil Parker, the LP claims to cure nothing and gives no guarantees (how could it?) It is explicitly a 3 day training process whereby clients are taught to use a set of tools. It is made clear in the lit that this in itself changes nothing at all. How the clients then use the tools may well lead to change. I'd say the training is more akin to doing a French language course or being taught the basics of good running technique. It is doubtful you would improve in French or running if you didn't apply or practice what you have learnt. People with MS, Parkinsons etc have used the tools and practitioners say the clients have found them to be effective. Re MS, for example, Parker says "Due to the nature of the training we cannot guarantee results as everyone is different, however we have received a considerable amount of positive feedback from clients with the varied symptoms that many people with MS can experience." I would say it is appropriate for the article to not make outright claims as to what LP can "treat", claims that neither the article nor Parker can support. In terms of notability the LP has been taught for 11 years and been the subject of five articles in The Times (behind a paywall). NHS Online (National Health Service, UK) discusses it as an option for helping ME recovery. The article on Neuro-linguistic programming might be a good touch stone here. The Lightning Process grew out of NLP, which also has no scientific evidence of efficacy.Span (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotional literature from the same source as above says http://www.therowancentre.com/pdf/Assessment-form.pdf:

Training Agreement You should only sign this assessment form if you agree to these following statements and conditions. “I understand that the BodyMind programme is a training programme. I understand that attending the training programme in itself does not guarantee me good results, because I alone am responsible for applying or not applying the learning and techniques. I recognise that the mind and body can powerfully influence each other. I am prepared to look at and challenge my beliefs about my condition or illness. I am totally prepared to do the work necessary to get myself well. During the training I will be available for coaching to achieve success, be open to feedback and change anything that I am told could hinder my success.”

That seems in keeping with the claims made by Parker, as does the phrasing 'In promotional literature it is claimed that people using the Lighting Process have recovered from, or experienced significant improvement with the following issues and conditions:', which I used instead of claiming to 'treat'. I feel like the current article is a bit light on information, even about what LP purports to be/do/help with, and that the list of conditions had the advantage of being clear and easily understood by those coming to the page, while claims like "Parker suggests certain illnesses such as ME/CFS arise from a dysregulation of the Central Nervous System and Autonomic Nervous System, which the Lightning Process aims to address,[3] helping to break the "adrenaline loop" that keep the systems' stress responses high" are a bit wooly and uncertain. That's why I'd include the list as it was, maybe with an addition referring to the fact that LP does not guarantee positive results, and that responsibility for applying the training lies with patients. Happy to leave it to others to decide though. Flatronal (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I take your point. My understanding is that as process, LP is pitched as offering support in pretty much any condition, from broken legs to stroke to allergies to smoking cessation as it focuses on stress hormone control, (a claim I personally don't doubt, by the way). To list "hay fever, asthma and allergies, candida, interstitial cystitis, urinary infections, bladder and bowel problems" makes it sounds to me, as if the treatment is specifically tailored to any of these things. I don't want to be pedantic but I also don't want the article to sound like a biased advert. To my understanding the LP essentially does one thing - it is literally a process, a sequence you learn that can be used in many circumstances. I agree the article needs lots of work to make it clearer and to meet guidelines. Flatronal, yes, perhaps both your pdf sources, plus Parker's lit can be used to cite LP claims, however we end up framing them. Span (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I've looked at another few LP sales sites, and they seem to use similar language to "I accept full responsibility for the effects of applying or not applying this training program to my life." - I'm planning to restore the last edit, along with integrating that proviso in to the introduction. I understand Span's concerns about just presenting info from their sales materials, but think that so long as it's clear that this is the source it should give wiki readers some greater understanding of the claims made by, and approach of, LP. edit: I'm planning to cite the original pdf, and then one other site too. Happy to have others make changes, but I think this is more informative than it was before.Flatronal (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

re sciencewatcher's concerns I also added in this sentence: "There is not yet any evidence from medical trials of a positive affect for any of these conditions." I could not find an independent source for this statement. This document http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ccah/research/childrencomplexhealthneeds/chronic-fatigue/smilestudydocuments/smprotv6final.pdf says: "Even though over 250 children and young people a year use the Lightning Process as an intervention for their CFS/ME, there are currently no reported studies investigating the effectiveness or possible side effects of the Lightning Process in children." I could use that as a reference? This ASA ruling finds http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/6/Withinspiration/TF_ADJ_48612.aspx: "Because we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of the lightning process for treating the advertised conditions, we concluded that the claims had not been proven and were therefore misleading." I'm not even sure if a reference is even needed for saying that there has not yet been any evidence of efficacy from medical trials - it's hard to find sources pointing out that things have not happened.Flatronal (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think the ASA claim should be included, along with any other verifiable material about the claims, so I've gone ahead and added it. It may only address ME/CFS, but better to include some justification for the statement, rather than none at all. – RobinHood70 ^talk 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we were editing the page at the same time (I was changing some wording), but hopefully both of our changes have now gone through okay. Flatronal (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think WP:MEDRS would not have much truck with this. Promotional literature for the Magic Porridge Pot would also give glowing reports. "There is not yet any evidence from medical trials of a positive affect for any of these conditions." "There has not yet been any evidence of efficacy from medical trials". Are these not saying the same thing? Span (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

re "Are these not saying the same thing?"

It's possible I left both those statements in the article by mistake - I can't see them now. I wasn't happy with my phrasing of the sentence, and was tying to get it as 'neutral' as possible, so had a few goes at writing the same thing in different ways. Maybe I forgot to delete one of them? Flatronal (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ASA Adjudication on Phil Parker Group Ltd (2012)

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Phil-Parker-Group-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_158035.aspx

A brief summary...

Hampshire Trading Standards challenged whether:

Issue 1: The CFS/ME page, and in particular the claim "Our survey found that 81.3%* of clients report that they no longer have the issues they came with by day three of the LP course", misleadingly implied that the Lightning Process could treat or cure CFS/ME.

Outcome 1: Upheld.

Issue 2: The claim on the FAQ page that "The Lightning Process is completely unique" could be substantiated.

Outcome 2: Not Upheld.

Issue 3: The references to the NHS on the website misleadingly implied that the Lightning Process had been endorsed by the NHS.

Outcome 3: Not Upheld.

Issue 4: The ASA challenged whether the pages dedicated to each of the conditions listed on the landing page misleadingly implied that the Lightning Process could treat or cure those conditions.

Outcome 4: Upheld.

Action: The claims on the website should not appear again in their current form. We told Phil Parker Group to ensure they did not make medical claims for the LP unless they were supported with robust evidence. We also told them not to refer to conditions for which advice should be sought from suitably qualified health professionals.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Span (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unproven theory

I have added a qualifying phrase "as yet unproven" to the lead. The article does not seem to meet the standard for WP:RS and there are many unsubstantiated claims in the body. Qualifier is warranted.

Span removed my edit and I understand why, though I disagree. The sentence "Currently there is no evidence from medical trials of a positive effect for any of these conditions" is the strongest assessment of the process but is well done the page and after a ling of diseases that the process claims to help with. In the lead it states "The treatment has not been subject to clinical trials" but this is not strong enough and does not warn the average reader that the effectiveness of the Lightning Process is unproven. Further, the second sentence in the lead makes an exceptional claim article but is referenced with a self-published source See WP:SELFPUB. FlatOut 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the article is pretty strong in regards to qualifying that it is unproven and untested. That said, I don't see an issue with expanding the lead to include more clarity - it is short given the length of the article, and there are enough points in the body on this (including the Advertising Standards Authority) that could be reasonably incorporated into the lead. If the lead better reflected the body, I don't think there would be any concerns about possibly misleading people. I'll have a play later and see if I can help. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby I appreciate the RV. I have edited the last sentence in the lead to reflect the source cited. I am happy to leave it with that edit, that treatment is highly controversial. Thanks again FlatOut 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that more clarity and expansion is a good thing. My edit was more to do with language than claims. It was not clear what 'not proven' meant when the context of 'no clinical trials' had already been stated. Today's edits help to strengthen the article. Btw, Flatout, you may want to check through some of your spelling; it makes your thoughts here easier to follow. I speak as a terrible speller. Cheers. Span (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Span, I will keep an eye on my spelling (actually it's my typing that is the problem!) Whether or not benefit of the 3-day program has been tested in research, the elements of underlying theory of the Lightning Process have not been proven. This is an important distinction because if independent research shows the Process has positive benefit it does not necessarily follow that the underlying theory is proven or that the program in its entirety is of benefit. Medications can be proven effective in trials without any evidence of how they work. My edit really should have been in the body of the article under 'Background' but I'm happy with the article as it stands. best wishes FlatOut 01:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the elements of the LP are psychologically based, it seems. Is it possible to accrue proof that NLP, CBT or graded exercise work in test conditions, across the board, in replication? Psychological methods seem to be criticised for the fact that they are usually too amorphous to be 'proved' or 'disproved', per se. If this is the case then it might be slightly disingenuous to say 'there is no proof', knowing none can exist. Thoughts on this are welcome. Cheers. Span (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that it is possible to prove the foundation elements of the process are sound (with the exception of NLP which has largely been discredited) but this is not evidence that the psychological approach can produce positive outcomes for a long list of conditions/diseases. Then there is the "adrenaline loop" theory which I don't think is proven. CBT has a good evidence base, so I believe it is possible to provide evidence for psychological methods if they are sound. Best wishes FlatOut 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SMILE

This page sources that SMILE is an NHS feasibility study. Span (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read a lot of the information, consent forms etc for the study and the NHS logo is on many of them. It doesn't necessarily follow that this makes the research a "NHS feasibility study." It isn't the NHS that is performing the study. The primary sponsor of the study is Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases FlatOut 12:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It does say that the information gathered is held by the NHS and the NHS Patient Advice and Liaison Service are overseeing complaints. The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases is an NHS Trust. Span (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that data is held on NHS computers and that complaints can be made to NHS (I assume this is standard for all research in NHS Hospitals). What makes it an NHS Feasibility as opposed to a RNH Feasibility, or a WHO Feasibility, or University of Bristol Feasibility? FlatOut 12:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

help on accuracy

Hi everyone, I wonder if I could enlist your help with this entry, I'm new to wikipedia so am not quite sure of the protocol of editing but have a personal interest in this page being accurate and balanced. I'm Phil, the designer of the LP and also a researcher in health psychology, and there are a few points that I feel need attention.

