All Party Parliamentary Group on ME reforms

All Party Parliamentary Group on ME reforms in the new Parliament, and list of members

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Zc

Update: Added since first published

1]  Clarification regarding membership of the APPG for ME by Suzy Chapman

2]  Register of All Party Parliamentary Groups at 30 July 2010

Open PDF here: APPG Register at July 2010  [< 2MB]

or here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/register.pdf

 

On 9 July, the ME Association published the membership list for the reformed APPG on ME:

09 July 2010

On Wednesday 7 July David Amess MP chaired the inaugural meeting in Westminster of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for M.E.

We are pleased to report that the decision was taken to re-register as an approved APPG and that the mandatory 20 qualifying names of Parliamentarians were obtained to enable this to happen.

For further information, including the names of the office holders, you can find the minutes of the meeting here:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/images/stories/appg_minutes_070710.doc

Open Word doc here: APPG on ME Minutes 07.07.10 

also appended.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO HAVE JOINED THE APPG FOR ME

1. David Amess MP (Conservative, Southend West)
2. Graham Brady MP (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)
3. Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
4. Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)
5. Peter Bottomley MP (Conservatve, Worthing West)
6. John McDonnell MP (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
7. Russell Brown MP (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)
8. Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Balley)
9. Iain Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgwater and West Somerset)
10. Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)
11. Sharon Hodgson MP (Labour, Washington and Sunderland West)
12. John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington)
13. Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour, Bristol East)
14. Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North)
15. Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)
16. Mark Garnier MP (Conservative, Wyre Forest)
17. Dave Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon)
18. Harriett Baldwin MP (Conservative, West Worcestershire)
19. Richard Burden MP (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)
20. Countess of Mar (Cross-bencher, House of Lords; chair of the ‘Forward ME’ Group)
21. Tony Baldry MP (Conservative, Banbury)
22. Sajid Javid MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
23. Hywel Williams MP (Plaid Cyrmu, Arfon)
24. Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney)
25. Nigel Dodds MP (Democratic Unionist, Belfast North)
26. Lord Puttnam (Labour, House of Lords)
27. Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes)

All Party Parliamentary Group on M.E.

Minutes of a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on M.E.

Chair: David Amess
Vice-Chair: Annette Brooke MP
Secretary: John Leech MP
Treasurer: Martin Vickers MP

Minutes of a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on M.E.

held at 11am, Wednesday 7 July 2010

Room B, 1 Parliament Street London

Present

Parliamentarians

David Amess MP – chair of this meeting
Annette Brook MP
John Leech MP
Martin Vickers MP

Parliamentary office representatives in attendance

Joanna Ashworth, office of David Amess MP
Richard Crossick, office of John Leech MP

Secretariat in attendance

Sir Peter Spencer (Action for M.E.)
Charles Shepherd (MEA)

Apologies:

Harriet Baldwin MP
Tony Baldry MP

1.Welcome

David Amess welcomed his fellow MPs and explained that the meeting had been called to see if the APPG for M.E. should be formed again in the new Parliament and re-registered on the approved list. He had agreed to sponsor this inaugural meeting because he was the only remaining officer from the APPG on M.E. in the previous Parliament still able to participate.

2. Election of Officers

The meeting was quorate and elected the following officers:

Chair – David Amess MP
Vice-Chair – Annette Brooke MP
Secretary – John Leech MP
Treasurer – Martin Vickers MP

David Amess explained that he would act as chair on an interim basis only because of the volume of his other commitments. He had found a fellow MP who would be very suitable as chair and hoped that this member would come forward for election to the post before too long. Meanwhile he would hold the fort.

3. Registration

The meeting decided to apply for re-registration on the list of approved APPGs. The secretariat confirmed that the criteria for qualifying members had been met with a list of 20 parliamentarians of the required party mix. David Amess and John Leech signed the application form. This will now be delivered to The Office of the Parliamentary commissioner of Standards ahead of the 13 July deadline.

4. Date of Next meeting

It was decided that the next meeting of the APPG would be held in November 2010. This would be preceded by an informal planning meeting in September to discuss the future agenda and decide how the group will operate in this Parliament.

5. AOB

The secretariat distributed copies of the legacy paper which was produced by the previous APPG and of the “Turner” paper on the APPG inquiry into NHS Service Provision for M.E./CFS.

 

 

Clarification regarding membership of the APPG for ME

There have been misunderstandings on some forums that AfME (Action for M.E.), the MEA (The ME Association), AYME (Association of Young People with ME), TYMES Trust (The Young ME Sufferers Trust), The 25% ME Group, ME Research UK, BRAME (Blue Ribbon for Awareness of ME) and RiME (Campaigning for Research into ME) are all members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for ME.

None of the above are members of the APPG on ME.

In the case of Associate Parliamentary groups, applications for membership may be considered by the group’s officers from organisations, interest groups, commercial concerns and individuals other than MPs or Members of the House of Lords.

But the All-Party Parliamentary Group for ME is not constituted as an Associate Parliamentary Group and therefore only Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords are permitted membership of the APPG for ME, and only Members of the House of Commons or Lords have voting rights at its meetings.

So the only members of the APPG for ME are parliamentarians.

From the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner:

“Groups are only required to register with us the names of their officers and of 20 ‘qualifying members’. The full membership list, including names over and above that, resides with the group and it is for them to ensure that it is comprehensive and up to date. [...] Any MP (ie not just signed up members of the group) is entitled to turn up at any meeting of the group, and to speak and vote at the meeting – unless a subscription is charged in which case voting may be restricted to paid-up members of the group.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi01.htm

INTRODUCTION

The Nature of All-Party Groups
Purpose and Form of the ‘Register of All-Party Groups’
Purpose and Form of the ‘Approved List’ of Groups
Administration of the Register and Approved List

Under “BENEFITS RECEIVED BY GROUP FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT” Action for M.E. and the ME Association are listed as jointly providing the secretariat to the Group.

“Action for ME and The ME Association both provides secretarial support (addressing and stuffing envelopes, taking minutes, photocopying).”

In the past, AfME and the MEA have alternated the task of minute taking and the preparation and circulation of minutes and agendas for these meetings but they are not members of the APPG Group and their status as organisations and that of their representatives in relation to the Group is no different to that of any other organisation that sends a representative to attend these meetings.

Although APPG groups are not permitted to advertise their meetings as “Public Meetings”, meetings of the APPG on ME are held in House of Commons committee rooms and have been opened up to members of the public, that is, national ME patient organisations, representatives of the committees of “local” and regional ME support groups and other interested parties. 

They are also open to members of the ME community and their carers, who can and do regularly attend and contribute to these meetings. This has not always been the case and the presence of members of the public is at the discretion of the APPG chair and committee.

So none of the following five national registered membership ME patient organisations are members of the APPG for ME but they attend APPG meetings, send their representives to meetings, and in the case of AfME and the MEA, have provide the secretariat function: AfME (Action for M.E.), the MEA (The ME Association), AYME (Association of Young People with ME), TYMES Trust (The Young ME Sufferers Trust), The 25% ME Group.

ME Research UK : a research organisation and registered charity (Scotland), represented at APPG on ME meetings by Mrs Sue Waddle, a former trustee of Invest in ME.

BRAME : unregistered, non membership, run by Christine Harrison and her daughter, Tanya. Both Christine and Tanya attend APPG on ME meetings.

RiME : unregistered, non membership, run by Paul Davies. Paul Davies attends APPG on ME meetings, sometimes supported by other individuals.

The names of ME patients and carers attending meetings are recorded in the minutes of meetings and their contributions to these meetings are minuted.

For the past couple of meetings, an official verbatim transcript has been prepared from an audio recording of the procedings and this has been published alongside briefer minutes. This parliamentary service has been funded by Action for M.E. and the ME Association.

It is not known whether transcripts will continue to be provided for the meetings of any new group that may be convened.

I hope this clarifies any misconceptions about policy and proceedings at these meetings and the status of the organisations and individuals who attend them.

A Guide to the Rules on All Party Groups can be downloaded here:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/PCFSGroupsRules.pdf

or opened here on ME agenda

APPG Groups Rules

Invest in ME Decline BACME Invitation

Invest in ME Decline BACME Invitation

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Z2

Invest in ME has issued a statement around its decision to decline an invitation to become a member of BACME (British Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis).

For Invest in ME’s position statement on the proposed Bath/Bristol pilot study to investigate how to recruit to a randomised controlled trial looking at the Phil Parker Lightning Process and specialist medical care in CFS/ME in children as young as eight, go here Invest in ME March 2010 Newsletter.

 

Invest in ME Decline BACME Invitation

Invest in ME recently received an invitation from the British Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (BACME) inviting us to apply to become an executive member of that organisation.

BACME is chaired by consultant paediatrician Dr Esther Crawley – who was recently awarded a grant to do a clinical trial on the Lightning process (funded with £164,000 from the Linbury Trust and the Ashden Trust) – a business which assumes that no matter what is causing an ME patient’s illness it will help cure a patient from them.

With cases of people with ME being made worse from this business the recent Norwegian film by Paal Winsents (“Make Me Well”) illustrates the danger of people with no medical training attempting to treat a neurological illness such as ME. A telling quote from a LP practitioner in that film says it all -

“…. It does not matter how it started. Sometimes people had a bacterial infection, sometimes people had a viral infection. It does not matter how it started. The Lightning Process works equally well”.

