flottorp

Trial By Error: Top Lightning Process Proponent Privately Lobbied for Approval of Norway’s LP Study

7 December 2022 by David Tuller

By David Tuller, DrPH

*Two corrections had been made in the text below. The NEM committee has 12 members, not nine, as I originally wrote. And when Dr Flottorp wrote her letter, it was not while the NEM committee was considering the proposed Lightning Process trial, as I originally wrote, but before it had progressed that far. The letter was written in expectation that the matter could be forwarded to the NEM committee, which it then was.

Dr Signe Flottorp is a promoter of the Lightning Process for ME/CFS as well as the research director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. That’s a scary combination! Dr Flottorp, a general practitioner, is also a fervent member of the Scandinavian arm of the CBT/GET ideological brigades. She and two colleagues recently wrote an ill-informed opinion piece promoting GET and CBT called “Facts and myths about ME” for Aftenposten, a major news organization. Aftenposten also published my rebuttal–with an appealing photo!–in which I declared their unfounded arguments to be “tullprat.” (“Nonsense,” for non-Norwegians.)

Trial By Error: My Letter Responding to Norway Health Leader’s Efforts to Denigrate My “Activist” Work

18 February 2022 by David Tuller

By David Tuller, DrPH

Updated on March 2, 2022:

Yesterday I received a thoughtful note from Professor Miek Jong in response to my recent letter to her (see below) regarding the effort on the part of a leading Norwegian doctor to denigrate my work by describing me as an “activist.”

I have sent Professor Jong the following answer:

Dear Miek–

Thanks so much for your gracious response. It’s great that you’ve had experience at Berkeley and UCSF!

I don’t mind my work being mentioned in this debate. What I find disturbing is that Dr Flottorp and her colleagues apparently deride anyone opposing their views as an “activist,” notwithstanding any professional and academic credentials or the merits of the issues raised. Moreover, they do so as if the word “activist” automatically disqualifies someone from having a legitimate perspective.

When an intervention essentially tells patients that to acknowledge having an illness or symptoms or even negative thoughts represents a failure, it is self-evident that their responses to subjective questions about how they feel are likely to be infused with an unknown amount of bias. This should not be a controversial or confusing concept for experienced investigators to grasp, but apparently it is.

Good luck holding down the fort in this debate!

Best–David

David Tuller, DrPH
Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism
Center for Global Public Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

In my previous post about a whine de coeur from northern European members of the GET/CBT idealogical brigades, I mentioned that the lead author, Signe Flottorp, had cited my work in a 2020 letter. In that blunt message, she characterized me as a “well-known ME-activist.” The letter is part of an exchange that was apparently obtained through a freedom of information request and released on social media.

Dr Flottorp is the research director at Norway’s National Institute for Public Health. The exchange was with Miek Jong, the head of NAFKAM, an agency that collects information about alternative medical approaches. In the exchange, Dr Flottorp complained to Dr Jong about a cautionary NAFKAM report about the Lightning Process (LP). Among her complaints was that NAFKAM did not publicize results from the pediatric LP trial conducted by pediatrician Esther Crawley, a methodologically and ethically challenged professor at Bristol University.

Trial By Error: The Lancet Publishes Whine de Coeur from Impassioned GET/CBT Defenders

14 February 2022 by David Tuller

By David Tuller, DrPH

The Lancet has just published an anguished whine de coeur from supporters of the graded exercise therapy/cognitive behavior therapy/ [GET/CBT] approach to ME/CFS. (Or CFS/ME, as these authors insist on calling the illness in what those familiar with the debate will recognize as a childish fit of pique.) These impassioned members of the GET/CBT ideological brigades, all from northern European countries, are metaphorically stomping their little feet over the new ME/CFS clinical guideline from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.