1) My description, this should read osteopath and researcher in health psychology

2) The sentence in the lead para: 'The highly controversial treatment has not been subject to clinical trials[2] and a 2011 advertisement for the Process was deemed "misleading" by the Advertising Standards Authority.[3]'

Unfortunately this is both not factual, being an unsubstantiated opinion, and inaccurate for the following reasons. It is not a treatment (it's a training programme) so 'approach' is a more accurate word It is not correct to label it as 'highly controversial'- this is an opinion rather than a factual description - we need to ask 'according to whom', is this a universally held opinion? – it’s clearly not by the 1500 people a year who take the LP, the doctors and researchers who support it. This would be better left out, as someone's bias has snuck in here, or changed to something like 'there is debate in some quarters as to it's benefits' . It also has been subject to clinical trials, the outcome measures pilot is one such trial; and currently a RCT is underway with the University of Bristol. I am surprised that the asa adjudication gets such a prominent feature (twice in this piece). The research debate was quite long and complex, and the tone of this sentence suggests something quite different from the events. The sentence the ASA looked at was 'the Lightning Process might help some with some of these conditions' Although much data was presented, which the ASA stated they considered valuable, (including the data from the outcome trials pilot study, collected using the RAND SF-36 from 205 clients who attended Lightning Process seminars- independent analysis indicated that the LP made a significant positive impact, resulting in increased health status at 6 weeks, persisting at 3 months), - their opinion was that they would need to see data from a controlled trial as evidence to support such a statements. I don't know what you think, but to me 'the Process was deemed misleading' is quite a misleading summary? I would vote for this being demoted to the final section.

sorry about this, we're only on the first para...

3) Next is ‘helping to break the "adrenaline loop" that keep the systems' stress responses high.[2][6] Rebalancing is found by modifying the brain's thought patterns to reduce stress-related hormones.[2][5]’

This comes from an article I was interviewed in which I was misquoted, probably to make the science simpler. I asked the journalist for a correction at the time but it was never actioned, and now it is on the internet- but as we know that doesn't always make it true :) It would be more accurate as follows( this references the standard book on the LP 'the introduction to the lp') ‘Parker suggests certain illnesses such as ME/CFS arise from a dysregulation of the Central Nervous System and Autonomic Nervous System, which the Lightning Process aims to address, by teaching participants tools to use the mind body connection to help their physiology to improve. Phil Parker underlines in his literature that ME/CFS is a physical illness not a psychological one.’

4) Next is a section which seems to be keen to highlight the negative perspectives of the LP ‘There has been criticism of the cost of the three-day course,[7] while others have pointed to the inconsistency of the results, with some clients reporting "less than positive" outcomes,[2] or suffering from relapses after the conclusion of the training.[8]’

Of course not everyone gets positive results from the LP or anything else, but from the wealth of data from various sources, many do - those who take the training don't tend to think the cost was high cost, in fact the very opposite - yet this isn't reported here. Relapses are a common feature in ME/CFS with or without 'treatment'; but actually they are quite a rare event post LP. So am not sure why this is highlighted in such a way? I'd suggest something more balanced and accurate like 'Although there have been many reported success stories, not everyone appears to get benefits from it.'

5) 'While it is made clear that the Lightning Process does not guarantee positive results, and patients themselves should accept full responsibility for whether they improve or not' This isn't accurate and is covered extensively in the LP intro book; this reflects the actual position better 'While it is made clear that the Lightning Process does not guarantee positive results, and patients themselves should recognise they will need to use the tools if they wish to make use of the training, '

6) Almost there… As discussed earlier, the following section not only repeats the lead para but is incorrect in the reference to research and the ‘advert’ was never ‘on the air’. 'Currently there is no evidence from research trials of a positive effect for any of these conditions.[2] In 2011 an advertisement for the Lightning Process was judged to be "misleading" and was ordered off the air by the Advertising Standards Authority.[3]'

I feel something like this would be better informed;

'The best current data available is from an outcome trials pilot study which collected data using the RAND SF-36 from 205 clients who attended Lightning Process seminars. On analysis indications were that the LP made a significant positive impact, resulting in increased health status at 6 weeks, persisting at 3 months, and demonstrating improvements in all areas that were covered by the RAND SF-36 questionnaire. However the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) requires data from 'controlled research trials' to back up statements such as 'that the Lighting Process might help some with these conditions' and so in 2011 requested this sentence be removed from the Lightning Process website. '

7) An update to celebrities who have taken it should include:

Mobo award winner and Brit and Mercury Music Prize nominee Laura Mvula

Ok, there are my main thoughts; sorry it’s is so long. I don't expect you to agree to everything, but maybe it's a starting point to get this being an even better, more balanced, authoritative piece, let me know what you think. Researchpsyc (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

References from Parker

Hi Phil, thank you for your message. You wrote on my talk page that you had tried to talk to Wikipedia previously about the representation of your work and it was not forthcoming. I hope we can work out how to proceed here, in good spirits. I'm sure there are other long standing page editors who will have feedback. To kick off with, the Lightning Process does come under the WP protocols of science and medicine, there are clear guidelines about how claims can be represented and must be sourced. Self published sources are discouraged, for example. Medical rather than media (newspaper) sources are preferred for demonstrating hard evidence. This article does not exist to promote or denigrate the subject, but attempts to be an accurate, encyclopaedic article. Some of the discussions on the page above explore this (such as what constitutes 'proof'). The article on Neuro-linguistic programming, the talk page banners there and the very extensive discussion archives, should give a clear sense of the WP approach to science-orientated articles. People who are closely involved with the subject of the article are not encouraged to edit it, as it can be taken as a conflict of interest, however if there are legitimate concerns about accuracy and misrepresentation they should be addressed here or directly with the Wikipedia Foundation. I hope this can be the beginning of the conversation. Span (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's not prohibited to edit your own wikipedia page, it isn't recommended. See [[3]] for more details. Hopefully other people will edit the article. The problem is that people on wikipedia are volunteers, so I usually find that I have to end up editing articles myself as nobody bothers fixing problems that I note on talk pages. I'd recommend waiting a while to see if other people make changes, and if not then just do it yourself (but be very careful). If anyone reverts your changes, don't put them back. If I have time I'll see if I can take a look myself. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I originally reverted Phil's recent changes is that major changes, including removal of referenced material, are usually discussed on the talk page first. Span (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your input, again apologies for the long previous 'post'- from your replies I'm very hopeful that we can address some of the issues and end up with a great, informative, consistently well sourced piece Researchpsyc (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Span (now Anna Roy) says above, Wikipedia has rather strict rules regarding the sourcing of any medical claims, which are laid out in a guideline for "identifying reliable medical sources", generally referred to as WP:MEDRS. Any clinical claims that are not supported in this way by reliable medical sources can be removed. I've tagged the page as being "confusing/unclear" to readers, as it isn't clear what the programme is, beyond being a multidisciplinary clinical intervention (i.e. a "treatment" in clinical terms) which claims to be effective in the treatment of various clinically relevant conditions. So any clinical claims made definitely need to be appropriately sourced by high-quality reliable medical sources (MEDRS), and definitely not by the press (Daily Mail etc.). However, I have been unable to identify any potential MEDRS specifically regarding the topic of the page (though that doesn't necessarily mean that none exists). Instead, the page contains numerous "hearsay claims" of the type "X says Y". Given the apparent current lack of an evidence base to support any clinical claims, I think a possible solution could be to reduce the page to a stub simply outlining succinctly what the programme is. That's just my own view. To try to get more feedback, I'll refer this to the Wikipedia medicine project at the project's talk page WT:MED (although as we're all volunteers I can't promise a response) - see WT:MED#The Lightning Process. 81.147.166.111 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I provided as succinct a description of the process as I can, so there's a sound documentation of what it is...?phil Researchpsyc (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see there is a 'what is the lightning process' page on the website, so that should be sufficient for a reference. BTW, there is a broken link in the lede where it references multiple sclerosis. Reading the article, it does need a lot of work. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Researchpsyc, just be clear again, self published sources are not regarded as reliable, especially in medical-related articles. So a ref to a chapter in your book or a page of your website is not the needed cites in this context.

1) I added a broadsheet ref for Phil Parker being an osteopath. "Health researcher" sounds very vague to me. I would imagine the term could be fairly given to any med school student. I think it would help the article if we can be as specific as possible.

2) I removed "highly controversial treatment" as this isn't referenced.

-"The LP has not been subject to clinical trials". Researchpsyc says (I think) that there at least two trials. The current statement that the LP has not been trialled is ref'd by the Daily Mail, which shouldn't really be given as reliable source anyway, being a tabloid. The question here seems to be: what constitute a 'proper' trial. The ASA state "the pilot study conducted with the International Centre For Wellness Research reported positive results from a sample of 17 participants. However, we understood that the study was not controlled and had concluded that further investigation was necessary... we noted that the trials conducted by the ME Association, the Brighton and Sussex Medical School and the Sussex & Kent CFS/ME Society reported positive results but were self-assessment studies and had not been controlled. We considered that those studies and surveys did not constitute a suitably robust body of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of the LP in the treatment of CFS/ME. Because of that, we concluded that the CFS/ME page of the website was likely to mislead." I think it would be best to describe each study (past and present) with medical references. Mention the size of the study, its parameters and whether or not it is controlled.

-I changed the word "treatment" to "approach" as the LP is not a treatment.

-"A 2011 advertisement for the Process was deemed 'misleading' by the Advertising Standards Authority." This is perhaps taking a one word sound bite out of more nuanced conclusion. The ASA upheld two of the four challenges to the LP material (#1 see above). I added a fuller quote to give some context and remove the soundbite from the lead as it needs fuller detail than just one line. It wasn't really an advertisement, as I understand it, but a page from the Lightning Process website.

3) "helping to break the 'adrenaline loop' that keep the systems' stress responses high. Rebalancing is found by modifying the brain's thought patterns to reduce stress-related hormones". I have reworded this a little.

4) "Next is a section which seems to be keen to highlight the negative perspectives of the LP". Criticisms are allowed in WP articles (although hopefully with better refs than the Daily Mail). The article and its editors are not here to praise or slate. There is mention made of people delighted with the LP.

