Talk:The Lightning Process
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lightning Process article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
Is this Virology blog a Reliable Source?
[edit]Anna Roy and Sciencewatcher Back in 2014, I wrote this: "I have read much discussion of LP regarding M.E./CFIDS, where LP is often considered to be useless and simply a reinforcement of the Wessely school view that the disease is all in your head, so talk yourself out of it."
- Now in 2020, David Tuller has written about Lightning Process and posted his article in the Virology blog, a usual place for him to publish. Tuller has a DrPH, meaning a doctorate in Public Health and he is a journalist, teacher of journalism in public health University of California, Berkeley; his bio is here. His current article is here. He has had one or two articles in The New York Times, but they were strictly about M.E. That is how I know about him. Plus the Virology blog is always interesting.
- There is an online wiki called the MEPedia, for topics about M.E., and the article on Lightning Process here has many sources of the type and viewpoint that I was mentioning. I do not know if anything useful comes from it, for this article, as to reliable sources on views of LP. Are any quotes or sources useful from either of these two links? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Another source has appeared. I do not want to cite it if it is not a reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia. The article here is the pertinent article, and the Coda lists its contributors, editors, purpose, etc. at links on the bottom of the web page. Is this source quotable in this article, Sciencewatcher and Anna Roy? -- Prairieplant (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Process" was still around in 2024- It was apparently approaching Long Coivd patients.
[edit]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69040592 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This page reads like an advertisement
[edit]A lot of the wording on the page reads like it has been looked over by the marketing team of the Lightening Process. There are dead links to 'testimonials' and quotes from patients. I have removed the items that are referenced by broken links and removed the random testimonials thrown in. But this page really needs a work over to avoid the grifters trying to convince people this is real. 212.241.229.74 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
File on Four
[edit]The description of the File on Four piece is being embellished with, in my view some pretty serious original research and WP:SYNTH by Verity&Science1, with both me and Odobert reverting (old version, [Verity's version https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Lightning_Process&direction=next&oldid=1225769051]). Non of the claims added about the program are supported by sources added (for example I fail to see how you can call something controversial in wikipedia voice without providing a source which says so). I have my doubts overall about whether this piece should be mentioned at all, but it certainly shouldn't be presented like this. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the BBC investigation is worth mentioning as it exposed some problems with the LP and includes expert commentary from Dr Camilla Nord and Prof Danny Altmann. Perhaps we should use another quote from these experts that appears less offensive (i.e. instead of the 'bollocks' statement from Nord). I also had the impression that the changes by Verity&Science1 were mostly criticism and comments on the BBC investigation rather than info taken from it. Odobert (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- That paragraph does just need to be NPOVed, as it omits the comments from Nord that the theory that stress can cause symptoms is valid. Recommend anyone who wants to edit it listen/read that entire section of the interview. Also I noticed the Hawkes quote that the method is secretive, but it's not...the entire method is laid out in detail in Phil's book. Probably worth mentioning that fact. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seems this is obvious quackery/fraud. RS says so; Wikipedia reflects that. Apologist come here to try and skew the article otherwise. It's the old dance. WP:NPOV and particularly WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS apply. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be quackery/fraud, as it's supported (to a certain extent) by science. The issue is more around how they apply their method, as it includes some elements of pseudoscience. And as I mentioned on Verity's talk page, it looks like they may have a conflict of interest and would be better posting their comments and suggestions on this talk page. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ernst thinks it's quackery.[1] Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's weird that Ernst would admit he hasn't actually bothered looking at how LP works ("allegedly"). sciencewatcher (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ernst thinks it's quackery.[1] Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be quackery/fraud, as it's supported (to a certain extent) by science. The issue is more around how they apply their method, as it includes some elements of pseudoscience. And as I mentioned on Verity's talk page, it looks like they may have a conflict of interest and would be better posting their comments and suggestions on this talk page. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
bbc file on 4
[edit]I have amended the entry to include a client case support for the lightning process, which is the heading of the section and and quotes from a person in support of the lightning process has been left out. 2A00:23C8:3636:CE01:53E:3559:E3B2:3FFF (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would need WP:MEDRS, and very strong sourcing at this, considering this is quackery. Bon courage (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty obviously not quackery, as you would see if you bothered looking at the evidence rather than blog posts. Perhaps you should do that before editing the article next time. sciencewatcher (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience marketed with bogus health claims = quackery. Seems obvious. Bon courage (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The neurolinguistic programming part in LP seems to be regarded as quackery by experts as indicated by the quote from Camilla Nord. Odobert (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto the osteopathy parts. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a mixture of science with some pseudoscientific elements. It wouldn't be deemed quackery, as there are clinical trials and it is based on CBT and stress reduction. It can certainly be criticized for over grandiose claims, bad practitioners and other faults. sciencewatcher (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not entirely sure it would be wise to rely on those "experts" in the programme, as they were advocating microclots (which is definitely quackery and pseudoscience!) sciencewatcher (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Many quackeries having trials. Taking money of people based on 'grandiose claims' (i.e. lies) is quackery by definition. Not sure why Wikipedia needs to be coy about health fraud; all seems a bit POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the article mention any grandiose claims. It just says that it is helpful for conditions where CBT and stress reduction would be expected to help, such as CFS, MS, depression, etc. sciencewatcher (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Many quackeries having trials. Taking money of people based on 'grandiose claims' (i.e. lies) is quackery by definition. Not sure why Wikipedia needs to be coy about health fraud; all seems a bit POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto the osteopathy parts. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty obviously not quackery, as you would see if you bothered looking at the evidence rather than blog posts. Perhaps you should do that before editing the article next time. sciencewatcher (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)