Such uninformed, non-clinical and dangerous statements being used by people promoting businesses without any medical training, at a time when the need for more funding for biomedical research into ME and the evidence to support that funding requirement is overwhelming, is symptomatic of the problems on a non-strategic, non-biomedical approach to diagnosing and treating people with ME. Meanwhile ME patients and their families have to witness this absurd waste of money.

Dr. Crawley’s views on ME aren’t those of Invest in ME’s and we have serious concerns about her position as chair of an organisation such as this.

The Assistant Chair of BACME is Alison Wearden, who is Reader in Psychology at the University of Manchester, Chair Elect of British Psychological Society’s Division of Health Psychology and Associate Editor of British Journal of Health Psychology and whose studies include “Illness cognitions and diabetes – how the beliefs which patients hold about their diabetes impact on their attempts to manage it, their adjustment and well-being”. Wearden was head of the FINE trials (click here) – a waste of taxpayers’ money which resulted in nothing of value for people with ME.

BACME has a constitution to which members have to sign up. In this constitution, which BACME requires its members to support, it includes the following-

2.2 Objectives

2.2.1 To champion evidence-based approaches to the treatment of CFS/ME, such as those provided in the NICE guidelines

2.2.4 To support the delivery of services and to enable services to maintain standards of care in the treatment of CFS/ME as set out in the NICE guidelines

4. The Executive

4.1.4 The BACME Executive will invite no more than four people drawn from National UK CFS/ME organisations which explicitly support the aims and constitution of the organisation to sit on the Executive committee as either observers or members

Invest in ME rejected the NICE Guidelines and therefore cannot agree to endorse a constitution which lists among other things the above objectives.

Invest in ME endorse the critique set out by Twisk FNM, Maes M. in their review of CBT/GET in which they state

“So, it can be concluded that the efficacy claim for CBT/GET is false. But what is more important, is the fact that numerous studies support the thesis that exertion, and thus GET, can physically harm the majority of the ME/CFS patients.

This assertion is confirmed by the outcomes of two large patient surveys in the UK and Norway, and two smaller surveys in Scotland and the Netherlands.”

(A review on Cognitive Behavorial Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS): CBT/GET is not only ineffective and not evidence based, but also potentially harmful for many patients with ME/CFS. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2009 Aug 26;30(3):284-299.) click here

The NICE guidelines need complete revision* as their current version is far from evidence-based.

The NICE guidelines have been shown to be ineffectual, biased, unusable, with ME patients eventually taking NICE to a judicial review.

For an organisation to support NICE, and require members to abide by them, let alone “champion” them illustrates a flawed and damaging basis for any claim to represent people with ME and their families. Such an organisation is likely to continue to force a continuing approach of going round in circles, obfuscating the true requirements for ME patients and achieving little of real value for people with ME and their families.

With BACME maintaining its present structure, current chairman and constitution then Invest in ME will decline any offer to apply for membership of this organisation.

It would be unethical of Invest in ME to sign up to such a constitution and Invest in ME’s aim remains to find ways other than those set out in the NICE guidelines to treat patients diagnosed with ME according to the Canadian Clinical Consensus guidelines.

Further Reading: (links provided by Invest in ME)

Magical Medicine: How to Make a Disease Disappear – click here

Lightning Process – The Falsehood of Magical Medicine – IiME Newsletter March 2010 – click here

Can the MRC PACE Trial be justified? – click here

Wessely’s Way: Rhetoric or reason? – click here

Invest in ME – Communications with the UK Chief Medical Officer – click here

Request for internal review: FOI responses Lightning Process pilot using ME and CFS children

Request to Director of Legal Services for internal review: FOI responses on Bath/Bristol Lightning Process pilot using ME and CFS children

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Yy

For background to this issue see ME agenda 5 July report:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

 

This formal request for an internal review of the Freedom of Information responses to my request for information was submitted on 22 July. The complaint has been referred to the University of Bristol’s Director of Legal Services who will respond within 20 working days (by 19th August 2010).

The University has confirmed that the research study, for which funding was secured last November, is still going through the ethics approval procedure.  The study is due to start in September.

 

To: Director of Legal Services, Secretary’s Office, University of Bristol, Senate House, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TH Email: freedom-information@bristol.ac.uk

Re: Request for a review of responses to my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act

Request for information submitted on: 16 May 2010
Fulfilled: 17 June 2010

University of Bristol’s Response of 17 June 2010 in PDF attachment in response to:

Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust/University of Bristol:

Pilot project to investigate how to recruit to a randomised controlled trial looking at the Phil Parker Lightning Process and specialist medical care in CFS/ME in children. Project to incorporate study on health economic cost of CFS/ME in children.

22 July 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to request a review of the decision to withhold almost entirely the information and documents requested on 16 May 2010, under Clause 22(1)(a) and on the stated grounds:

“This information is intended for future publication when the study protocol and other related documents are published online. It is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.”

“The study is currently going through the ethics approval procedure and this information is expected to be published around August / September 2010. We cannot see that there is any public interest in disclosing this information before that time.”

My complaint is based upon, but not restricted to the following areas of concern:

1] The “Lightning Process” is controversial, unregulated and untrialled. It is said by its creator to be developed from Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) and Life Coaching. It is marketed by the Phil Parker organisation not as a therapy or a treatment but as a “training program” delivered by “instructors” or “practitioners” or “coaches”.

Instructors are trained and licensed by the Phil Parker organisation and are not accountable to any regulatory professional body. If individuals have complaints about a practitioner or about the Lightning Process, itself, which cannot be resolved directly with the practitioner or through the Phil Parker complaints procedure, the client’s only recourse is Trading Standards.

To date, no rigorous RCTs into the application of the Lightning Process have been undertaken in adults with CFS and ME.

It is a matter of public interest that an NHS paediatric CFS unit should be planning to undertake a study in relation to the Lightning Process involving children as young as eight when no rigorous controlled trials have first been undertaken using an adult patient cohort into the safety, acceptability, long and short-term effects of the application of a previously untrialled research area.

No rationale has been provided by the research team for piloting first with children and there is very little information currently available about the study design, methods, objectives, recruitment process etc. for public scrutiny.

 

2] Children are considered a vulnerable research group. The Medical Research Council (MRC) and other institutions, for example, the Royal College of Paediatric Child Health (RCPCH), publish specific ethical guidelines for research using children.

All extracts from document MRC Ethics Guide: MRC Medical Research Involving Children (Nov 2004, revised Aug 2007)

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002430

“(1.3) Research should only include children where the relevant knowledge cannot be obtained by research in adults.”

“(4.1) Does the research need to be carried out with children? Research involving children should only be carried out if it cannot feasibly be carried out on adults.”

“(4.3.2) Have previous laboratory studies, animal research, studies with adults, or other data provided a sufficient basis for proceeding with research involving children?”

“(4.3.2) Is inclusion of children necessary to answer the scientific question posed by the research?”

Since no RCTs have been carried out in adults, there is no reliable data on the safety of the application of the Lightning Process in patients with CFS and ME.

There are concerns that with no access to robust data, the research team and the Research Ethics Committee(s) considering the application will have no basis on which to assess the safety, acceptability, short and long-term effects of the Lightning Process and are not in a position to determine that overall the likely benefits of the research outweigh any risks to child participants and that undergoing the training program would not be detrimental to a child’s current health status and psychological well-being, as a patient diagnosed with CFS or ME.

Furthermore, parents, and children considered competent to give consent, are not in a position to give informed consent because there is no data from adult RCTs.

It is a matter of public interest that the RNHRD NHS FT/University of Bristol research team should be seeking ethics research committee approval for a study using children where this is incongruent with the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for research using children.

 

3] On 16 June, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published an adjudication against a Bournemouth company following its upholding of a complaint about a Lightning Process advertisement. The ASA recorded their concerns that “the company did not hold robust evidence to support their claims that the lightning process was an effective treatment for CFS or ME. We therefore reminded them of their obligations under the CAP Code to hold appropriate evidence to substantiate claims prior to publication. 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.”

The company was advised to ensure “they held substantiation before making similar efficacy claims for the lightning process”.

The Advertising Standards Authority’s remit does not extend to website content but there is considerable concern that there are websites for practitioners offering the Lightning Process to adults and children where claims are being made, for example, in this case, that clients have “recovered from, or experienced significant improvement” from diseases and conditions which, in addition to ME and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, are claimed to include “…urinary infections, coeliac disease, crohns disease, blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes, hyper/hypo thyroidism, autistic spectrum disorder, dyspraxia, ADHD, lymes disease, glandular fever, epstein barr virus, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, parkinsonian tremor and motor neurone disease.”

The practitioner associated with the company to whom this ASA ruling was handed down had already identified himself, in March, on the company website, as being one of two Lightning Process practitioners working with the RNHRD NHS FT/University of Bristol research team and the young people, in relation to this Bath/Bristol pilot study.

It is a matter of public interest that the research team has sought to obtain the advice, guidance and involvement of a practitioner who has been subject to an Advertising Standards Authority ruling in relation to claims being made about the efficacy of the Lightning Process for CFS and ME.