5)"While it is made clear that the Lightning Process does not guarantee positive results, and patients themselves should accept full responsibility for whether they improve or not". Reworded slightly.

6) "In 2011 an advertisement for the Lightning Process was judged to be "misleading" and was ordered off the air by the Advertising Standards Authority." Added a fuller quote from the ASA ruler (as per above) rather than paraphrasing.

7) I added Laura Mvula.

I hope this manages to address some of the questions raised. Anna (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

[here] is a ref for the clinical trial (in progress). I believe self-published sources (including blogs) are acceptable for non-medical info when you are essentially quoting a person, e.g. "x claims ...". It's similar to referencing a company's website for information about the company. Because LP is not a proven medical treatment, I'm not sure it would even fall under MEDRS anyway at the moment. In fact I would be inclined to get rid of that big long list of conditions that people have been cured from and reduce it to a short sentence. Obviously the more reliable the source the better, although as Phil says above even the newspapers can misquote. Did anyone ever refer this page to the Medicine Project? I don't see it listed anywhere, and it would be useful to get some experts to look over the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sciencewatcher. As the article was pretty much only self published sources for a long while, there was an effort to improve the objective quality of the sources (see discussion above). The list of conditions that the LP claims to treat was added to give a greater sense of what the Lightning Process actually is and its scope. (See discussion above); Not to say that the list necessarily helps. Anna (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Anna and sciencewatcher for your thoughtful comments and edits. I think it greatly improves the validity of piece. I have just a few points for consideration.

1) I am currently running an RCT as part of my PhD in Health Psychology, so I felt the title as a Health Psychology researcher was relevant, as I'm often cast as some kind of scientifically naive fool :) and it would nice to put the record straight on that

2) Could we reconsider the prominence of the tabloid opinion 'There has been criticism of the cost of the three-day course,[7] while others have pointed to the inconsistency of the results, with some clients reporting "less than positive" outcomes,[5] or suffering from relapses after the conclusion of the training.[8]'. It seems to be almost the first comment after the description, I feel it would fit better in after the final para in that section 'High profile advocates include Esther Rantzen,[6] whose daughter has Coeliac disease and ME/CFS,[10] British journalist Patrick Strudwick[11] French dancer Chris Marques.[12][13][14] and singer Laura Mvula.[1]'

3) The part that says ' suffering from relapses after the conclusion of the training.' isn't supported by the latest published research from the SMILE trial, so should be amended? - (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/415) in the study of 56 participants there is a section on Serious adverse events 'Two serious adverse events were reported during this part of the study. Both concerned admissions to hospital, one of a child and one of a parent. Neither was related to their involvement in the SMILE study. Both were reported as per routine procedures and no action was necessary by the study team.'

4) Martine McCutcheon should also be added to the high profile list after her interview on ITV this week where she discussed how she had taken the LP

5) I wonder if the section 'The UK SMILE pilot study has received some criticism for recruiting children when adult subjects are available.' should be removed as the ethical committee considered these points on two separate occasions and decided they had no basis in fact? Having it here therefore includes some parties opinions that have been found to have no scientific support or value?

6) For the record my book 'an introduction to the LP' is not self published, it's published by Hay House and as it's the definitive reference on what the process is, maybe should be included?

7)I don't think I mentioned this joint paper about the LP from Harvard and Kings college; it should be included too? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02093.x/abstract

Sorry about another long list of suggestions, I think the latest edit is really good, and I think the asa explanation is much more in keeping with their 'decision'. Thanks again for your time on this. Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This article seems so close to a pure marketing piece. The lead paragraph does not use the word controversial, and it is controversial. There are no numbers here at all -- like of x thousand people diagnosed with M.E. who tried this process, on one year follow up their status is ..., or simply x thousand people have signed up for expensive three day seminars and y% of them are better/worse/no change one year later. I have read much discussion of LP regarding M.E./CFIDS, where LP is often considered to be useless and simply a reinforcement of the Wessely school view that the disease is all in your head, so talk yourself out of it. I have not edited the page because I do not have my sources at hand, and such remarks as I am making need sources to be in the article. The other big objection to LP is that those who sign up for the program promise not to talk about it publicly, and that is not mentioned here at all. It bothers me a lot that the guy making his living from LP is such a big contributor to the article. Are other editors finding it not worth their time to add research that criticizes LP? Beyond the New Hampshire case, I mean. I am not sure it is worth my time, as the author of LP might just edit it out. I see that Anna Roy is trying to make it more balanced -- but that editor correctly wants sources for the remark, highly controversial. I think there are news articles that bring up the controversy -- but people who try LP have their hands tied as to public statements. It is hard to have a balanced article here when the web site for LP is a valid reference, but the people who come through the process cannot speak to the press or write up their experiences on blogs (which are not valid Wikipedia sources but spread information nonetheless). Is there some way to make the controversy clearer with these problems of sourcing remarks? --Prairieplant (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Praireplant: I take your points. I think we should keep it as close to neutral and well sourced as we can. As you can see above, this is not a new topic of discussion. As far as I know Researchpsyc (Phil Parker) made one edit, which I reverted. He has declared himself openly on this talk page and has made no attempts to shoe horn any content directly back into the article. The guidelines on 'conflict of interest editing' support subjects discussing article content on the talk page. I don't think Phil Parker currently is a "big contributor to the article". I personally think it's a useful process to work these questions out with Phil, if we can, given that he's up for it. It seems he acknowledges that this is an encyclopaedia article, not a promotion page for the LP and understands the constraints. I would assume good faith.

I'm trying to include what we can verify, without puff, so if you have good sources for the fact that the LP is widely regarded as "highly controversial", add them in. The article includes a fair amount criticism, including a ruling from the ASA, so I'm not sure it could be taken as "pure marketing". The article makes no claims that the LP works. I agree that plain, unspun detail on the trials and studies, past and present, would be a great improvement. The footnote system could be useful for this. A medical/mainstream "discussion of LP regarding M.E./CFIDS, where LP is often considered to be useless and simply a reinforcement of the Wessely school view" could be useful too. As I understand it, there is no outright prohibition on LP participants talking about their experiences. Phil Parker is not going to sue anyone. I gather it's more like a recommendation that 'what is said in the training room, stays in the training room,' so that each participant comes new to the LP. An Introduction to the Lightning Process says:

There's a common smear spread about the Lightning Process which is that you aren't allowed to discuss any of its contents, and you need to sign a document to ensure you adhere to this 'rule'. This is complete nonsense; it's not 'secret', as people are free to discuss any of the training tools with anyone they choose.

There is more about this here. Certainly the perception of a talk embargo have stoked people's suspicions about the process.

"It is hard to have a balanced article here when the web site for LP is a valid reference." Self published sources are only valid for "it says X" statements, not for supporting arguments. "People who come through the process cannot speak to the press or write up their experiences on blogs which are not valid Wikipedia sources". This constraint goes for all WP articles. The LP has been around for a long while. There has been a good whack of press coverage so it shouldn't be too hard to find various points of view. The article has never had a team of editors working on it, to my knowledge; only supporters bigging it up and detractors knocking it back. I hope that helps. Anna (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Researchpsyc. [For the record, the only reason I am taking a lead on the edits in this current thread, is because I did a full revert of Researchpsyc's extensive edit. These comments, above and below, are just my personal take.] Responding to each of your points:

1. "Health Researcher". In the name of calling a spade a spade, I think we could add in that you are currently doing a PhD in Health Psychology, with an independent ref to support it, as it is relevant.
2. I pulled out a 'criticism and support' section and added some further ref'd points to both.
3. "The part that says 'suffering from relapses after the conclusion of the training.' isn't supported by the latest published research from the SMILE trial". Plenty of participants have suffered from relapses after taking the LP training. The statement is supported by a ref from CBC News. I'm sure that the conclusions from one trial could not be held as definitive, negating all other evidence or experience. The best solution would seem to be to add specific detail from each trial/study.
4. Martine McCutcheon. I'm not sure of the relevance of celebrity endorsements. It isn't an article about music awards or a perfume launch. It comes across to me as an attempt to replace hard core evidence with glowing personal anecdotes. WP has a tempestuous relationship with 'in popular culture' content.
5. The article says "The UK SMILE pilot study has received some criticism". Which it did. Refs are given. It then says "This study has been approved by the National Research Ethics Service", clarifying that they did not find an ethical problem with the pilot. More detail can be added on the pilot.
6. "For the record my book 'an introduction to the LP' is not self published". It is self published in the sense that you wrote it. It would be giving expert testimony on you by you (type of thing). WP:SELFPUB says that self-published sources can be used "as sources of information about themselves". That is, not as a source to support an argument. At least, that's what I take from it.
7. We can add details of the qualitative study.

This is my personal take on the editors' comments. They are by no means definitive and not intended as such. There's a lot of information above, so I have bulleted the points to try and make it easier to follow. Hope that helps. Anna (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I added back in the to the lead the point about the LP being controversial as it is stated in the CBC News ref.Anna (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, Anna Roy. Your change to the lead is an improvement in my view, and properly supported. It is news to me that people who use LP can talk about it, because of the absence of individuals reporting their experience with LP in the many blogs, online discussion sites, and independent reporting sites. The absence of reports is a challenge to cite. By contrast, treatment under medical doctors is often reported in detail by the patients, whether perceived by the patient as helpful or just another step in the journey of chronic disease, and such reports have on occasion led to interviews in mainstream media. Thank you for linking to the Wikipedia article on Simon Wessely, which article I did not know existed. I did read all the talk page before posting. I agree that a neutral viewpoint backed up with sources is the best way to go. For me personally, there is the challenge of again finding sources that I read over time, before I can contribute directly to the text. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Prairieplant, I just did a quick google search for "lightning process blog" and there seem to be lots of people discussing their experiences. Also I just deleted some stuff from the article: the big long list of ailments cured (as it wasn't referenced, and doesn't appear on the site any more), as well as some not-too-relevant info from a practitioner's website. Right now I think the article is a lot better (thanks mainly to Anna's edits) and seems to to be pretty NPOV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the page is much improved thanks to the patience of all concerned. I also agree that POV isn't the issue. However, I am still confused as to what the "Process" actually is. There's no real description of this clinical intervention and I think there should be (unless it's a trade secret or, for some other reason, hasn't been described, in which case we'd need to state that). All I've understood is that it's something that lasts three days and draws on osteopathy, NLP and life coaching traditions. I'm also concerned about the section titled "Evidence base". First, because there's no reliable medical source that an evidence base currently exists (though personally I feel it's ok to say that registered studies are ongoing). Secondly, because much of the section really seems to be about ethical controversy (regarding research methods, etc) rather than an evidence base as such. Imo, these two issues need to be addressed editorially before the "confusing" tag can be removed. Hope this helps, 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [formerly 81.147.166.111]

I also had had a look for evidence of the long list of illnesses improved by the LP and couldn't find the webpage it was originally drawn from or any LP book it was taken from. Thanks to all for the feedback. Anna (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy issues (arbitrary break)

Hi everyone, thanks Anna sciencewatcher Prairieplant 217.42.178.17 for continuing to devote time to get this article as accurately informative as possible -I think the quoted research helps this a lot.

