the National Research Ethics Service. The paediatrician supervising the study, Esther Crawley, has commented "If the Lightning Process is dangerous, as they say, we need to find out. They should want to find it out, not prevent research." Results of the study by Crawley were publicized at the Science Media Centre in September 2017; an editorial on its own presentation of the results of the SMILE study stated: "If you had only read the headlines for the CFS/ME story you may conclude that the treatment tested at Bristol might be worth a try if you are blighted by the illness, when in truth the author said repeatedly that the findings would first have to be replicated in a bigger trial." Reactions to their briefing were stronger than expected: "it was the criticism from within the scientific community that we had not anticipated." The briefing invited four psychologists to make comments on the study, who were mild in their reactions, while the commentary on the 28 September 2017 article evoked detailed, well-referenced but anonymous criticisms of the SMILE study and the Lightning Process in the comments section. Dorothy Bishop from Oxford University commented that "The gains for patients in this study seem solid. However, while the patient allocation and statistical analysis of the trial appear to be done to a high standard, the intervention that was assessed is commercial and associated with a number of warning signs. The Lightning Process appears based on neurolinguistic programming, which has long been recognised as pseudoscience". References Bibliography External links Official web site'' Physiology Mind–body interventions Devices to alter consciousness Osteopathic techniques Chronic fatigue syndrome