It has recently been brought to my attention that therapists at an NHS Bristol CFS service are recommending that CFS and ME patients purchase Lightning Process sessions. If adult NHS patients in the Bristol area are already being recommended outwith the NHS to the Lightning Process – which is costly, unregulated and untrialled, there is public interest in the rationale behind trialling first in children, rather than adults.

No rationale has been provided by the research team for piloting first with children.

 

4] The Lightning Process is marketed by the Phil Parker organisation within a culture of lack of transparency around the process, itself, and what is required of the “trainees” who sign up for the three days of sessions, during the sessions, themselves, and once the sessions have been completed.

First hand accounts of former “trainees” report that the “process” is based on “affirmations” which invalidate the patient’s experience of illness and symptoms; that they are indoctrinated into the belief that they are “doing” illness, rather than suffering from illness, with the implication that they can “stop doing” the illness if they want to; that before undertaking the sessions they are expected to sign up to an agreement which forms part of the application process that they are “ready” to undertake and to benefit from the “process” and that also they hold certain beliefs.

It is also reported that “trainees” who have not benefited at the end of the “process” and who are not willing to declare that their illness is now resolved or substantially improved, are offered the rationale that either they were not “ready” to have signed up for the program; or that they did not properly understand what was being expected of them during the sessions and “homework” tasks; or that they had not carried out the instructions properly or that they had not worked hard enough at putting the “process” into practice.

So the burden of “failure” is placed on the patient and not on the ability of the process, itself, to “cure”, “resolve” or “substantially improve” whatever medical condition, psychological condition or “life-style issue” the “process” has been purchased for.

There are considerable concerns that children and young people are not sufficiently mature to understand what they are being signed up to by parents signing application forms on behalf of under 18s, when applying for Lightning Process sessions.

A significant number of first hand personal accounts in the public domain by patients with CFS and ME have reported negative experiences of undergoing the Lightning Process and the way in which it was delivered. Data from two large UK patient surveys carried out by the registered charities, Action for M.E./Association of Young People with ME (joint survey published 2008) and the ME Association (published May 2010), show similar levels of worsening of symptoms in CFS and ME patients following the three day “training program”, or of no improvement, at all [1].

With regard to the illnesses CFS and ME, there is public concern for the potential dangers of instructing a child or young person to ignore and override sensations of illness and “post exertional malaise”.

With no robust data from the application of Lightning Process in adults, there are concerns that the research team and Research Ethics Committee(s) considering the application are not in a position to determine that overall the likely benefits of the research outweigh any risks to child participants and that undergoing the training program would not be detrimental to a child’s current health status and psychological well-being, as a patient diagnosed with CFS or ME.

It is feasible to carry out research into the application of the Lightning Process using adults with CFS and ME but the research team has provided no rationale for seeking ethics approval to undertake research using a vulnerable patient group first.

 

5] The process through which research ethics committees review applications for ethics approval appears not to be open to public scrutiny or accountability.

There is public concern that the ethics committee(s) may not be adequately informed around:

a) The nature of Lightning Process techniques and the methods by which it is delivered;

b) the potential for adverse outcomes in patients with CFS and ME, and additionally, in the case of children, the potential for children to feel pressured to get well and to make too early a return to school in order to conform to the beliefs of Lightning Process practitioners, with a potential for subsequent loss to the family of the provision of care packages, benefits and education via LEA home tuition service.

There is significant concern amongst the public and patient organisations that the application of the “process” may be physiologically and psychologically damaging to the child and may impact negatively on the family dynamics if a child were unable to complete the program and withdrew early from the study, or if the child failed to gain benefit from the program, or experienced exacerbation of symptoms during or following the program, or were to experience significant set-back or relapse or if an apparent improvement or resolution of symptoms and disability proved to be short-lived.

Dr Crawley’s clinic sees children and young people with a wide range of fatigue – from fatigue relating to other conditions, for example, following head injury, to chronic fatigue, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and severe ME, where children may be bedbound and in some cases require tube feeding.

Because information is being withheld, it has not been possible to establish which research criteria are to be used. There are concerns that if improvement were shown in those only mildly affected with fatigue and other symptoms that the process might be applied inappropriately to children with moderate to severe CFS and ME, in the future.

Other than the press release issued by RNHRD NHS FT/University of Bristol on 2 March, there is no information publicly available about the study design, methods, objectives, recruitment process, research criteria, risk management and safeguarding of children recruited to this pilot.

Important questions relating to the safeguarding of children and young people remain unaddressed, for example:

b) During the recruitment process, what information will be given to children and their parents/guardians about the Lightning Process and what is going be required of the children throughout the study, in order that children considered competent to give consent, or to assent with their parents/guardians’ consent, and their parents/guardians, are fully informed of likely benefits and any potential risks?

[...]

f) By what means will it be determined that undergoing the training program would not be detrimental to a child’s current health status, as a patient diagnosed with CFS or ME?

What safeguards will be put in place to avoid the potential for exacerbation of existing symptoms or the development of new symptoms whilst undertaking the sessions, in-between sessions and in the weeks and months following completion of the program?

What support will be given to children and their families if a child were to experience exacerbation of existing symptoms or develop new symptoms as a result of participating in the program or as a result of practicing the instructions in-between sessions or in the weeks and months following completion of the program?

[...]

What safeguards will be put in place in order to protect the child’s psychological well-being?

It is considered a matter of public interest that more information about the research team’s intentions is released at this stage.

 

6] The response to my request for certain documents to be provided under FOIA has been:

“This information is intended for future publication when the study protocol and other related documents are published online. It is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.”

I question whether copies of specific documents requested, for example,

“copies of applications for research ethics approval for the study, including any accompanying documentation that forms part of the application for example, questionnaires, interview protocol”

“Funding application documents”

will be included when “the study protocol and other related documents are published online”. My experience of published study protocols is that copies of documents such as those requested are not, as a rule, published within, or annexed to a study protocol document.

I therefore query whether copies of the specific documents I have requested would in actuality be made publicly available at some unspecified point in the future, when the protocol is published.

I request that the decision to withhold virtually all information requested under Clause 22(1)(a) is reviewed.

Sincerely,

etc.

Full address supplied

[1] Patient Survey 2008, Action for M.E. and AYME:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/Survey%20Summary%20Report%202008.pdf  

Patient Survey May 2010, ME Association:
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/images/stories/2010_survey_report_lo-res.pdf

Lightning Process pilot for ME and CFS children: Funding letters

Lightning Process pilot for ME and CFS children: Funding letters

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2XZ

Press Release issued 2 March 2010: Research study to investigate a chronic childhood condition 

For background to this issue see ME agenda 5 July report:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

The University of Bristol Information Office is withholding virtually all information known to have been requested to date under Clause 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Currently, no information on the study design, methods, objectives, recruitment process and research criteria for this proposed pilot study is available for public scrutiny.

The study is due to commence in September.

The University has confirmed that the research study, for which funding was secured last November, is still going through the ethics approval procedure but is withholding the names of the research ethics committee(s) considering the application for ethics approval.

Funding for the pilot has been awarded by the Linbury Trust and the Ashden Trust.  Some funding related documents have been made available to members of the public in response to requests for specific information.

To virtually all questions submitted under FOIA, the University Information Office’s response has been the same:

“This information is intended for future publication when the study protocol and other related documents are published online. It is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

“The study is currently going through the ethics approval procedure and this information is expected to be published around August/September 2010. We cannot see that there is any public interest in disclosing this information before that time.”

Some limited documentation has been provided to two members of the public:

Document 1:

4 November 2009  |  Linbury Trust to Dr Esther Crawley  |  Open PDF:  Funding Linbury Trust 04.11.09

Note: The grant is conditional on the project commencing no later than October 2010.

Document 2:

24 November 2009  |  Ashden Trust to Dr Esther Crawley 

Note: At least part of the total grant is being paid out over three years: 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12.

Document 3:

8 March 2010  |  Linbury Trust to Dr Esther Crawley

 

University of Bristol internal review

A request for an internal review of the responses received on 17 June 2010 from the University of Bristol was submitted yesterday, 22 July.  A copy of the complaint will be published in the next post.

A question of ethics; Juvenile Treatment – Testing and LP – CBT/GET ethics

A question of ethics; Juvenile Treatment – Testing and LP – CBT/GET ethics – two views

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2XM

“The first thing was to take responsibility for our illness. I had to stop saying I had M.E. Instead I have to say I am ‘doing M.E’, I wasn’t tired, I was ‘doing tired and doing muscle aches’. The implication being if I am doing it I can stop doing it.” [9]

20 July 2010

Published with kind permission of Karl Krysko.

A version of this commentary was published earlier today, on the Co-Cure Listserv mailing list.

Juvenile Treatment -Testing and LP-CBT/GET ethics

Recent attention has been drawn to the question of ethics in attempting a Lightning Process (LP) pilot study on children and juveniles suffering from ME. It is right to question such. The very nature and history of this pseudo-treatment approach should dictate against even entertaining the thought, yet alone dabbling in its dangerous claims.

It is obvious that some individuals in the LP, if they are lucky, do not actually have ME in the first place, while others who do, in fact, and show some ‘improvement’ are simply drawing on margins of redundancy for extra energy expenditure that patients automatically and unconsciously build into their cautious use of activity generally. The un-lucky ones, however, encouraged and lured with promises of ‘cure’ in the LP trespass these self-protection margins, and face precipitating a serious relapse.