Can I address the recurrent 'the LP is controversial' issue... I feel strongly this is still an opinion based, and derogatory label ( it's only ref is a tabloid article by a journalist who had never observed the LP) and as such has no place in the lead. Imagine if anyone were to report ME as a 'controversial illness' just because some uninformed people (just for clarity that doesn't include me) don't think it's real, that clearly wouldn't be ok?

Yes some people think the LP rubbish, although data suggests only a few of these have taken the LP, (0.4% in a survey of 1297 people who took the training reported the LP wasn't good enough or was inappropriate for their issues http://lightningprocess.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Snapshot-Survey-for-clients-including-chronic-pain.pdf), yet there's 5 doctors documented medical opinions here http://lightningprocess.com/doctors/, who have all viewed the LP, and none of them consider it to be controversial at all. Finally, the debate mainly centres around LP's work with ME/CFS- I would argue it's very rare to find any approach for ME which isn't hotly debated - yet pacing, cbt, yoga etc aren't bulk labelled as controversial. I think it's more accurate and clean to simply say 'it has its supporters and critics' - ( although most of the latter haven't ever observed or taken the LP)

John Greensmith is one of the latter, and I'm not sure why his particular opinions have a place here; last time I checked he's not taken or observed the process, and his soundbite includes the 'responsibility' point we had ironed out in a previous edit.

Finally the statement ' Some Chronic fatigue syndrome/ ME patient support groups strongly object to the implication that the disease has psychological causes. [3]' has also returned in this edit. This isn't accurate, I don't consider ME to have psychological cause, I am not part of the Wessely school of thought, I think it's a physical illness, which can be helped by using a pyscho-neuro-immunological approach to assist physiological recovery.

I'd be interested in people's thoughts on all this... and Prairieplant I am very happy to discuss any concerns you have about the LP and answer any questions, as the amount of disinformation out there makes it quite difficult to get a true picture sometimes - all the best Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We tend to include what can be verified by mainstream sources. The 'controversy' line in the lead is currently supported by refs from CBC News (Canada) and the British Medical Journal, not tabloids (as was). It is opinion, in some senses, of the authors of the (mainstream) articles, but that is how the citations system works. As the LP is a medical intervention (kind of), I think it's fair enough to say in the lead that there is no clear evidence base for its efficacy and widespread disagreement about it. ME/CFS is regarded in some quarters as controversial. This is mentioned in the lead of the Chronic fatigue syndrome article. Editors try to maintain a third party distance from the writing. We should not be interested in editorialising content. The CBT article has a criticisms section and NLP is very much termed as controversial. John Greensmith is mentioned in the WP article because he is discussed in the mainstream press as a spokesman for a patient advocacy group. You may or may not think that ME/CFS has some psychological causes but the reference supports the fact that some ME/CFS groups believe that's what the LP is designed for. I hope that clarifies some of the points. Anna (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anna. Unfortunately the 'it's controversial' opinion has now become self perpetuating. Zoe Cormier used it to spice up her original tabloid piece, which became the basis of her CBC piece, which probably helped inform the BMJ, and so on, in spite of the various pieces of overwhelmingly positive research and medical opinion to the contrary; I thought the previous lead edit without it struck a better informative balance.

Whilst I agree John Greensmith's quote is mentioned in the papers, as it's been shown to be untrue and inaccurate, does it warrant inclusion? I also question if the 'ME patient support groups strongly object to the implication that the disease has psychological causes.' quote really belongs here, as it's not a valid argument against the LP as it the LP doesn't imply that at all, and if fact concurs with them. My issue with it's inclusion is that it unfortunately perpetuates another of the key pieces of misinformation about the LP that we are trying to generally address. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on this, thanks Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

CFS itself is controversial, and any psychological treatment such as CBT is very controversial for the simple reason that many patients don't like the idea that CFS could be psychosomatic. Now given that LP uses "gentle movement, meditation-like techniques and mental exercises" I think it's fair to say that it is a psychological treatment. That's not to say that psychological treatments don't result in physical changes in the body - they certainly do. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the crux of this point is the LP is a 'pyscho-neuro-immunological approach' trying to change physiology using neurological retraining -but that's not to be confused with the suggestion 'the disease has psychological causes' - one is about an approach to access change the other about causation Researchpsyc (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A similar argument is also used by some CBT practitioners, who say that it aims to just help people cope with the illness rather than curing it, and that CBT is also used for cancer. Anyway, the fact remains that many patients don't like any kind of treatment like that for CFS no matter what theory you give for causation, and it is well referenced. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a question of patient choice, which is another matter, albeit a relevant one. We always need to be careful to identify what we're talking about and on what level. Every disease has a psychological dimension as well as physiological ones. And etiology can be mixed, with different components in terms of underlying causes, triggers, aggravating factors, etc. For instance (to take something a bit less controversial than CFS), chronic low back pain may have one or more underlying biomechanical causes (including build, posture, lifestyle/occupational factors, physical trauma, etc) but depression is itself a risk factor and can also aggravate the symptoms. And the chronic physical condition of back pain, in turn, is a major risk factor for depression. So, it's complex... We can't just talk about a disease being either physical or psychological; and quite often causes are multifactorial. If a clinical intervention helps me cope in everyday life then that may be beneficial, even if it is not effective as a treatment for the underlying condition. (Or it may be effective as a curative treatment; or not, as the case may be.) 217.42.178.17 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that yes, all this is highly emotive stuff, complex and the etiology is difficult to trace. Researchpsyc, I take your point about ostensibly reliable sources being wrong. To some extent WP reports what sources say, and is not much interested in presenting 'Truth'. As the LP is fairly new, there is not much written in text books (that I can find), so we have to rely on studies, journals and news reports. Anna (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that perhaps I should add that questions regarding "verifiability"/"truth" have caused much debate. Wikipedia is particularly concerned to avoid providing unvalidated medical information -- hence the restrictive guidelines for identifying reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Per MEDRS, I have removed [4] content regarding results reported in primary medical sources (while leaving some references regarding the existence of individual studies). 217.42.178.17 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

217, could you clarify for me the rationale for removing most of the detail of the studies/research. Is it because the sources are not strong enough (hence unvalidated) or that they are primary documents?Anna (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they all completely fail MEDRS (and on methodological grounds, they refer to details of observational studies which are not informative on therapeutic efficacy). I can virtually guarantee that they would be removed by any experienced editor of medical content on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Anna (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

'Article is confusing' banner

An IP wrote above:

I agree the page is much improved thanks to the patience of all concerned. I also agree that POV isn't the issue. However, I am still confused as to what the "Process" actually is. There's no real description of this clinical intervention and I think there should be (unless it's a trade secret or, for some other reason, hasn't been described, in which case we'd need to state that). All I've understood is that it's something that lasts three days and draws on osteopathy, NLP and life coaching traditions. I'm also concerned about the section titled "Evidence base". First, because there's no reliable medical source that an evidence base currently exists (though personally I feel it's ok to say that registered studies are ongoing). Secondly, because much of the section really seems to be about ethical controversy (regarding research methods, etc) rather than an evidence base as such. Imo, these two issues need to be addressed editorially before the "confusing" tag can be removed. Hope this helps, 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [formerly 81.147.166.111]

I wanted to pull this out for separate discussion. The 'article is confusing' banner is up because there is no description of the actual clinical intervention or stages of the process. I changed the title of the 'Evidence' section to 'research' as it more accurately describes the current content. Anna (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added some limited descriptive information extracted from [5]. However, it's still not clear to me what the intervention consists of (presumably not just postural training?), and in particular quite what NLP has to do with it. So I'm still confused. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a better description straight from the website. I believe it is acceptable to use a self-published source in this instance. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, apart from the last sentence, the quotation reads to me like an advertisement rather than a description. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the first part. Never mind, I see it has been edited. I don't understand the weasel words tag in this instance. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the "gentle movement" is connected with osteopathy, while the "mental exercises" etc may be the link with NLP. I think this needs clarification. (And where/how is neuro-linguistic programming intended to fit in?) 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Anna Roy, I think the article is becoming clearer and less confusing with the recent changes. Sciencewatcher, that was a good idea to make that search, wish I had thought to do it. Removal of the long list of conditions treated is a huge improvement to the article, as are the clearer section titles. The article will be better with a sourced, precise description of the treatment method, once such a thing is available. It is impressive how rapidly an article improves with a good editor sticking to the rules of neutral point of view and reliable sources, Anna Roy. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Following today's changes I feel the the "confusing" tag (which I was originally responsible for) can go. —217.42.178.17 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PrairieP, but this is very much a team effort. Good to know there are some experienced medics and experienced, long standing editors in the current editing team. Thanks to Phil, also for being respectful of the WP guidelines - it's a lot to get one's head around in a short period. Best wishes Anna (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone involved in keeping this on track, especially talk. I think is in good shape as a balanced critical/supportive/informative piece. I was working on a overview, which I still will, but I think the current overview description is pretty good. There's a little typo here 'can affect their own physiological and physiological responses in controlled, measurable and repeatable ways.' I think? Thanks again Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a typo. What should it be? The 2010 book doesn't have a google books preview. I had a look at the 2012 book, page 21 it says "learn to influence those physical and physiological patterns", so I'll make that change. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes indeed, that was the result of a misreading by me (sorry!). For now, I've removed the word "physical". 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis, etc?

