On October 26th, CBC’s flagship program The National aired an interview featuring former CBC host Gill Deacon discussing her recovery from Long COVID using a brain retraining program and promoting her upcoming book. 

Although host Ian Hanomansing clarified on air that Deacon doesn’t endorse the brain retraining therapy, the segment still provided national coverage for an unproven therapy. The National failed to mention that there’s no strong evidence CBT, and related brain retraining programs, are effective for Long COVID. The specific brain retraining course Deacon used to recover, according to her Substack, the Lightning Process, has been accused of exploiting people with Long COVID.  

At best, this suggests The National did not conduct sufficient background research that would have flagged the problematic nature of the Lightning Process. At worst, the program may have been aware of the concerns surrounding the Lightning Process but chose not to mention it.

The CBC Segment and Deacon’s Experience

After her diagnosis, Deacon said that she didn’t have much hope initially, as the Long COVID stories she heard involved active, dynamic people becoming couchbound for several years. 

However, Deacon believes she made a full recovery thanks to a three-day brain retraining workshop that combined neural plasticity and CBT. She explained that by “constantly feeling stressed and anxious about this headache or that fatigue” she was keeping her stress hormones high, preventing her body from healing.

More details are provided in her Substack, where she explains that the program she undertook was the Lightning Process. Deacon was introduced to the program by an acquaintance but was initially turned off by the marketing materials, which she described as “new-age garbledygook” that was “nothing but expensive snake oil marketed to the desperate.”

After talking to a woman about her experience with the program, she was convinced to give it a try. She participated in a three-day workshop between March 22 to 24 and she now reports being completely recovered. She says that it isn’t a “miracle pill” but educated her about neurological processes that influenced her body’s healing.

While Deacon may have recovered, there is no strong scientific evidence that the Lightning Process works or that it is grounded in any scientific principles. In addition, while some people don’t improve, some people recover from Long COVID regardless of whatever treatment they try. Platforming such an unproven program on a national broadcast is irresponsible.

What Exactly is the Lightning Process?

The Lightning Process was developed by Phil Parker, a PhD psychologist and osteopath. 

In the 1990s, he melded pseudoscientific approaches, including osteopathy and neurolinguistic programming to create the Lightning Process. Offered as a three day program, it aims to help participants re-wire their brain through “gentle movement, meditation-like techniques and mental exercises.” After the training, people can practice these techniques to influence the nervous system as well as “switching on pathways which promote health and switching off ones which aren’t so good for you.”

Years after developing the Lightning Process, he co-led the European College of Holistic Medicine Healing course which included lessons on using spirit guides, reading tarot cards, and using auras to diagnose and heal problems. 

Despite the science-sounding language, the Lightning Process does not have a valid basis in neuroscience. According to Dr. Camilla Nord, a neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge told the BBC that the Lightning Process “strayed very, very far from neuroscience" and that is an "abuse" of scientific terms.

Still it is offered as a treatment for chronic pain, Long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). Due to its lack of scientific validity, the U.K.’s National Institute for Care and Health Excellence recommends against its use for ME. Scientific experts have criticized the methodology of trials promoting its effectiveness as flawed. 

Edzard Ernst, a German researcher and physician wrote about the Lightning Process in 2020: “What do we call a therapy for which numerous, far-reaching claims are being made, which is based on implausible assumptions, which is unproven, and for which people have to pay dearly? The last time I looked, it was called quackery.” 

Last year, a thorough BBC investigation documented how the program works to exploit people with Long COVID. It also describes the training:

“Over three days on Zoom, the course taught the ritual that forms the basis of the programme. Every time you experience a symptom or negative thought, you say the word "stop", make a choice to avoid these symptoms and then do a positive visualisation of a time you felt well. You do this while walking around a piece of paper printed with symbols - a ritual the BBC was told to do as many as 50 times a day.”

The program could cause additional harm to the subset of people with Long COVID who experience post-exertional malaise, as physical and cognitive exertion leads to worsening symptoms.

I reached out to the CBC to see if they were aware that Deacon attributed her improvement to the Lightning Process and asked them to comment on their rationale for platforming her recovery story in light of the controversy and lack of scientific evidence surrounding the program.

They were unable to provide a response prior to publication. This article will be updated when a response is received.

What’s the Potential Harm?

People with Long COVID already face significant stigma. With no approved treatments or cures, stories like Deacon’s influence vulnerable people and their families who are looking for solutions. 

Platforming a recovery story for a treatment that’s widely criticized for its lack of scientific plausibility and propensity to exploit Long COVID patients is irresponsible. It risks increasing stigma by suggesting that Long COVID could be cured through positive thinking and brain retraining, rather than acknowledging the complexity of the condition. 

The segment is patronizing to people living with Long COVID who are trying to manage their symptoms while the condition remains underfunded, public Long COVID clinics are closing, and private providers promote potentially dangerous treatments on the basis of low-quality studies. 

The reporting presents a simple solution for Long COVID and neglects to mention the strategies that could prevent infection— including improving indoor air quality, masking and vaccines to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

People with Long COVID deserve responsible, science-based coverage. 

UPDATE OCT 31 8:28 PM ET: Revised “many people recover from Long COVID” to “some people recover from Long COVID” to better reflect variability in study estimates. “Many” could suggest most, while “some” is more accurate in this context.

If you liked reading this, please consider subscribing. I will be writing one to two news stories every month highlighting these issues.

I'm a science and health journalist who is disappointed and fed up with the lack of news coverage surrounding Long COVID, ME, chronic illness, and disability issues in Canada. I decided to start this newsletter to provide a home for the news stories that don’t get coverage in Canada’s news ecosystem, which lacks outlets for good, science-based reporting.