The basic therapeutic ‘rationale’ for the LP has been around for many years during which time its foundations, essentially Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) and Affirmation therapy, have had plenty of time (and patient financing) to establish their scientific and medical validity. This they have failed to do long term.

Practitioners such as Leonard Orr, of ‘re-birthing’ fame, and others in the early 1980s motivated their newly diagnosed and pathetically desperate HIV patients, for example, to go jogging along the beaches of California (where else!) while affirming repeatedly to TV cameras, and all, that they were no longer ill, did not have a life threatening medical condition, and were in fact in perfect health. This claim they were directed to assert most emphatically, and especially so – no matter how unwell they felt or became, as if the ‘magic’ of insisting this to be the case could somehow make it so.

Then as now, patients were charged most handsomely for this treatment approach. Many such individuals back then, before the era of medical understanding and proper treatments for the AIDS virus, went to their early death still chanting and ‘affirming’ their pathetic mantras, in total denial. The modern versions of this nonsense, and it has various forms even among some charismatic ‘healing’ religions, just goes to show how difficult it is to kill off a good money making racket.

But the current discussion has missed one similar and important parallel to the question of ethics in treating and testing child victims of ME with the LP. The proposal has recently been made in Wales that the NHS should be petitioned for an essentially CBT and GET-GAT treatment service for ME youngsters, alongside the already existing services for adults here in the Principality.

But notice how the facts and ethics of the LP and CBT/GET link unmistakably:

Just as CBT thinking really began to replace the old ‘taking and insight therapy’ and catharsis types of approach to behavioural-psychological based problems, at the same time Affirmations and NLP appeared on the scene.

As with the LP, and after all this time since, the scientific and medical validity of CBT and de-conditioning therapy for ME is also lacking, despite early robust efforts, here for example, by the Welsh ME/CFS Service (with several others conducted in the UK at the time) over five years between 1999 and 2004 to establish its value, using the best methodological, statistical and University (Bangor) facilities available. After some attempted spin-up, those poor results were later sat on.

Like the LP also, the CBT approach obviates the patients’ instincts and intuitions concerning their health situation, as well as the views of their carers, friends and family. The patient in both paradigms has to denounce what they know they know, experience, and have learned about their illness and coping in order to, supposedly, get better. And both regimes thereby effectively downgrade or refute the genuine seriousness, gravity and clinical authenticity of ME.

Like the LP, CBT/GAT also make promises that cannot be substantiated or upheld, clearly so for our badly compromised patients; one nine year GP-diagnosed, for example, severely effected and bedridden ME patient near Flintshire north Wales, was told by her ME Clinic that she would be well and functioning within the year, if she maintained the methods propagated at their eight day training course. Meantime, similar attempts were made to overturn her longstanding ME diagnosis with her GP. Lightning Process patients are made equivalent promises, and are similarly encouraged to anathematise their ‘ME title and patient ‘role’.

Most seriously and least obviously, both the LP and CBT/GAT approaches irresponsibly reject, ignore, are indifferent to, or deny the existence of (already) serious ongoing molecular and organic damage that will be exacerbated over time by inappropriate, incremented, upward gradations of kinetic load, in the name and claim of ‘improvement.’ The compounding of this molecular damage could have mortal consequences for many ME patients, at least over the long-term and wherein, temporally, this therapy is exactly designed to operate.

In their most recent and comprehensive Review of the Research to date, for example, Twisk and Maes (2009 – 10) refer in this regard to forms of bio-chemical long-term damage that CBT and methods like Graded Activity/Exercise for ME patients could produce, stating that the therapy ‘is not only ineffective and not evidence based, but also potentially harmful for many patients with ME.’

The question of ethics, of placing ME children in the direct oncoming hit-path of a Lightning Process treatment and assessment – in a ‘test to destruction’ fashion – potentially a consequence in the short or long term – is therefore as unethical as doing so in its other latest crack-pot analogue recently announced here in the Principality as ‘a new campaign’; for yet another, this time specifically child and juvenile, CBT/GAT Service for Wales.

Rejecting the Lightning Process and its flawed manifestations down the decades, it is for the same parallel reasons here given between the two treatments, that we also reject and will actively campaign against such an irresponsible, scientifically indefensible and, yes, unethical NHS development for our young ME victims living here in North Wales.

Karl Krysko  BA (hons), BSc.

 

Although Ms Jacqui Footman signs herself, in this Co-Cure opinion piece, as a “Mother and Information Officer, South Molton ME Support Group”, Ms Footman fails to disclose a conflict of interest.

Ms Footman is a provider of EFT and similar therapies and advertises her business in the magazines of national patient organisations.

Advert from an ME Association magazine - ME Essential

“Jacqui’s EFT practice combines aspects of counselling, life-coaching, NLP and psychotherapies such as CBT and solution-focussed therapy with the powerful new energy-psychology technique EFT, which involves tapping acupuncture points to bring about dramatic personal change and healing. EFT is available by phone.

“Jacqui Footman BA (Hon), PGCE, Member National Council of Psychotherapists, Practitioner of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), NLP, EMDR, WHEE, EmoTrance and Reiki. Registered (General Regulatory Council for Complimentary Therapies). Trained by Dr Myhill to support her ME/CFS treatment programme. Info Officer, South Molton ME Support Group with extensive experience of ME/CFS at many levels.”

Published on the Co-Cure Listserv mailing list  |  20 July 2010

From Jacqui Footman

[CO-CURE] NOT, MED, ACT: A question of ethics

Speaking of ethics, my question – is it ethical to attempt to deny 90 children/young people the opportunity to have their young lives back? or to try to persuade others to rescind that opportunity?

My 12-year-old was diagnosed with ME 3 months after glandular fever. The diagnosis was confirmed by our two UK best-known paediatricians in the field, Drs Speight and Crawley. She definitely had ME/CFS. She went from active swimmer and gymnast to wheelchair. She missed a year of school. Out of desperation with an NHS strict activity management approach which was driving her to distraction and starting to cause her to feel miserable she reached out to Lightning Process(LP) … and was back to enjoying an active life within weeks.

The LP Practitioner she saw has worked with many teenagers and has 100% success rate with teenagers so far.

Because of the obvious change when my daughter did LP, notably that she immediately went from so often looking deathly pale to having a constant healthy rosy complexion, someone in our local ME support group who had been bedbound for 10 years since being made dreadfully worse with CBT/GET decided there must be something to LP and it must have some sort of capacity to directly affect the physiology. She mustered the courage to try LP herself and the same practitioner went to her house to do it with her as she wasn’t well enough to get to a LP course. She was walking round her garden by the third day of the LP course and has gone from strength to strength since. That was over a year ago. She has just won a design competition and is to start the high profile design course in Oxford for which she won the fees in September this year. She has a life again after 17 years of existence in a bed. She had ME/CFS too, no question.

LP is nothing like the NHS CBT/GET/GAT treatments. I’ve detailed knowledge of both. LP bears no relationship to the deconditioning theories etc upon which CBT treatments have been based.

When LP first came out I was sceptical. After this personal experience and observation I don’t hesitate to recommend this LP Practitioner who once had ME/CFS herself and has a brilliant understanding of what people need to get well and gives all the support and follow-up needed. Although I don’t recommend LP per se without qualification. I do believe there should be further research. LP seems to work best with young people.

Jacqui Footman
Mother and
Information Officer, South Molton ME Support Group
info@mecfssupportdevon.org.uk
(please note, long and negative anti-LP emails will not be answered, so save your energy)

Related material:

Press Release issued 2 March 2010: Research study to investigate a chronic childhood condition
 

For background to this issue see ME agenda 5 July report:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

Poll: Do you think it is ethical to undertake a pilot study looking at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of LP in adults have been undertaken? 

Register your opinion here: http://tinyurl.com/LightningProcessPilotStudyPoll 

References:    

[1] Press Release, University of Bristol, 2 March 2010:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/6866.html   
Media article: Chronic fatigue syndrome study Mineral Water Hospital 

[2] ME Association position statement on Lightning Process, February 2007  

[3] Action for M.E. article on Lightning Process, InterAction magazine, March 2007:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/IA%2059%20lightning%20process.pdf    

[4] Patient Survey 2008, Action for M.E. and AYME:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/Survey%20Summary%20Report%202008.pdf    

Patient Survey May 2010, ME Association:
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/images/stories/2010_survey_report_lo-res.pdf   

[5] Minutes, Forward-ME meeting, House of Lords, 8 July 2009:
http://www.forward-me.org.uk/8th%20July%202009.htm    

[6] MRC Guidelines Medical Research Involving Children (Nov 2004, revised Aug 2007):
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002430    

[7] Request for information under FOI and FOI Office responses: 
FOI – Lightning Study Chapman 17.06.10  

[8] Lightning Process website
http://www.lightningprocess.com/ 

[9] LP Doesn’t Work for ME: Personal accounts from LP “trainees”:
http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/LP.html 

Letter: Lightning process for ME didn’t work for me:
http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/news/Lightning-process-didn-t-work/article-613394-detail/article.html    

Personal account of Lightning Process technique as applied to patient with ME: 
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?4687-Article-An-MD-on-the-Lightning-Process&p=77679&viewfull=1#post77679 

Personal account of Lightning Process as applied to patients with ME and MS:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4293368&postcount=1   

[10] Sample Lightning Process application form:
http://www.changeworksforyou.com/applicationform.htm 

[11] ASA adjudication against “Withinspiration”, June 2010:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/6/Withinspiration/TF_ADJ_48612.aspx   

[12] Withinspiration “NHS and Lightning Process research collaboration”:
http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/lightning_process_NHS_research.php    

[13] Radio 4 Case Notes: Dr Crawley on CFS clinic approach, November 2007 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/casenotes_tr_20071106.shtml 

[14] RNHRD Bath Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME Service for Children & Young People
http://www.rnhrd.nhs.uk/departments/chronic_fatigue_syndrome_children.htm

Unethical Bristol/Bath Lightning Process ME/CFS children pilot study

eBMJ: Unethical Bristol/Bath Lightning Process –  ME/CFS children pilot study

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2XC

The following response was submitted to eBMJ Rapid Responses on 15 July, and is currently unpublished.  A copy also appears on the ONE CLICK website.