Based on the website he lead mentions that the intervention has been used with multiple sclerosis. All mention of this has now been removed from the main text (along with a host of other clinical conditions). This is currently pretty confusing. For instance, readers are left to wonder whether the rationale for the 'treatment' of MS is the same as that outlined for CFS. And if so, whether the rationale is hypothesized to be of potential therapeutic benefit in a number of conditions which may share certain characteristics. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be addressed if a clear description of the process/tools is given. (re the above section). Anna (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. At the moment, mention of MS has got lost in the changes to the page. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede to more accurately reflect what is said in the refs. Currently we only have refs that say it helps CFS, fibromyalgia and back pain (both from Cormier, and from the testimonials on the website, but Cormier is a more reliable source for this). --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

HI I'm not sure who's editing what at the moment :), but the removal of piece about 'there is some evidence base' to the ' absence of evidence of efficacy' seems a bit strong. Even the asa noted the evidence supported that the LP made positive change, as does the outcome measures data... I am imagining things or is the article slowly being edited back to how it was to start with??

Also as mentioned before I am happy to provide a succinct description of the process. Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think a succinct description of the process would indeed be very useful, though the problem might be how to source it in line with Wikipedia's general reliable sourcing guidelines. One solution might be for you (i.e. Phil) to place a description on the LP website, which we could then refer to / quote from. (I think, though I can't altogether guarantee, that would be considered acceptable in the circumstances.)

• An evidence base for clinical efficacy depends on the existence of results from randomized trials. In the absence of that, in practice, no substantial evidence base exists for efficacy (observational data would be considered relevant here only for building efficacy hypotheses to be tested by RCT).
  217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

talk.

• I'll look into adding something to the website to use as a ref
• Can the lead sentence about research at least reference the fact studies are underway otherwise it paints a very one-sided jaundiced view of the LP ?Researchpsyc (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, for a start I've split the sentence you refer to in two [6]. I've also mentioned that a trial has been registered [7]. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 217.42.178.17, I think sets the research position out wellResearchpsyc (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Description (arbitrary break)

I have got hold of a copy of Introduction to the Lightning Process published by Nipton in 2010. I have added a more detailed description of the process and its steps from there. I dare say the different editions of the book over the years vary quite a bit. This edition (2012) is on full preview at Googlebooks but seems different to the 2010 version, for which I can't find a readable link. The page numbers of the two editions, for example, do not match. Some of the WP article text that previously described the process is covered in more specific detail taken directly from the book. I added a list of conditions back in, as they are mentioned in the 2010 edition. I think it goes to demonstrate the breadth of illnesses the LP has been applied to. I think more detail given on 'emergency response' management makes more sense of how the LP is applied to conditions as diverse as depression, eczema and MS. I kept all the references apart from two from the Daily Mail and one from Youtube. This use of a primary, self published source should be ok, as it is describing what the text says, not using it to analyse, synthesise, interpret, or evaluate the material. Anna (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This has brought a major improvement to the page, imo. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Role of neuro-linguistic programming?

As a reader, I am still left wondering quite how NLP fits in. In this rewrite, the weight given to NLP (and life coaching) seems to have gone from that of a key contribution to the rationale [8] to being a supplementary technique, mentioned almost en passant [9]. Given the highly controversial status of NLP, I think this is a relevant editorial concern which needs to be addressed succinctly for the sake of clarity to readers. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Some elements of NLP contributed to the development of the process; ideas such as, how the specific type of language we use effects the type of pathways we stimulate, which affects how we process information; how verbs can be transformed into nouns (nominalisations) giving processes a sense of permanence that can make them more immune to change - but no NLP techniques from a part of it per se. It's similar to the osteopathy influence; the tenets of osteopathy inform it but there is no osteopathic technique applied during the training seminar: does that help? Researchpsyc (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's rather helpful, I think. Thanks. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

stress simplification

A quick but important point, in the lead, 'the Process aims to reduce the effects of stress on physical health' isn't really accurate, and leads to the idea that LP thinks m.e/ms = a stress illness. The briefest explanation should be something like 'aims to restore good functioning of the central and autonomic nervous systems and through that improved physical health', happy to reword that, but that's more accurate Researchpsyc (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I basically just summarised the info from the "how does it work" page of your website. We need some sort of a reference for this, so if you could either provide an explanation on your website or provide a link to a newspaper article or study explaining it, that would be helpful. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just seen there's a little overview here http://lightningprocess.com/what-is-the-lightning-process/, which is more detailed than lp LP reduces 'the effects of stress on physical health'...does that work?Researchpsyc (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I added more detail to the lead from the article body. Anna (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Typo

In my original description of the process taken from the book, I wrote "The process teaches the core idea that individuals can affect their own physiology and physiological responses". The suggestion is that both the 'hard wiring' and real world / real time stress reactions can be altered; both the body and its habits. Anna (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that concept comes across clearly in that wording. I also think we need to be careful to avoid going into detail on strong claims whose validity would be subject to careful reliable medical sourcing, which simply does not exist. In this descriptive section, I think we need to be providing readers with key descriptive information on what it is and where it comes from. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pressure group criticism/attacks on SMILE study

I have relocated all the content in a dedicated subsection (under "Research), which I've provisionally titled "Controversy" [10]. I don't much like that subheading, but I can't think of a more suitable alternative right now. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposing [11] "Public reaction to research". 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has come on really well. It's much more specific and accurate. Thanks for all your edits in the last couple of days. Anna (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Description

While the page is certainly much improved, thanks to a collective effort, greatly helped here by Phil Parker (Researchpsyc), I still have some concerns about the clarity/weight of the descriptive content. Given that the topic of this page clearly meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, I feel it's crucial for readers to be succinctly provided with reliable information about quite what the Lightning Process is. I notice we've seen sourced mentions of "meditation" (alongside the even vaguer term "mental exercises") [12] come and go. Perhaps Phil can tell us whether the method incorporates any psychotherapeutic (or other) techniques to which we can give a specific name? Adding: For example, hypnosis or suggestion (cf [13])?

My concerns partially derive from the lack of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable medical sourcing. In terms of the broader sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia content, I think the description here (from Crawley-2013) should be the most reliable source to follow.

217.42.178.17 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work for everyone on this (and kind comments 217.42.178.17). I think I'll work something up and put in on lp.com so it can be referenced - most of the actual process content is detailed and documented in my 2013 book Get the Life you Love NOW (although tailored to non health issues), shrinking down the few hundred pages to a few lines will be an interesting challenge - but I think it would benefit from my original description rather than one created by someone else Researchpsyc (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that even if Phil does have a theory about why LP works (assuming it does work), it may not be correct. If you have a look at CBT, the theories given for why it works on CFS are dubious at best even though they fulfil MEDRS. Also, given that there is no research at present for LP I'm not sure if MEDRS actually applies (as long as we're not actually making any medical claims). I think [[WP:FRINGE}] might apply here. Anyway, if Phil can come up with a succinct description that will probably help. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Phil Parker advocated the use of tarot cards for medical diagnosis

I have made an edit to reflect the background of Phil Parker. He marketed and taught a cause in Healing which included the use of tarot cards for diagnosis. It is important to be able to view The Lightening Process in this context. https://web.archive.org/web/20070615014926/http://www.healinghawk.com/prospectushealing.htm

C7762 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have copied some edits from Talk:The_Lightning_Process#Recent_research_and_page_edits as it had too many topics. C7762 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the page should not be an advert for the LP- that's why I avoid editing- but I, hope you'll agree, neither should it be a page for anti-lp bias ... the quote should be removed as it is inaccurate as it was not a medical diagnosis course, but an exploration of other philosophies and perspectives, including how on earth the Shaolin monks manage to do what they do- stuff which I personally find fascinating - however, even more importantly it has NO relevance to the LP, it's design or methodology, and I think its inaccuracy and inclusion distracts from the purpose of the page- to provide accurate, balanced and relevant information. Researchpsyc (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@BenMcNevis: Why did you remove my edit about Parker previously advocating tarot cards for medical diagnosis? It is important show Parker's history in alternative healing. I have put edit back - Please do not remove with out first reaching a consensus on this talk page.

@Researchpsyc: To be clear, from the course website the course is described as :-

"A pathway to a new career- helping you gain confidence in working as a healer with real clients so you not only benefit the lives of those close to you, but to other people around you too."

and goes on to give a bio of Phil Parker :-

"He discovered that their bodies would suddenly tell him important bits of information about them and their past, which to his surprise turned out to be factually correct! He further developed this ability to step into other people’s bodies over the years to assist them in their healing with amazing results."

and goes on to explain use of tarot cards and dowsing:-

"Using a pendulum in healing can focus your attention on the area of a client’s body that needs healing, as its usage relies on energy and changes in energy fields."

and

"In the practical session for this module, the students are required to make predictions about their client, using tarot/medicine cards and then discuss the relevance of the cards they have picked and/or treat that client accordingly."

It was a practical course in faith healing. This is as relevant as stating your are an Osteopath especially as LP is considered by many built on the Pseudoscience of neurolinguistic programming and as alternative medicine. C7762 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the tarot stuff seems to be WP:SYNTH. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

With regards the tarot stuff - It is not WP:SYNTH- I am using one source (the archive of website of course prospectus in Faith Healing Phil Parker taught). Let take just one sentence from https://web.archive.org/web/20070615014926/http://www.healinghawk.com/prospectushealing.htm  :-

"The practical section of this module combines the use of tarot/medicine cards and the use of dowsing to practically analyse the needs of a client."