Re: Failure to appreciate pain is a symptom not a diagnosis is what leads to bad medicine

Suzy Chapman,
Carer
Dorset

15 July 2010

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Failure to appreciate pain is a symptom not a diagnosis is what leads to bad medicine

In his response “Failure to appreciate pain is a symptom not a diagnosis is what leads to bad medicine”, Dr Munglani, Consultant in Pain Medicine, West Suffolk Hospital, recommends the Lightning Process [1].

The Lightning Process is a three-day course said to be based on neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and life coaching. It is marketed not as a therapy or a treatment but as a “training program”. It is unregulated and its practitioners are trained and “licensed” by the Phil Parker organisation. Many of those who train to become Lightning Process instructors are former “trainees”, themselves.

I note that Dr Munglani has a provided a number of personal testimonials for the pages of the website of a Suffolk Lightning Process centre [2].

The website states that there are now NHS and private consultants, GPs and occupational therapists referring patients to the centre, and that NHS clinicians have attended as observers of the work carried out there. Visitors to the site are encouraged to contact an OT at the James Paget University Hospital pain clinic or OTs at the Norfolk and Suffolk ME/CFS service, for which contact details are given.

On one of its web pages is the following:

What does the Lightning Process work for?

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 and allergies, blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes, restless leg syndrome, hyper/hypo thyroidism, insomnia and sleep disorders, autistic spectrum disorder, dyspraxia, ADHD, lymes disease, glandular fever, epstein barr virus, weight and food issues, anorexia and eating disorders, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, parkinsonian tremor, motor neurone disease”

On 16 June, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published an adjudication against a Bournemouth company following its upholding of a complaint about a Lightning Process advertisement [3].

The ASA records their concerns that “the company did not hold robust evidence to support their claims that the lightning process was an effective treatment for CFS or ME. We therefore reminded them of their obligations under the CAP Code to hold appropriate evidence to substantiate claims prior to publication. 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.”

The company was advised to ensure “they held substantiation before making similar efficacy claims for the lightning process”.

The Advertising Standards Authority’s remit does not extend to website content. But I hope that Dr Munglani, who provides personal testimonials for the Suffolk centre, has satisfied himself that this centre is able to provide robust evidence to substantiate its claims that people using the Lightning Process, said to be based on neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and life coaching, have “recovered from, or experienced significant improvement” from diseases and conditions which, in addition to ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, include urinary infections, coeliac disease, crohns disease, blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes, hyper/hypo thyroidism, autistic spectrum disorder, dyspraxia, ADHD, lymes disease, glandular fever, epstein barr virus, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, parkinsonian tremor and motor neurone disease.

This is a very topical issue because in March, the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust, also known as the Min, and the University of Bristol announced a pilot study looking into interventions and treatment options for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [4].

Funding of £164,000 from the Linbury Trust and the Ashden Trust has been awarded to a research team led by Dr Esther Crawley, Consultant Paediatrician, Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath, CFS Clinical Lead for Bath NHS FT and a Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol.

The pilot study, scheduled to start in September, will look at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the Lightning Process and specialist medical care. The study has the involvement of Phil Parker and colleagues.

“The study will involve in depth interviews with the patients and their parents, and the primary outcome measure will be school attendance after six-months. It is hoped that over 90 children aged between eight and 18 and their families will be involved in the study. They will be recruited after assessment by the specialist team at the Min.”

The Medical Research Council (MRC) produces specific guidelines for research involving vulnerable patient groups. The document “MRC Medical Research Involving Children” is clear:

4.1 Does the research need to be carried out with children? Research involving children should only be carried out if it cannot feasibly be carried out on adults.” [5]

No rigorous RCTs into the application of the Lightning Process in adults with CFS and ME have been undertaken.

Data from two large patient surveys carried out by Action for M.E./AYME (published 2008) and by the ME Association (published May 2010) show similar levels of worsening of symptoms in CFS and ME patients following the three day “training program”, or of no improvement at all (AfME/AYME: Worse: 16%, No change: 31%; MEA: Slightly worse 7.9%; Much worse 12.9%; No change 34.7%) [6].

With no robust data from the application of Lightning Process in adults, how can the research team determine that overall the likely benefits of the research outweigh any risks to child participants and that undergoing the training program would not be detrimental to a child’s current health status and psychological well-being, as a patient diagnosed with CFS or ME?

There are considerable concerns that an NHS paediatric CFS unit should be planning a study involving children as young as eight when no rigorous trials have first been undertaken into the safety, acceptability, long and short-term effects of the application of this controversial and unregulated “process”.

Not only is it feasible to carry out research into the application of the Lightning Process using adults with ME and CFS, many feel it unethical not to do so first.

References

[1] Failure to appreciate pain is a symptom not a diagnosis is what leads to bad medicine: Rajesh Munglani, 8 March 2010:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/jan06_2/b5683#232414

[2] The Rowan Centre, Suffolk:
http://www.simpsonandfawdry.com/about-simpson-and-fawdry.htm

[3] Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication, 16 June 2010:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/6/Withinspiration/TF_ADJ_48612.aspx

[4] Media Release, University of Bristol, 2 March 2010:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/6866.html

[5] MRC Medical Research Involving Children (Nov 2004, revised Aug 2007):
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002430

[6] Patient Survey 2008, Action for M.E. and AYME:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/Survey%20Summary%20Report%202008.pdf

Patient Survey May 2010, ME Association:
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/images/stories/2010_survey_report_lo-res.pdf

Competing interests: None declared

Related material:

Press Release issued 2 March 2010: Research study to investigate a chronic childhood condition
 

For background to this issue see ME agenda 5 July report:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

Poll: Do you think it is ethical to undertake a pilot study looking at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of LP in adults have been undertaken? 

Register your opinion here: http://tinyurl.com/LightningProcessPilotStudyPoll 

Is it ethical to undertake a pilot looking at feasibility of recruiting children 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into an RCT comparing Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of LP in adults have been undertaken?

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2W3  or  http://tinyurl.com/LightningProcessPilotStudyPoll

Update @ 5 August

Poll now closed

Thank you to everyone who registered their opinion.

For background to this issue see ME agenda Post 5 July 2010:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)  

Poll: Is it ethical to undertake a pilot study looking at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of the Lightning Process in adults with CFS and ME have been undertaken?

 

ME Association: Advertising Standards Authority upholds a complaint against a Lightning Process practitioner

ME Association: Advertising Standards Authority upholds a complaint against a Lightning Process practitioner

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2VD

Update @ 7 July

Phil Parker’s Lightning Process site at http://www.lightningprocess.com/ is down this morning and the Lightning Process pages of his http://www.philparker.org/Home/ site are also unavailable.

 

Read ASA Adjudication on Withinspiration or for full text see previous post

Today, the ME Association reported on the ASA adjudication.

From the News pages of the ME Association

Tuesday, 06 July 2010

ASA Ruling 

A complaint that an internet sponsored link carried an unsubstantiated claim that the Lightning Process can make people with ME/CFS well again has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

In a decision announced on 16 June 2010, the ASA ordered the company “Withinspiration” to drop an advertisement which claimed: “Chronic Fatigue Recovery. End the cycle of ME/CFS: Get Well! with The Lightning Process.”

The ASA ruling says: “The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Withinspiration to ensure they held substantiation before making similar efficacy claiming for the lighting process [sic]“.

The complainant wasn’t named in the ruling but the ASA said the company had told them that they had personal experiences of improvement in medical conditions such as ME, as a result of using The Lightning Process. The process had received a number of celebrity endorsements and positive press reaction, which were testament to its effectiveness.

Although Withinspiration said they held no scientific evidence to support the claims, they said that trials were due to begin in 2010.

 Upholding the claim, the ASA wrote:

“The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).”

“The ASA understood that the lightning process was a three-day course that sought to teach individuals a range of techniques, such as life coaching and neuro-linguistic programming skills, to improve physical and mental well being, particularly amongst those with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or ME.

“We were concerned that Withinspiration did not hold robust evidence to support their claims that the lightning process was an effective treatment for CFS or ME. We therefore reminded them of their obligations under the CAP Code to hold appropriate evidence to substantiate claims prior to publication. 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.”

◦ No similar claims appear on the Withinspiration website today. The site promotes the work of Alastair Gibson – “one of the most experienced international advanced Lighting Process practitioners”. It gives a contact phone number for the Bournemouth area.

Ed: Note that Lightning Process instructor/trainer/coach, Alastair Gibson, had already identified himself, on his Withinspiration website, as “one of the two practitioners working with the NHS and the young people” in the Dr Esther Crawley led pilot study.

At 29 March, Mr Gibson’s website had carried this information:

http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/index.php

“Breaking News – NHS and Lightning Process research collaboration.

“A new pilot study involving the Lightning Process and the NHS has been awarded £164,000 for research into the treatment of CFS/ME in children and adolescents. Alastair Gibson is one of the two practitioners working with the NHS and the young people in this exciting research study. Find out more…”

http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/lightning_process_NHS_research.php

This statement no longer appears on his website. It is unclear whether Mr Gibson retains an involvement with the proposed pilot study, announced by the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol in March.

In response to a request for information under FOIA, University of Bristol Information Office is withholding the names of Lightning Process practitioners who have an involvement with the study under Clause 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

The study, scheduled to start in September, is still going through the ethics approval procedure.  Funding for the pilot had been secured in November 2009.

The names of the ethics committee(s) reviewing the application are also being withheld by University of Bristol. 

 

Related material:

Press Release issued 2 March 2010: Research study to investigate a chronic childhood condition
 

For background to this issue see ME agenda 5 July report:

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

 

Poll: Do you think it is ethical to undertake a pilot study looking at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of LP in adults have been undertaken?

Register your opinion here: http://tinyurl.com/LightningProcessPilotStudyPoll

Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaint against Withinspiration (Lightning Process)

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Adjudication: Withinspiration (Lightning Process)   

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Vt   

Poll: Do you think it is ethical to undertake a pilot study looking at the feasibility of recruiting children aged 8 to 18 with CFS and ME into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Lightning Process and specialist medical care when no rigorous RCTs into the application of LP in adults have been undertaken? 

Register your opinion here: http://tinyurl.com/LightningProcessPilotStudyPoll 

  

An ASA Adjudication against “Withinspiration” came to my attention, today, via the Co-Cure mailing list:   

ASA Adjudication on Withinspiration   

Withinspiration   

Date:
16 June 2010   

Media:
Internet (sponsored search)   

Sector:
Health and beauty   

Number of complaints:
1   

Complaint Ref:
123134   

Ad
An internet sponsored link stated “Chronic Fatigue Recovery. End the cycle of ME/CFS: Get Well! with The Lightning Process”.   

Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim “Chronic Fatigue Recovery. End the cycle of ME/CFS” could be substantiated.   

CAP Code
3.150.150.3   

Response
Withinspiration said they had personal experiences of improvement in medical conditions, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis (M.E), as a result of using the lightning process. They argued that the lightning process, created by Phil Parker, had received a number of celebrity endorsements and positive press articles, which they believed were a testament to the effectiveness of the treatment. Although Withinspiration said they held no scientific evidence to support the claims, they said that trials were due to commence in 2010.   

Assessment
Upheld   

The ASA understood that the lightning process was a three-day course that sought to teach individuals a range of techniques, such as life coaching and neuro-linguistic programming skills, to improve physical and mental well being, particularly amongst those with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or ME.   

We were concerned that Withinspiration did not hold robust evidence to support their claims that the lightning process was an effective treatment for CFS or ME. We therefore reminded them of their obligations under the CAP Code to hold appropriate evidence to substantiate claims prior to publication. 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.   

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).   

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Withinspiration to ensure they held substantiation before making similar efficacy claims for the lightning process   

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)   

Bournemouth Lightning Process instructor/trainer/coach, Alastair Gibson, had already identified himself, on his Withinspiration website, as “one of the two practitioners working with the NHS” in connection with the Dr Esther Crawley led pilot study. At 29 March, Mr Gibson’s website had carried this information:   

http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/index.php   

“Breaking News – NHS and Lightning Process research collaboration.   

“A new pilot study involving the Lightning Process and the NHS has been awarded £164,000 for research into the treatment of CFS/ME in children and adolescents. Alastair Gibson is one of the two practitioners working with the NHS and the young people in this exciting research study. Find out more…”   

http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/lightning_process_NHS_research.php   

This statement no longer appears on his website. It is unclear whether Mr Gibson retains an involvement with this proposed pilot study.   

RNHRD NHS FT Bath and University of Bristol pilot study   

On 2 March, the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust, also known as the Min, and the University of Bristol announced a research study looking into “interventions and treatment options for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” [1]. 

Funding of £164,000 from the Linbury Trust and the Ashden Trust has been awarded to the research team led by Dr Esther Crawley, Consultant Paediatrician, Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath, the CFS Clinical Lead for Bath NHSFT and a Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol.   

“The study will involve in depth interviews with the patients and their parents, and the primary outcome measure will be school attendance after six-months. It is hoped that over 90 children aged between eight and 18 and their families will be involved in the study. They will be recruited after assessment by the specialist team at the Min. The study will begin in September 2010.”   

Press Release:  Research study to investigate a chronic childhood condition   

Open PDF here:  Media Release – 2 March 2010   

Open PDF media article here:  Chronic fatigue syndrome study Mineral Water Hospital 

Dr Esther Crawley 

Dr Crawley, FRCPCH, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Bristol, a Consultant Paediatrician and clinical lead for the Bath CFS service.  Dr Crawley’s specialist CFS service for children and adolescents is reported to be the largest regional paediatric service in the UK and also provides services nationally.

Dr Crawley had been a member of the NICE CFS/ME Guideline Development Group and gives presentations around the NICE guideline CG53 and the CFS/ME Clinical and Research Network. 

Dr Crawley had chaired the CFS/ME Clinical Research Network Collaborative (CCRNC), now reformed under the new name “BACME”, for which Dr Crawley continues as chair. 

Dr Crawley is a member of the MRC’s “CFS/ME Expert Panel”. 

In the last couple of years, Dr Crawley’s research team has been awarded considerable sums of funding for CFS studies and Chronic Fatigue studies in children – including a £873,579 NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship award, last year. She has also received funding from patient organisation, Action for M.E. (£49,650). 

Grants awarded to Dr Crawley during 2007-09 here: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ccah/grants/ 

  

The Lightning Process 

The Lightning Process is controversial and untrialled. It is marketed by the Phil Parker organisation not as a therapy or a treatment but as a “training program” delivered by “instructors” or “practitioners” or “coaches”.   

Instructors are trained and licensed by the Phil Parker organisation and are not accountable to any regulatory professional body. If individuals have complaints about a practitioner or about the Lightning Process, itself, which cannot be resolved directly with the practitioner or through the Phil Parker complaints procedure, their only recourse is Trading Standards.   

Some practitioners may already be established therapists in CAM or psychotherapy fields but have trained with the Phil Parker organisation to also offer the Lightning Process to their clients. But many Lightning Process practitioners are individuals who have undergone the process for some condition or other, then paid to train with the Phil Parker organisation to become “Licensed Lightning Process Practitioners”, themselves, and will have had no previous background in therapies or life coaching.   

In early 2007, the ME Association published their position on the Lightning Process which included the following statement:   

“The Lightning Process is a new and very speculative form of treatment that has not been assessed in a proper clinical trial. So while we are providing information about it, it is not a form of treatment that we are able to endorse. We recommend caution when considering this approach.” [2]   

In March 2007, Action for M.E. published an article featuring several negative patient experiences of undergoing the Lightning Process [3].   

Data from two large patient surveys carried out by Action for M.E./AYME (published 2008) and by the ME Association (published May 2010) show similar levels of worsening of symptoms in CFS and ME patients following the three day “training program”, or of no improvement at all (AfME/AYME: Worse:16%, No change: 31%; MEA: Slightly worse 7.9%; Much worse 12.9%: No change: 34.7%) [4].   

GOSH gives a platform to Phil Parker 

At the July 2009 meeting of the Countess of Mar’s Forward-ME group, patient reps discussed their concerns that Phil Parker was being given a platform at a University College London workshop, held in conjunction with Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), for medical and allied health professionals working with children and young people with ME and CFS at which Mr Parker would be promoting the Lightning Process [5].   

CFS clinical lead and paediatrician, Dr Esther Crawley, who was presenting at this Forward-ME group meeting, was invited to participate in discussions around the GOSH workshop, the Lightning Process in general and its application in children, in particular. According to the minutes of the July meeting, Mary Jane Willows, CEO AYME, was tasked with approaching the workshop organisers to discuss ME patient organisation concerns. The outcome of this initiative was not recorded in the minutes of the next meeting of the Forward-ME group.   

No RCTs   

To date, no rigorous, randomised controlled trials into the safety, acceptability, short and long-term effects of the Lightning Process have been carried out in adults with ME and CFS. There is no reliable, independent published data on the safety of the application of the Lightning Process.   

Patients and carers were astounded to learn, in early March, that a Bristol/Bath research team led by an NHS consultant paediatrician intends to undertake a pilot study to investigate whether it is possible to recruit children as young as eight with CFS and ME into an RCT comparing the Lightning Process with specialist medical care.   