This clearly shows the course taught the use practical use of Tarot cards to diagnose (or "analyse the needs of a client"). We can change the wording in the entry to something like "Parker previously taught faith healing with use of tarot cards and dowsing." if you like.

sciencewatcher C7762 I can not see the relevance of this tarot quote. It forms no part of the LP- and as its designer I am the expert on this. It only serves to distract from the purpose of this otherwise well constructed page which is to describe what the LP is, its research and a balanced critique. My past- non-lp related- interests have no place here. I would hope the editors will remove this irrelevant comment, in line with best wiki practice, as, I would hope everyone contributing would not want this to appear to be an attempt to undermine me and the LP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchpsyc (talk • contribs) 03:03 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with C7762 as to the relevance of this statement about an earlier course that included medical tarot cards. It is the earlier work of the author of the topic of the article, which is useful and pertinent. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Researchpsyc No one is attempting to undermine you or the LP. How would previously teaching faith healing undermine you? I am just trying to include accurate and relevant information (Think we can all agree it is accurate). I agree with Prairieplant that it is useful and pertinent. C7762 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Prairieplant C7762 this quote IS inaccurate and irrelevant. We can not all agree it is accurate- it is plain wrong, as I have mentioned a number of times. The course and cards were not used for medical diagnosis. I wonder if the misunderstanding comes from the word 'medicine' which refers not to medical diagnosis but to the Native American tradition of seeing the strengths of a person as their 'medicine' hence the use of the term 'medicine cards'. It is also NOT relevant as it has no bearing on the design of the lightning process, which has to be the key point - there are many aspects of my professional CV, that ARE relevant as they have bearing on the LP, such as that I am a researcher, and have lectured, in the psychology of health at London Met university and am currently finishing my PhD. I can't see a good reason to exclude these and then include a non-relevant and inaccurate quote, when wiki should eschew bias. I hope other editors might join the conversation bring some new perspectives to this...Researchpsyc (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no mention of LP in the ref, so it shouldn't be added to the article. While it isn't technically synthesis, you are using a single article that doesn't mention LP in order to push a certain viewpoint. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Researchpsyc you say it was not a medical course " but an exploration of other philosophies and perspectives", why then does the course prospectus fail to mention this and virtually every module have a section on human anatomy. The course is not some abstract course it is sold as "A pathway to a new career- helping you gain confidence in working as a healer with real clients". Your bio on the course prospectus states you worked as a healer for 20 years and "He discovered that their bodies would suddenly tell him important bits of information about them and their past, which to his surprise turned out to be factually correct! He further developed this ability to step into other people’s bodies over the years to assist them in their healing with amazing result". C7762 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

sciencewatcher how about changing the edit to "Parker previously spent 20 years as a healer." There can be no argument about this - Researchpsyc included this in the bio of the course prospectus. C7762 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See if you can find that statement in a source about LP. I've included quite a few critical sources, so you should look in those. If it doesn't mention it in any of those, then perhaps you're over-reaching. We shouldn't be out to pan Phil Parker, or to push his treatment. We should be presenting the facts with appropriate weight and letting the reader decide whether it's useful or a bunch of bunk. Your opinion carries no weight here, but prominent professors and the NHS do carry weight. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent research and page edits

Hi, Firstly, as some editors of this page may know User:Anna_Roy and User:sciencewatcher, I am Phil Parker, the LP's designer. Occasionally I pop over here to see how the wiki entry is being edited, as it's a very important non biased source of info about the LP. I make a point of not editing it, as I don't think that's appropriate, however I would appreciate a consideration of a few points.

1) new research has now been published which would be useful for inclusion; ME/CFS RCT- university of Bristol http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/20/archdischild-2017-313375 , which concludes :"The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME."

2) a published study on pain and the LP 'Evaluation of a treatment strategy' concludes: “A structured cooperation between doctor and LP instructor has contributed to significant pain reduction and improvement in the quality of life for nine of the twelve youngsters in the project. The remaining three participants had not noticed any effect, either positive or negative.” https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagensmedisin.no%2Fartikler%2F2015%2F10%2F12%2Fevaluering-av-en-behandlingsstrategi%2F%3Fx%3DMjAxNS0xMC0xMiAxMzo0MDoxOA%3D%3D “A structured cooperation between doctor and LP instructor has contributed to significant pain reduction and improvement in the quality of life for nine of the twelve youngsters in the project. The remaining three participants had not noticed any effect, either positive or negative.”

3) I feel the sentence 'Previosly Parker advocated the use of tarot cards for medical diagnosis.' has no place here as not only is it inaccurate, as I have never advocated the use of tarot cards for medical diagnosis (as can be seen from the ancient web page reference), and is irrelevant to a discussion of the LP.

Thanks for reading my thoughts- I'll leave it for the experienced editors to consider what amends they feel might help the accuracy of this entry, but happy to discuss any points raised. Researchpsyc (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If anything about the Bristol study is added, then the serious critiques of the study, its design, that it was every carried out on children, need to be included as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly reasonable for critiques by established researchers to be included - no research is ever perfect - but it's important to retain equipoise and ensure those critiques don't become the focus of the coverage of the study, as the ethics committee were satisfied the arguments raised by those opposing the study were addressed before giving permission to proceed...Researchpsyc (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This might be a good source to use. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion sciencewatcher- I'd not seen that piece- it seems one of the most un-biased and un-sensationalised in terms of reporting the research (although unfortunately its description of the process and what occurs on the three days is incorrect.)

Could we also discuss address point 3. It should be changed or removed as it it is inaccurate, as well as being irrelevant to the LP User:BenMcNevis Researchpsyc (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "its description of the process and what occurs on the three days is incorrect": I think only you can fix this. The problem is that there is no fully published description of LP, which inevitably leads to inaccurate descriptions of it. I emailed you a few days ago suggesting that you publish a description of LP in a peer-reviewed journal. At the moment it's hard for people to know what it is and whether it can be taken seriously, or if it's based on pseudoscience. For now the NHS page is about the best ref we have. --sciencewatcher (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree- we're chatting to them about it- otherwise I think it's good re the research. I've not seen your email- will look for it, that's a good idea, although it is already documented in the book 'get the life you love', and there is a heavily referenced version as part of my phd thesis (yet to be published)...Researchpsyc (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Any reference to research would need to meet WP:MEDRS standards. C7762 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Researchpsyc: Do you deny that you previously taught a course on alternative healing which taught the use of Tarot cards for medical diagnosis? The website https://web.archive.org/web/20070615014926/http://www.healinghawk.com/prospectushealing.htm might be old but is accurate. C7762 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sciencewatcher: The NHS article does not meet the threshold of WP:MEDRS. We will have to wait for the SMILE trial to be included in systematic review in a reputable medical journal or to be included in international or national guidelines before it can be referenced by Wikipedia. We have to be extra careful this page does not turn into an advert for the Lightening Process. C7762 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the page should not be an advert for the LP- that's why I avoid editing- but I, hope you'll agree, neither should it be a page for anti-lp bias ... the quote should be removed as it is inaccurate as it was not a medical diagnosis course, but an exploration of other philosophies and perspectives, including how on earth the Shaolin monks manage to do what they do- stuff which I personally find fascinating - however, even more importantly it has NO relevance to the LP, it's design or methodology, and I think its inaccuracy and inclusion distracts from the purpose of the page- to provide accurate, balanced and relevant information.

I'd be surprised that only papers included in a systematic review can be referenced in wikipedia - sciencewatcher you've been around wiki longer than me- can you clarify?Researchpsyc (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Researchpsyc: To be clear, from the course website the course is described as :-

"A pathway to a new career- helping you gain confidence in working as a healer with real clients so you not only benefit the lives of those close to you, but to other people around you too."

and goes on to give a bio of Phil Parker :-

"He discovered that their bodies would suddenly tell him important bits of information about them and their past, which to his surprise turned out to be factually correct! He further developed this ability to step into other people’s bodies over the years to assist them in their healing with amazing results."

and goes on to explain use of tarot cards and dowsing:-

"Using a pendulum in healing can focus your attention on the area of a client’s body that needs healing, as its usage relies on energy and changes in energy fields."

and

"In the practical session for this module, the students are required to make predictions about their client, using tarot/medicine cards and then discuss the relevance of the cards they have picked and/or treat that client accordingly."

It was a practical course in faith healing. This is as relevant as stating your are an Osteopath especially as LP is considered by many built on the Pseudoscience of neurolinguistic programming and as alternative medicine. C7762 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

C7762: there is a whole section about the SMILE trial, so we should add the fact that it is complete. MEDRS doesn't say we always have to have a high quality review...this is clearly a case where we can live with less, being careful what we say about it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sciencewatcher: MEDRS is quite clear it applies even to Alternative medicine. If you fail to respect MEDRS here you firstly set a precedent for other medical articles and secondly Critique of the SMILE trial should be allowed from non MEDRS sources. Please explain how it "is clearly a case where we can live with less" - I strongly disagree with this route. We should also bare in mind this was a single study non blinded with subjective outcome measures and low number of participants. C7762 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include...Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". We don't have any of the ideal sources, but we do have secondary sources. At the very least we should mention that the results have been published. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the tarot stuff seems to be WP:SYNTH. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

With regards the tarot stuff - It is not WP:SYNTH- I am using one source (the archive of website of course prospectus in Faith Healing Phil Parker taught). Let take just one sentence from https://web.archive.org/web/20070615014926/http://www.healinghawk.com/prospectushealing.htm  :-

"The practical section of this module combines the use of tarot/medicine cards and the use of dowsing to practically analyse the needs of a client."

This clearly shows the course taught the use practical use of Tarot cards to diagnose (or "analyse the needs of a client"). We can change the wording in the entry to something like "Parker previously taught faith healing with use of tarot cards and dowsing." if you like.

sciencewatcher C7762 I can not see the relevance of this tarot quote. It forms no part of the LP- and as its designer I am the expert on this. It only serves to distract from the purpose of this otherwise well constructed page which is to describe what the LP is, its research and a balanced critique. My past- non-lp related- interests have no place here. I would hope the editors will remove this irrelevant comment, in line with best wiki practice, as, I would hope everyone contributing would not want this to appear to be an attempt to undermine me and the LP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchpsyc (talk • contribs) 03:03 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I went through the article to check the url links. Most of them work just fine. I updated a few, but a few are dead links. Perhaps someone else can find a more current link for those? Or wait for bot to find it on Wayback Machine? Of note is the ASA, which archives after 5 years, and I do not know how to find the archive at all. They explain this when the article is not found on thier web site. I also used the harvnb format for the short references to the Parker book and for the long citation that is under the new section title of Bibliography. Reference format clean up, I suppose that is what I did. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This section has too many topics; discussion of Faith healing and tarot cards should take place in the section Talk:The_Lightning_Process#Phil_Parker_advocated_the_use_of_tarot_cards_for_medical_diagnosis (I have copied the last couple of comments up to there). C7762 (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Still nobody has updated the article to add details of the SMILE trial publication. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Any reference to medical research will need to meet WP:MEDRS there are no sources for the SMILE study that meet WP:MEDRS. The argument that there are no sources that meet WP:MEDRS so we can use what ever is available does not wash. There are countless medical studies that have not been permitted in Wikipedia because there is no source that meets WP:MEDRS - this page should not be the exception. C7762 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In what way does it not meed MEDRS? And even if it doesn't meet MEDRS, the SMILE section of the article needs to be updated to say the study is complete. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A non peer reviewed blog on NHS Choices does not meet WP:MEDRS, I have seen several similar CDC blogs discounted. C7762 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, as pointed out above, the article is out of date, and we should mention that the study has finished. In cases like this, it's typical to include single studies and press releases if the study is the only one available for the treatment in question. See CCSVI for example and you'll see those used. We can post on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I just added two paragraphs in the Public reaction section, based on articles and posts in September-October 2017 about the results (not the initial design) of the SMILE study and reactions to that study, plus the huge change in the US CDC's guidelines for patients, removing the psychological slant of prior versions of their guidelines (based on 1989 paper by British psychologists) and replacing it with the view that the disease is a long-term, serious illness. I hope the sources are sufficient. There is much current discussion, but sources in that section are mainly over 5 years old. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc James do you have time to give your opinion on this:-

Researchpsyc who has a financial interest in The Lightening Process has asked for this page to be updated to include more details about a research trial called the SMILE trial.

I am arguing that there are no sources that meet WP:MEDRS (which applies even to alternative medicine articles) so the research does not qualify to be mentioned.

sciencewatcher has argued that detail of the trial should be included for the following reasons. 1. In cases like this, it's typical to include single studies and press releases if the study is the only one available for the treatment in question. 2. Even if it doesn't meet MEDRS, the SMILE section of the article needs to be updated to say the study is complete. 3. We don't have any of the ideal sources, but we do have secondary sources. At the very least we should mention that the results have been published.

C7762 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment we don't even mention what the results of the trial were, so MEDRS doesn't even apply (it only applies to medical claims). However, that makes the article read a little strangely, as we have all this discussion about SMILE but nowhere do we mention what the actual results were. As mentioned above, in other articles similar to this we do include single trials if that is all that is available, if it is a high quality trial in a reliable journal, with appropriate caveats. I would also welcome other opinions from people like Doc James on how we should handle this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Making a claim that it "works" should be based on a WP:MEDRS source. I am finding zero reviews on the topic at this point in time. The foundation of science in indepedent reproducibility.
• This is the closest we have to a MEDRS source.[14] It is a published statement by a government body with expertice in health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc James Thanks for the solid reference, and for the improved flow of text in the lead, as well as better order for the article. I revised format for one ref to ASA, as an error message was generated saying some text was ignored, also added the date of their decision. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The program has also been used with chronic fatigue syndrome : NICE guidelines do not recommend it

The article states "The program has also been used with chronic fatigue syndrome." I suggest following this sentence it should be made clear that the NICE guidelines do not recommend the use of the LP for CFS. C7762 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems logical, to cite national health treatment guidelines. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of website?

What is the reason for removing their website from the external links? --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

updates to research and peer reviewed published description and suggested revisions

Hi Phil, the LP's designer here. Thanks to those who have contributed to the page over the years. You may know I comment here occasionally- but try and avoid directly editing to remove the possibility of adding bias to the piece. 3 comments:

1) A reasonable question has been asked a few times - is there a published description of the Lightning Process? I'm pleased to report there are now 2 main sources to reference: a peer-reviewed journal article that was suggested by sciencewatcher 'Understanding the Lightning Process Approach to CFS/ME;a Review of the Disease Process and the Approach'

and a book 'Get the Life you love now'- which provides full step by step instructions of the process

2) Suggested improvements to quality. Looking at the page, it still feels there are a few remnants of negative bias that we have all worked hard to move on from:

a) in the header with the statement:

'The Lightning Process is not recommended by the NHS for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome.[2]' 

The NHS relies on NICE guidelines before adopting new approaches. NICE approval requires that any new approach has to have a very substantial evidence base before it can be recommended to the NHS.

I don't think this sense of the approval process, which the Lightning Process has already embarked on, is quite conveyed with the 'not recommended' statement- as this version of it seems more damning and absolute than it is. The words 'Currently' or 'Until there is further research', would increase the accuracy. Also as a more complete statement is repeated in the later section;'While the results are promising its use is not recommended as of 2017 by the National Health Services in the United Kingdom.[2]' the inclusion in this truncated statement first para feels like an overemphasis.

b) and the sidebar referencing pseudo-science: It would be great to lose this kind sensationalism that detracts from the otherwise quite balanced page.

3) It would also be great and more accurate to add my PhD in the psychology of health to my description.

There are a few other papers in review at the moment that would be worthy of inclusion - I will let you know about them when they are, hopefully, published. All the best Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Researchpsyc If you look at the page statistics, about 25% of the added text was added by you. That is enough in my view. If the NHS does not approve this method, that is a straight and accurate statement. Qualifiers to make that statement less important, like "does not approve it currently", are not appropriate. You want to leave an impression that any day now, NHS is about to announce they do approve it, and that is not the case. When the NHS changes its view, the statement can change and not a minute sooner. The same for research papers to cite: after they are published and not before. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PrairieplantHi, thanks for your continued input on this page. As a researcher, I think balance is always important. As a result, I avoid editing this page as mentioned before.

1) You write that I want to 'leave an impression that any day now, NHS is about to announce they do approve it' I have not written that and it is not my position. I only wish the tone of the statement to be more balanced. Currently, it has the sense it has been engineered to give the impression the NHS disapproves of this approach which is not correct- and not the point of a good wiki entry which should avoid both puff AND negative bias. The second statement is more accurate and would make the piece feel less biased- something hopefully everyone would like; 'While the results are promising its use is not recommended as of 2017 by the National Health Services in the United Kingdom.[2]'

2) I hope you would agree that adding the newer published peer-reviewed papers and my correct qualifications would make the article more up to date and accurate? This paper is already published and should be included? Understanding the Lightning Process Approach to CFS/ME;a Review of the Disease Process and the Approach'

References

Additions

I've added to the description using Phil's "Understanding the Lightning Process Approach to CFS/ME; a Review of the Disease Process and the Approach". Although this journal doesn't seem to be in pubmed and wouldn't normally satisfy WP:MEDRS, I think it's good enough to just provide a description of the process.

The mention of the NHS not recommending LP seems to closely match the text in the NHS article, so I don't think it should be changed. I did a search to see if there is any other mention of LP from the NHS, but I couldn't find anything.

I'm not sure if/where we should add Phil's PhD. If it was a biography article on Phil we could do that, but this is about LP. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just removed the NHS quote from the lede. It is already mentioned in the main article, and it seems to be given undue weight by adding it to the lede. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

And a bot came along to save the citation. I did not think it too much weight to mention the view of the National Health Service in the lead of the article, but as you wish. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued input into the page. As the designer of the LP I avoid directly editing the page, yet I want it to retain the sense of balance that it has achieved through discussion in recent years. I feel the addition of the recent comments to the intro paragraphs about the BMJ and ASA recreate an imbalance in the piece that we had resolved before, and as these points are mentioned elsewhere, I feel there is a strong argument for them being removed from this section again. Researchpsyc (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I was part of a team working on a systematic review of the evidence on the LP and if helpful will post some additional peer-reviewed studies here later... -- Researchpsyc (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I restored these per WP:LEDE - the intro section is a summary of the article. The practice has been seriously questioned by both, and that's important and relevant to our readers. See also WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede currently doesn't mention the clinical trial, which takes up a significant portion of the article, so it isn't really a summary of the article. Can you fix this, David? --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just made some changes to make the lede more closely summarise the text. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

these look fine - my only qualm is that WP:MEDRS ill-favours emphasising single studies - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that study is already in the article, so it should be in the lede. MEDRS says we should use reviews where possible. If you can find a review then we can use it instead. In this case there is just one study, and we put a lot of caveats into the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again to you both for your input on this. I think the section 'due to using psychological techniques to cure what people feel is a physical illness' was removed before and should be deleted again as it is misleading and has been addressed in the peer-reviewed paper (ref 9 in the article)-as the LP agrees the illness is physical and approaches it from a psycho-neuro-immunological perspective.

I'm keen to have this as balanced piece rather than puff or negatively biased. So I would like to reflect on the statement, that 'the practice has been seriously questioned by both'. The ASA ruling did not question the LP practice but had an opinion on the amount of evidence required to mention specific conditions on a website - they felt 'there was evidence of participant improvement..but not sufficient enough to draw robust conclusions'. It also is about a website from 9 years ago and seems to have undue prominence, taking up more space than the RCT's research results, on this page IMO. The opinion piece in the BMJ was written by someone with no direct experience of the process and its policy on full availability of the materials and I don't think can be taken to represent that journal's perspective. I hope that is useful background --Researchpsyc (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I urge you to review WP:FRINGE. I also think you're getting way too promotional for the Lightning Process here. The BMJ and ASA refs clearly belong right there in the intro - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I also recommend these peer-reviewed studies for inclusion: (Sandaunet & Salamonsen, 2012)(Kristoffersen et al., 2016)(Landmark et al., 2016)

These outcome measures and proof of concepts studies also add to the evidence base for the approach and I think are worth cautiously including. (Finch, 2013, 2014)

REFS:

Finch, F. (2013). Outcomes Measures Study. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29818.24002

Finch, F. (2014). MS Proof of Concept Study. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26462.79686

Kristoffersen, A. E., Musial, F., Hamre, H. J., Björkman, L., Stub, T., Salamonsen, A., & Alræk, T. (2016). Use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients with health complaints attributed to former dental amalgam fillings. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 16, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-0996-1

Landmark, L., Lindgren, R. M. B., Sivertsen, B., Magnus, P., Sven Conradi, Thorvaldsen, S. N., & Stanghelle, J. K. (2016). Chronic fatigue syndrome and experience with the Lightning Process. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, 136(5), 396–396. https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.15.1214

Sandaunet, A.-G., & Salamonsen, A. (2012). CFE-/ME-pasienters ulike erfaringer med Lightning Process. Sykepleien Forskning, 7(3), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.4220/sykepleienf.2012.0132

--Researchpsyc (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this Virology blog a Reliable Source?

Anna Roy and Sciencewatcher Back in 2014, I wrote this: "I have read much discussion of LP regarding M.E./CFIDS, where LP is often considered to be useless and simply a reinforcement of the Wessely school view that the disease is all in your head, so talk yourself out of it."

Now in 2020, David Tuller has written about Lightning Process and posted his article in the Virology blog, a usual place for him to publish. Tuller has a DrPH, meaning a doctorate in Public Health and he is a journalist, teacher of journalism in public health University of California, Berkeley; his bio is here. His current article is here. He has had one or two articles in The New York Times, but they were strictly about M.E. That is how I know about him. Plus the Virology blog is always interesting.

There is an online wiki called the MEPedia, for topics about M.E., and the article on Lightning Process here has many sources of the type and viewpoint that I was mentioning. I do not know if anything useful comes from it, for this article, as to reliable sources on views of LP. Are any quotes or sources useful from either of these two links? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source has appeared. I do not want to cite it if it is not a reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia. The article here is the pertinent article, and the Coda lists its contributors, editors, purpose, etc. at links on the bottom of the web page. Is this source quotable in this article, Sciencewatcher and Anna Roy? -- Prairieplant (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

NHS

Hi all, I'm new to WP editing, but see that edits are welcomed in the WP community. I see there is a high standard the WP is requesting that editors adhere to, and this includes that "Information in articles needs to have references that show where that information came from". The other requirement is that the editors should have no conflict of interest. The material presented should be 'neutral' and not have an agenda beyond presenting the facts. I have taken an interest in the LP, but have no conflict of interest. I am a physician who have been involved in clinical research for nearly 3 decades at a university hospital. I feel I'm well qualified to contribute to editing this page. I started my editing 2 days ago, and justified my edit by stating the fact that there was a misleading quote for a statement. The statement had a reference to a an article that did not address the claim made. To my dismay 'David Gerard' reverted my edit without a comment, so let me ask: is this OK? If I point out a deficiency, should not this be addressed? Is OK just to revert the edit without a justification? Who is the arbitrator for this? It appears to me that for his page to be improved there has to be room for a new contributing editor to make changes as long as they are justified. The statement: "but it is not recommended by the NHS" following the sentence: "A clinical trial in 2017 found that Lightning Process was effective when added to treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome" seems out of context. Do we know that the NHS has evaluated the LP? If so, do you have a reference? If not, I suggest this statement be deleted. To use the reference to the research study (2) is not only misleading, it's directly wrong and does not meet the standard I see in the WP guidelines.

Please educate me if I have misunderstood! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&Health (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The cite to the NHS not supporting it is literally in the article text - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Editorial remarks do not belong in the article, Science&Health. Save your commentary for this Talk page. The opening paragraphs of the news article states that the NHS does not recommend Lightning Process. The article by Crawley et al is very controversial, with people requesting the article be retracted by the journal, its data analysis questioned in detail. I do not deny your personal experience; however, regardless of your personal experience, journal articles are the reliable sources for Wikipedia medical articles.

The entire approach of the NHS in the UK to treatment of M.E. is controversial, because it was relying on data from a study that has been shown to be improperly analyzed and those results by others, once the data were released, were published. What the NHS does recommend for M.E. is responsible for much harm to patients, particularly from Graded Exercise, and is not supported by the study on which they rely. That study, and the Crawley et al study both failed to measure function of the patients, either as, for example, "returned to work full time" or as "patients now walk 10,000 steps a day" or any other quantitative measure of daily function for the participants in the respective studies. --05:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Revision by me --Prairieplant (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Anna Roy and Sciencewatcher and other editors of this page, NICE in the UK has issued new draft guidelines regarding treatment of M.E./CFS, which can be found here. In Section 1.11.16 beginning on page 27, they say this –

1.11.16 Do not offer people with ME/CFS any therapy based on physical activity or exercise as a treatment or cure for ME/CFS

•generalised physical activity or exercise programmes–this includes 3programmes developed for healthy people or people with other illnesses

•any programme based on fixed incremental increases in physical activity or exercise, for example graded exercise therapy

•structured activity or exercise programmes that are based on 8deconditioning as the cause of ME/CFS

•therapies derived from osteopathy, life coaching and neurolinguistic programming (for example the Lightning Process)

I removed the line numbers in the NICE text in the copy here. These are a draft and out for comment, and may be revised. They are dramatically different from prior NICE guidelines, which relied on the biopsychosocial approach rather than seeing it as a physical disease. There are other pertinent points regarding the treatment of children with M.E./CFS. Many patients are pleased with this clear-cut change, moving in a better direction, keeping up with published scientific results and best clinical practice, but I suppose that is a side issue here. The draft guidelines might be cited until the final version is released. NICE applies to England and Wales, and then they work with Scotland and Northern Ireland for consistency in the UK, as I understand things, as non UK resident. I understand that the Netherlands follows the old UK approach, and we all expect it to follow this new set of guidelines soon. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes of view by discredited KCL psychiatrists now their pet theory is disproven

I cannot reference this by a simple link to another page, as I received this post from a listserv. The Wessely school refers to a group at King’s College London of psychiatrists who conducted and expensive study meant to test their pet theory on M.E. but they were not willing to accept that the study would disprove their theory and that their approach led to harms to patients, lifelong harms. The author of the blog, Marks, is a medical journal editor for Journal of Health Psychology. His previous post describes the discredited work and the journal articles published on how the expensive study cheated in publishing results unsupported by the data they collected, data not shared in the publications. They did not and do not understand scientific method. The UK NIH has issued new guidelines on M.E., and those guidelines specifically exclude Lightning Process. The second text is from a Norwegian blog, where someone who took the LP described its steps, in 2010. Tom Kindlon, who posted these two sets of text + links lives in Dublin, is a patient with M.E., who has skills in data analysis and has published as a co-author both letters to the editor and articles showing the results of the analysis once the data were released under a FOIA request.

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:29:34 +0000 From: Tom Kindlon <tomkindlon@gmail.com> Subject: RES,MED,NOT: ME/CFS and the Lightning Process

[Dr Marks is the editor of the Journal of Health Psychology.]

ME/CFS and the Lightning Process (March 15, 2021 4 Minutes)

"Here I review research by the Wessely School on the Lightning Process (LP). LP is a pseudoscientific cult founded by Phil Parker, a Tarot reader, specialist in auras and spiritual guides, and an osteopath. It has triggered a spate of shoddy evidence and false claims that brings a new low level to the checkered history of ME/CFS research and care, and takes the Wessely School with it to rock bottom." https://davidfmarks.com/2021/03/15/me-cfs-and-the-lightning-process/

---

Tom's comment: A useful piece but I think further info about what is actually involved in LP (such as the piece below) would have strengthened it.

Ignoring symptoms & behaving like you are well is unfortunately very dangerous in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ---

---

· Believe that the Lightning Process will heal you.

· Tell everyone that you have been healed.

· Perform magical rituals such as standing in circles drawn on paper with positive keywords inscribed.

· Learn to render short rhymes when you feel the symptoms, no matter where you are, as many times as necessary for the symptoms to go away.

· Speak only in positive terms and think only positive thoughts .

· If symptoms or negative thoughts occur, extend your arms with the palm of your hand pointing outwards and shout “ Stop! «.

· You are responsible for having ME. You choose to have ME yourself. But you are free to choose a life without ME if you want to.

· If the method does not work, you are doing something wrong.

Description is from: https://translate.google.no/translate?hl=&sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftjomlid.com%2F2010%2F07%2F13%2Fen-analyse-av-the-phil-parker-lightning-process%2F&sandbox=1

https://tjomlid.com/2010/07/13/en-analyse-av-the-phil-parker-lightning-process/

- - Prairieplant (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please limit discussion to relevant reliable sources. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher I think the links point to relevant reliable sources. I had not understood why KCL professors who are connected with the views first stated by Simon Wessely, and then Peter D White and others were becoming supportive of Lightning Process and the remarks of David L. Marks, and the articles he cites make that clearer to me now. I am sorry if you find the post not pertinent to this article. -- Prairieplant (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Process" was still around in 2024- It was apparently approaching Long Coivd patients.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69040592 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement

A lot of the wording on the page reads like it has been looked over by the marketing team of the Lightening Process. There are dead links to 'testimonials' and quotes from patients. I have removed the items that are referenced by broken links and removed the random testimonials thrown in. But this page really needs a work over to avoid the grifters trying to convince people this is real. 212.241.229.74 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File on Four

The description of the File on Four piece is being embellished with, in my view some pretty serious original research and WP:SYNTH by Verity&Science1, with both me and Odobert reverting (old version, [Verity's version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lightning_Process&direction=next&oldid=1225769051]). Non of the claims added about the program are supported by sources added (for example I fail to see how you can call something controversial in wikipedia voice without providing a source which says so). I have my doubts overall about whether this piece should be mentioned at all, but it certainly shouldn't be presented like this. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the BBC investigation is worth mentioning as it exposed some problems with the LP and includes expert commentary from Dr Camilla Nord and Prof Danny Altmann. Perhaps we should use another quote from these experts that appears less offensive (i.e. instead of the 'bollocks' statement from Nord). I also had the impression that the changes by Verity&Science1 were mostly criticism and comments on the BBC investigation rather than info taken from it. Odobert (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph does just need to be NPOVed, as it omits the comments from Nord that the theory that stress can cause symptoms is valid. Recommend anyone who wants to edit it listen/read that entire section of the interview. Also I noticed the Hawkes quote that the method is secretive, but it's not...the entire method is laid out in detail in Phil's book. Probably worth mentioning that fact. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems this is obvious quackery/fraud. RS says so; Wikipedia reflects that. Apologist come here to try and skew the article otherwise. It's the old dance. WP:NPOV and particularly WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS apply. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be quackery/fraud, as it's supported (to a certain extent) by science. The issue is more around how they apply their method, as it includes some elements of pseudoscience. And as I mentioned on Verity's talk page, it looks like they may have a conflict of interest and would be better posting their comments and suggestions on this talk page. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)