The press release, issued on 2 March, announced:   

“The team will carry out a pilot project to investigate how to recruit to a randomised controlled trial looking at the Phil Parker Lightning Process® and specialist medical care. This will be the first study of its kind in this area, and the team hopes to establish a basis for a larger scale multicentre research project.”   

The study has the involvement of Phil Parker and is expected to start in September 2010.   

    

Research using vulnerable patient groups   

The MRC produces specific guidelines for research involving children. The document MRC Medical Research Involving Children  (Nov 2004, revised Aug 2007)” is clear: 

4.1 Does the research need to be carried out with children? Research involving children should only be carried out if it cannot feasibly be carried out on adults.” [6]   

Not only is it feasible to carry out research into the application of the Lightning Process using adults with ME and CFS, many feel it is unethical not to do so first. 

There are considerable concerns that an NHS paediatric CFS unit should be planning a study involving children as young as eight when no rigorous, RCTs have first been undertaken into the safety, acceptability, long and short-term effects of the application of this very controversial “process”.   

    

Request for information under Freedom of Information Act   

It is proving very difficult to obtain any information about the design, methods and objectives of this research study.   

In response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (fulfilled 17 June), the University of Bristol Information Office is withholding the names of Lightning Process practitioners who have an involvement with the study under Clause 22(1)(a).   

They are also withholding the names of the ethics committee(s) reviewing the application for ethics approval.   

University of Bristol has confirmed that the study (for which the funding was secured last November) is still going through the ethics approval procedure.   

All other information and documents requested is currently being denied [7].   

Open PDF Request for information under FOI and responses: FOI – Lightning Study Chapman 17.06.10    

To virtually all questions the response has been:   

“This information is intended for future publication when the study protocol and other related documents are published online. It is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.   

“The study is currently going through the ethics approval procedure and this information is expected to be published around August / September 2010. We cannot see that there is any public interest in disclosing this information before that time.”   

But it is a matter of considerable public interest that an NHS Trust seeks to use children as young as eight as guinea pigs. I am intending to request an internal review of the decision not to make available any information about the design and methods for this study, at this stage.   

   

What does the Lightning Process involve? 

The Lightning Process website describes the process as being derived from neuro linguistic programming (NLP), osteopathy and life-coaching [8]. 

One account included this description of the “process”: 

Personal account of Lightning Process technique as applied to patient with ME  

“I had an acute onset and went from a hardworking person to bedbound overnight. In a desperate attempt to recover I decided to try LP after reading stories of severely affected M.E. patients who had recovered. It all sounded so convincing and after a phone consultation with a LP coach I felt very positive I was doing the right thing. I borrowed the money from my parents, £880.00 as I had long lost my job, and went for it. 

There were 3 other m.e. patients at the same course none of these people nor myself recovered. The course was over 3 days from 10am-2pm with a break at lunchtime for tea and biscuits. We were told not to discuss the content of the course with each other during the breaks. We learned the ‘affirmation’ and stood on the floor on paper circles with key words written on them. 

Here is the big secret of what we had to say while standing on paper circles - 

WHEN YOU FEEL A SYMPTOM
SHOUT- STOP! (stand on the paper STOP)
SAY- I HAVE A CHOICE ( stand on the paper CHOICE)
SAY- YOU CAN CHOOSE THE PIT OR THE LIFE YOU LOVE ( you then stand on the LIFE YOU LOVE circle)
SAY- I CHOOSE THE LIFE I LOVE
SAY- WELL DONE, YOU ARE A FANTASTIC GENIOUS, YOU ARE ON TRACK! I AM WITH YOU EVERY STEP OF THE
WAY (you are being your own coach here)
ASK YOURSELF – WHAT DO I WANT?
ANSWER YOURSELF- I WANT ENERGY AND HAPPYNESS LIKE (you say something that means energy etc. to you)
ASK YOURSELF- HOW WILL I GET THIS?
TELL YOURSELF- BY STOPPING EVERY NEGATIVE THOUGHT
EVERY NEGATIVE EMOTION
AND DOING THE LIGHTNING PROCESS.
 

There are a few more short affirmations and that’s it you are cured of M.E. We all DID leave on the third day full of hope and newly found confidence and told that no-matter how we felt in the future ALWAYS SAY WERE WERE CURED OR THE PROCESS WILL NOT WORK !!!! These coaches are very good at their job but I can assure you they can not cure you of M.E. Think about it PAPER CIRCLES AND AFFIRMATIONS. The four of us all were ‘high’ for a few weeks or months and did indeed do more than usual but sadly all relapsed.” [9] 

 

The application process   

Potential applicants for Lightning Process sessions must first complete an application form where they agree to undertake certain commitments and to sign up to certain beliefs, including that they are “ready” to benefit from the programme [10]. Practitioners may further “assess”, via a telephone interview, an applicant’s “readiness” to participate and benefit from the “process” but also “assess” whether the applicant has any previous or current medical or psychological conditions which would render them “unsuitable” for undertaking the “process”. Practitioners are not medically qualified.   

Sample application form here:  LP application form or here:   http://www.changeworksforyou.com/applicationform.htm   

Parents are expected to sign up to these beliefs and commitments on behalf of applicants under the age of 18, irrespective of whether the child or young person might be considered competent to understand the expectations of the practitioners delivering the courses or of understanding the implications of the “belief system” they are being asked to commit to and the tasks they will be expected to follow over the course of the three days of sessions and following completion of the sessions, which also includes a workbook through which affirmations are reinforced.   

 
The patient experience – “living the life you love” 

Lightning Process practitioners are charging from £560 to £880 for three sessions which may last 3 to 5 hours per day, held on three consecutive days, and usually in a group setting.   

“Trainees” have reported that they are encouraged to ignore their symptoms of malaise and discomfort and at the end of the day’s session to undertake an activity which they would not normally undertake.   

“Trainees” have reported that they were instructed to believe that they are “doing illness” not that they have illness. From one young woman’s personal account:   

“The first thing was to take responsibility for our illness. I had to stop saying I had M.E. Instead I have to say I am ‘doing M.E’, I wasn’t tired, I was ‘doing tired and doing muscle aches’. The implication being if I am doing it I can stop doing it.” [9]   

So “trainees” are expected to agree that they are “ready” to undertake and to benefit from the program when they sign up to it; that they will commit to understanding and carrying out the instructions properly and that they will work hard at putting the “process” into practice in order that they can “live the life they love”. 

Is the burden of “failure” then placed on the patient and not on the ability of the “process”, itself, to “cure”, “resolve” or “substantially improve” whatever medical condition, psychological condition or “life-style issue” the process has been purchased for because the individual was not after all “ready” to undergo the “process”; or that they had not properly understood what was expected of them during the sessions; or that they had failed to carry out the instructions properly or that they had not worked had enough at putting the “process” into practice?  

Here’s another account by a CFS patient who also reports on the experience of a “trainee” with Multiple Sclerosis and more accounts here [9].

A letter to the media, here, from a dissatisfied former “trainee”:  Lightning process for ME didn’t work for me 

   

No data   

There are considerable concerns for the physiological and psychological impact of exposing young children and teenagers with CFS and ME to this type of program and some of these issues are raised within my FOI request, in questions 23 thru 26 a) to l). No responses were provided to any of these questions.   

With no data from research into adults, how can the research team determine that overall the likely benefits of the research outweigh any risks to child participants or that undergoing the training program would not be detrimental to a child’s current health status and psychological well-being, as a patient diagnosed with CFS or ME?   

Concerns raised include:   

there is no scientific evidence for the Lightning Process on which to base informed consent;
children and their parents may not fully understand what is expected of them;
children may feel pressured to conform to the beliefs of the practitioners or to say that they feel better in order to please the researchers and practitioners;
children might feel pressured to get well and to make too rapid a return to school
invalidation of the patients’ experience of illness and symptoms;
the dangers of teaching a child to ignore and override sensations of illness and post exertional malaise;
the program may be physiologically and psychologically damaging to the child and may impact negatively on the family dynamics if a child were unable to complete the program and withdrew early from the study, or if the child failed to gain benefit from the program, or experienced exacerbation of symptoms during or following the program, or were to experience significant set-back or relapse or if an apparent improvement or resolution of symptoms and disability proved to be short-lived.  

With no data from RCTs on the safety and acceptability of the Lightning Process in adults with ME and CFS, how are parents able to give informed consent for their children to participate?  

The University of Bristol would provide no rationale for undertaking a pilot study in children when rigorous, randomised controlled trials (RCTs)trials have yet to be undertaken and results published on the application of the Lightning Process in adults with CFS or ME.   

There are also concerns that this pilot study in children might serve to legitimise referrals outside the NHS and influence potential future commissioning of the Lightning Process within NHS Trusts. There is evidence that some medical specialities are already referring patients to Lightning Process practitioners, for example, for chronic pain and for CFS, despite no rigorous RCTs having been undertaken into its safety and long-term effects and despite there being no regulatory professional body to protect these patients when accessing private sector providers.   

As a clinician, Dr Crawley sees children and young people with a wide range of fatigue – from fatigue relating to other conditions, for example, following head injury, to chronic fatigue, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and severe ME, where children may be bedbound [13] [14].

Because information is being withheld, it has not been possible to establish which research criteria are to be used. There are concerns that if improvement were shown in those mildly affected with fatigue that the process might be applied inappropriately to children with moderate to severe CFS and ME. 

    

What else is the Lightning Process being used for?   

Some Lightning Process practitioners are claiming success with patients with other diseases and conditions, like Multiple Sclerosis (MS), diabetes and some neurological diseases.   

One Suffolk Lightning Process practitioner (The Rowan Centre) is currently making the following claims on its website:   

http://www.simpsonandfawdry.com/lightning-process.html   

What does the Lightning Process work for ?   

“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 and allergies
blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, type 2 diabetes, restless leg syndrome, hyper / hypo thyroidism
insomnia and sleep disorders
autistic spectrum disorder, dyspraxia, ADHD
lymes disease, glandular fever, epstein barr virus
weight and food issues, anorexia and eating disorders
multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, parkinsonian tremor, motor neurone disease”
   

Timeline

Funding for the pilot had been secured by November, last year.  £44,000 over three years (09/10, 10/11, 11/12) has been awarded by the Ashden Trust; £120,000 by the Linbury Trust.

An ethics committee decision is anticipated in August/September. The study is due to start in September.   

  

Patient organisation positions   

*AYME (Association of Young People with ME) has published no position statement, but in an article in the May 2010 edition of “LINK”, AYME describes the pilot as “an interesting piece of research”

*Dr Esther Crawley is a Medical Consultant to AYME. 

*Action for M.E. published this position statement on its Facebook Wall but not on its main website: 

“Action for M.E. sees no reason to oppose this pilot study. 

As was made clear when it was announced, the research at this stage is simply a pilot designed to see if it would be possible to set up a trial that can independently assess the Lightning process against specialised medical care. 

It is a fact that many parents are already taking their children to LP practitioners and so there are urgent questions that need to be addressed in order to assure the safety of those children. Dr Crawley’s initiative aspires to find a way of answering some of those questions.” 

*Sir Peter Spencer, CEO of Bristol based, Action for M.E., is a non-executive director of the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath – Dr Esther Crawley’s employer. 

ME Association: No position statement issued 

The Young ME Sufferers Trust: No position statement issued  

The 25% ME Group: No position statement issued    

Invest in ME published a position statement in its March/April 2010 Newsletter: 

Lightning Process – The Falsehood of Magical Medicine 

“…Not only is this a waste of scarce resources but children aged 8-18 are to be used to perform this study. There are many stories of the damage this series of courses can do to patients – a business enterprise which is unregulated, has no valid research into the “theory” behind it which really warrants funding of it (certainly not in preference to the funding of biomedical research into ME) and for which anyone can seemingly attend a few courses and set up a business, with no medical training… 

…If this training programme really needs research then why not start with adults who can give informed consent – and why not test it on a well known patient group with clear biomarkers such as diabetics or MS patients to see if these patients stop “doing” diabetes or MS after three days of training. Why are ME patients always the target for therapy businesses? If there is funding available for research into ME then why not direct it to biomedical research…” 

Full statement here: http://www.investinme.org/IIME%20Newsletter%20Mar%2010.htm 

    

Discussion:   

There are a number of current threads on Lightning Process, in general, and this pilot study in particular on Phoenix Rising Forums:   

April 2010 “Dr Frivoldi, MD” blog article by Cort Johnson 

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/blog.php?b=364   

Article: An MD on the Lightning Process   

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?4687-Article-An-MD-on-the-Lightning-Process   

Lightning Process to be Evaluated in Research Study on Children   

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?3538-Lightning-Process-to-be-Evaluated-in-Research-Study-on-Children   

My son & i are giving the lightning process a go on this week   

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?3827-My-son-amp-i-are-giving-the-lightning-process-a-go-on-this-week     

    

See also:   

Action for M.E. 2007 article:   

http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/IA%2059%20lightning%20process.pdf   

The March 2007 edition of Action for M.E.’s magazine InterAction published this article:   

InterAction 59 March 2007   

LP: the light at the end of the tunnel or just another flash in the pan?   

“The Lightning Process (LP) has attracted national press coverage but alongside the hype and talk of miraculous recovery, InterAction received reports of relapse and failure, and decided to find out more.”   

References:   

[1] Press Release, University of Bristol, 2 March 2010:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/6866.html   
Media article: Chronic fatigue syndrome study Mineral Water Hospital 

[2] ME Association position statement on Lightning Process, February 2007  

[3] Action for M.E. article on Lightning Process, InterAction magazine, March 2007:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/IA%2059%20lightning%20process.pdf    

[4] Patient Survey 2008, Action for M.E. and AYME:
http://www.afme.org.uk/res/img/resources/Survey%20Summary%20Report%202008.pdf    

Patient Survey May 2010, ME Association:
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/images/stories/2010_survey_report_lo-res.pdf   

[5] Minutes, Forward-ME meeting, House of Lords, 8 July 2009:
http://www.forward-me.org.uk/8th%20July%202009.htm    

[6] MRC Guidelines Medical Research Involving Children (Nov 2004, revised Aug 2007):
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002430    

[7] Request for information under FOI and FOI Office responses: 
FOI – Lightning Study Chapman 17.06.10  

[8] Lightning Process website
http://www.lightningprocess.com/ 

[9] LP Doesn’t Work for ME: Personal accounts from LP “trainees”:
http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/LP.html 

Letter: Lightning process for ME didn’t work for me:
http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/news/Lightning-process-didn-t-work/article-613394-detail/article.html    

Personal account of Lightning Process technique as applied to patient with ME: 
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?4687-Article-An-MD-on-the-Lightning-Process&p=77679&viewfull=1#post77679 

Personal account of Lightning Process as applied to patients with ME and MS:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4293368&postcount=1   

[10] Sample Lightning Process application form:
http://www.changeworksforyou.com/applicationform.htm 

[11] ASA adjudication against “Withinspiration”, June 2010:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2010/6/Withinspiration/TF_ADJ_48612.aspx   

[12] Withinspiration “NHS and Lightning Process research collaboration”:
http://www.withinspiration.co.uk/lightning_process_NHS_research.php    

[13] Radio 4 Case Notes: Dr Crawley on CFS clinic approach, November 2007 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/casenotes_tr_20071106.shtml 

[14] RNHRD Bath Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME Service for Children & Young People
http://www.rnhrd.nhs.uk/departments/chronic_fatigue_syndrome_children.htm

Benefits reform: Media coverage BBC and Times

Benefits reform: Media coverage BBC and Times

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Vg

Note: access to much of the content of the Times and Sunday Times online now requires a subscription.  Complementary access to subscription-only content is extended to those regsistered for the prepaid voucher scheme for print editions of the Times and Sunday Times who will need to register their Customer Priority Number on the site.

Times  |  Rosemary Bennett, Alice Fishburn  |  2 July 2010

Sick-note reforms ‘are in danger of collapse’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article2585543.ece

The academic behind a new benefits system designed to end Britain’s sick-note culture warns today of an impending crisis if radical changes are not made.

He says that ministers should postpone plans to move 2.5 million incapacity benefit claimants on to the new employment and support allowance (ESA) in October until serious errors have been rectified.

“To go ahead with these problems is not just ridiculous. It is, in fact, scary,” said Paul Gregg, Professor of Economics at the University of Bristol.

All new claimants have had to apply for ESA, which includes a tough medical test, since October 2008. But thousands of vulnerable people with terminal cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and clinical depression have had their applications rejected and told to look for work…

Full article here

Times  |  2 July 2010

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article2585558.ece

Emma Webb

Emma Webb, 36, has worked all her life but in 2008 she became ill and her job in retail became a struggle.

She initially thought it was a bad back, caused by years of standing for long periods. Then she began to slur her words and a few months later could barely walk. Her doctor diagnosed ME…

Full article here

BBC News  |  28 June 2010

‘I’m worried about benefit cuts’, says ME sufferer

Andy Micklethwaite, 58, from Derbyshire, has been on incapacity benefit for about three years, but started suffering with ME in 1984.

He had worked for about 10 years in sales support for a firms supplying computer systems before being made redundant.

After that he said he had tried various jobs as his symptoms got worse – including setting up his own business, teaching people introductory computer courses at a local college and invigilating exams before the ME meant he had to stop working…

Read full article here

BBC News  |  Politics  |  28 June 2010

Q&A: Incapacity benefits explained

Ministers looking to make savings have set their sights on the bill for incapacity benefit – but how does the system work at present?

Some 2.6m people claim incapacity benefit, or its successor, the employment and support allowance, at an annual cost of about £12.5bn.

Chancellor George Osborne says that this amount could be cut, while protecting “those with genuine needs”.

So what are the basics?

What are the benefits…

Read full article

BBC News |  Business  |  22 June 2010

Budget: Radical shake-up of benefits to cut spending

The Budget means most claimants will lose money – but some are winners A raft of benefits have been cut or curbed as part of a radical shake up of the welfare system.

These changes are designed to save £11bn per year by the end of the parliamentary term.

That adds up to a quarter of the annual target of £40bn of spending cuts and tax rises by 2014-15…

Read full article here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: