Re: Gama Waves articles and info on the pRoshi

[Guest guest]

We train with 40 Hz bilaterally all the time and have done so for

the last nine years.

The other point that was interesting in the original Lehmann article

was his reference to 21 Hz as a separable factor

that " counterbalances " the effect of 40 Hz training. Sue and I

first identified the use of 21 Hz in NF and have been using it since

we first worked together.

We have these two targeting pairs always working concurrently in our

way of providing NF training. Being comprehensive and adaptive in

the way we work makes the overall task of providing useful NF far,

far easier -- and more fun!

I don't use the A1, however, NeuroCARE Pro will support the use of

ProComp, Nexis and presently the BrainMaster (if the validation

tests continue to support its frequency response).

val

> Adding to this, in a post to the biofeedback group ,Val Brown

said the following about the pRoshi:

>

> " I do understand that you believe that pumping in a 40 Hz signal

at

> 90 degress out of phase will stabilize the CNS. I remember the

> conversation that you and I had about that at an iSNR conference a

> very long time ago. But what I'm wondering is how do you respond

to

> the idea and concern that precisely because you are NOT tracking

the

> EEG there really is no way to know how an individual is being

> affected by pROSHI until after the effect has occurred? "

>

> It looks like 40hz is the wave dujour.

>

> Is anyone training the 40hz range with an A1 ? If so, how good are

you finding it with this higher waves ?

>

> Ulisses

[Guest guest]

Val:

Don't you also promote 'distance healing' on your website?

SDC

>

> We train with 40 Hz bilaterally all the time and have done so for

> the last nine years.

>

> The other point that was interesting in the original Lehmann

article

> was his reference to 21 Hz as a separable factor

> that " counterbalances " the effect of 40 Hz training. Sue and I

> first identified the use of 21 Hz in NF and have been using it

since

> we first worked together.

>

> We have these two targeting pairs always working concurrently in

our

> way of providing NF training. Being comprehensive and adaptive in

> the way we work makes the overall task of providing useful NF far,

> far easier -- and more fun!

>

> I don't use the A1, however, NeuroCARE Pro will support the use of

> ProComp, Nexis and presently the BrainMaster (if the validation

> tests continue to support its frequency response).

>

> val

>

> > Adding to this, in a post to the biofeedback group ,Val

Brown

> said the following about the pRoshi:

> >

> > " I do understand that you believe that pumping in a 40 Hz signal

> at

> > 90 degress out of phase will stabilize the CNS. I remember the

> > conversation that you and I had about that at an iSNR conference

a

> > very long time ago. But what I'm wondering is how do you respond

> to

> > the idea and concern that precisely because you are NOT tracking

> the

> > EEG there really is no way to know how an individual is being

> > affected by pROSHI until after the effect has occurred? "

> >

> > It looks like 40hz is the wave dujour.

> >

> > Is anyone training the 40hz range with an A1 ? If so, how good

are

> you finding it with this higher waves ?

> >

> > Ulisses

[Guest guest]

You are on the list selling your products, why not give people the

full story:

The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud

The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and

suspicious from the start but now has been fatally tainted with

fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries.

The " lead " author said he didn't learn of the study until months

after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted

by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit

fraud. All his previous studies must now be questioned.

Bruce Flamm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was rocked by

perhaps the most horrific event in its history. In the horrible and

uncertain days following the destruction of the World Trade Center

(and other attacks) by Islamic zealots many Americans turned to

prayer. Millions prayed in their homes and churches as their senators

and congressmen prayed on the steps of the Capitol building and their

president prayed in the White House. Bumper stickers, signs, and

banners flooded the nation proclaiming, " God Bless America " and " Pray

for America. " Millions of faithful Americans prayed for a miracle or

perhaps a sign from God. Three weeks later such a miracle occurred.

The timing could not have been better.

On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at

prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had

discovered something quite extraordinary (1). Using virtually

foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that

infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became

pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for

them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine

(2). Even the researchers were shocked. The study's results could

only be described as miraculous. This was welcome and wonderful news

for a shaken nation.

Columbia University issued a news release claiming that the

remarkable study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias

and that the study itself was carefully designed to eliminate bias

(3). This was no hoax. Media attention immediately focused on the

miraculous study, and articles touting its spectacular results

quickly appeared in newspapers around the world. io Lobo,

chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia

and the study's lead author, told Reuters Health that, " Essentially,

there was a doubling of the pregnancy rate in the group that was

prayed for " (4). Dr. , ABC News medical editor and

Good Morning America commentator, stated, " A new study on the power

of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many

physicians remain skeptical " (5).

The facts I will relate here about the Columbia University " miracle "

study confirm that those physicians who doubted the study's

astounding results had extremely good reasons to be skeptical. It

remains to be seen whether ABC's Dr. , a medical doctor who

also serves as a minister at the evangelical Community Covenant

Church in West Peabody, Massachusetts, will report or ignore the

following shocking information that has since been revealed about the

alleged study and its authors.

The " Miracle " Study

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the most advanced form of infertility

treatment currently available and represents the last hope for women

with severe infertility. Therefore, any technique that could increase

the efficacy of IVF by even a few percent would be a medical

breakthrough. Yet the Columbia University study claimed to have

demonstrated, in a carefully designed randomized controlled trial,

that distant prayer by anonymous prayer groups increased the success

rate of IVF by an astounding 100 percent (2). The Cha/Wirth/Lobo

study involved 219 infertility patients in Seoul, South Korea, who

required in vitro fertilization. Twenty patients were excluded due to

incomplete data, leaving 199 study subjects. After randomization, 100

patients were assigned to the study group to receive IVF plus prayer

from Christian prayer groups in the United States, Canada, and

Australia. The control group of ninety-nine patients received IVF but

did not receive any prayers from these prayer groups. In vitro

fertilization was performed in the usual fashion in both groups. The

100 patients in the study group were not informed that the groups

were praying for them. Furthermore, none of the patients were even

informed that they were being used as study subjects. The prayer

groups, which were thousands of miles away from the study subjects,

prayed over photographs that had been faxed to them from Korea.

Remarkably, the pregnancy rate in the prayed-for group (50 percent)

was almost twice as high as the pregnancy rate in the nonprayed-for

group (26 percent, p= .0013). The highly significant results seem to

indicate that something spectacular had occurred.

However, even a cursory review of the report reveals many potential

flaws. For one thing, the study protocol was convoluted and

confusing, involving at least three levels of overlapping and

intertwining prayer groups. Tiers 1 and 2 each consisted of four

blocks of prayer participants. Prayer participants in tier 1, block

A, received a single sheet of paper with five IVF patient's pictures

(a treatment " unit " ) and prayed in a directed manner with a specific

intent to " increase the pregnancy rate " for these patients about whom

they apparently had no information whatsoever. Prayer participants in

tier 2, block A, apparently performed two different types of prayer.

First, they prayed for their fellow prayer participants in tier 1,

block A, with the intent to " increase the efficacy of prayer

intervention. " In other words, they were apparently praying to

increase the effectiveness of their colleagues' prayers, whatever

those prayers might be. Next they prayed in a nondirected manner for

the study patients with the " intent that God's will or desire be

fulfilled in the life of the patient. " Similar prayers apparently

took place in all of the other blocks. Finally, in addition to all of

the above groups, tiers, blocks, and units, a separate group of three

individuals prayed in a general nonspecific manner with the intent

that " God's will or desire be fulfilled for the prayer participants

in tiers 1 and 2. " In other words, these final three prayer

participants were praying to increase the efficacy of the second tier

of prayer participants who were in turn praying to increase the

efficacy of the first tier of prayer participants who were in turn

praying for increased pregnancy rates in the study patients.

As can be seen from this brief description, the study protocol was so

convoluted and confusing that it cannot be taken seriously. Of

course, a simple protocol could have been used to determine if prayer

was efficacious in increasing the success rate of IVF. One might

simply instruct a few believers to pray for successful IVF in the

study group while no one prayed for patients in the control group.

With distant prayer the patients would not know if they were being

prayed for, or not, so there would be no intention-to-heal or placebo

bias. Contrast this with the study design described above and draw

your own conclusions. This article is too brief to describe all of

the study's flaws but readers who want more information are referred

to two critiques I have published in The Scientific Review of

Alternative Medicine (6,7).

Briefly, here are a few problems I pointed out. Choosing a complex

study design rather than a simple one requires explanation, however

the authors give no reason for selecting a bewildering study design.

Including prayers asking that " God's will or desire be fulfilled "

introduced a vague and obfuscating concept that cannot be measured as

an endpoint: no one knows what God's will is, hence any outcome could

be viewed as a success. The authors made no attempt to discover how

much prayer was being conducted outside the study protocol, perhaps

to other gods, since only one-third of Koreans are Christians.

Occam's razor (the principle that a simple explanation rather than a

convoluted one is more often correct) demands that highly unlikely

results be viewed with suspicion. Is it more likely that this study

is flawed or fraudulent or that the authors have demonstrated the

existence of a supernatural phenomena and thus have made perhaps the

most important discovery in history?

Bruce Flamm sent a series of letters to the study's authors and the

journal's editors as early as October 2001 raising serious questions

about the Cha/Lobo/Wirth prayer study and requesting details about

the study's procedures. He never received an answer.

The Columbia University Connection

The study's three authors were Kwang Cha, io Lobo, and

Wirth. Kwang Yul Cha, M.D., was the director of the Cha Columbia

Infertility Medical Center at the time of the " miracle " study but

apparently severed his relationship with Columbia soon after the

study was published. A page on Columbia's Web site, which has since

been removed, described Cha as an " internationally renowned clinician

and researcher. " Cha is a graduate of the Yonsei Medical School in

Seoul, South Korea. Professor io A. Lobo, M.D., recently stepped

down as chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at

Columbia University. When the study results were announced, Dr. Lobo

told the New York Times that the idea for the study came from Dr.

Cha; however, the Columbia news release claimed that Dr. Lobo led the

study. For two years both Dr. Cha and Dr. Lobo have refused to return

my phone calls and e-mails asking questions about the study. The

study's third author, Wirth, who will be described below, has

no known connection with Columbia University other than his

participation in the study.

In December 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),

after being alerted by media coverage, launched an investigation into

the lack of informed consent in the Columbia study.

Columbia University subsequently acknowledged noncompliance with its

Multiple Project Assurance (MPA) and its own policies and procedures

(8). Specifically, Dr. Lobo never presented the above research to the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Columbia-Presbyterian Medical

Center (CCPM). In response to the DHHS investigation Columbia

University agreed to have its IRB perform an educational in-service

for Lobo's department.

In addition, in December 2001, Columbia University Vice President

Q. , a physician, informed the DHHS that Dr. Lobo first

learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the

study was completed and that Lobo primarily provided editorial review

and assistance with publication (8). This seems inconsistent with

Lobo being listed as one of the study's authors. This also conflicts

with the fact that Lobo was identified by both The New York Times and

ABC News as the report's lead author. Lobo was also identified as the

report's lead author in a news release posted for two years on the

Columbia University Web site. Interestingly, the press release has

recently been removed from the Columbia site. If the report's lead

author did not conduct the international prayer study, who did?

The Mysterious Wirth

The remaining author is a mysterious individual known as P.

Wirth. In October 2002, one year after the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study was

published, Mr. Wirth, along with his former research associate ph

Horvath, also known as ph Hessler, was indicted by a federal

grand jury (9). Both men were charged with bilking the troubled cable

television provider Adelphia Communications Corporation out of $2.1

million by infiltrating the company, then having it pay for

unauthorized consulting work. Police investigators discovered that

Wirth is also known as Wayne Truelove. FBI investigators

revealed that Wirth first used the name of Truelove, a New York child

who died at age five in 1959, to obtain a passport in the mid-1980s.

Wirth and his accomplice were charged with thirteen counts of mail

fraud, twelve counts of interstate transportation of stolen money,

making false statements on loan applications, and five other counts

of fraud. A federal grand jury concluded that the relationship

between Wirth and Horvath extended back more than twenty years and

involved more than $3.4 million in income and property obtained by

using false identities. In addition to the Adelphia scheme, Wirth

apparently found a way to defraud the federal government by

collecting Social Security benefits totaling approximately $103,178

from 1994 to 2003 in the name of Julius Wirth. This man, possibly

Wirth's father, died in 1994 but his benefits continued to be

paid after his death via electronic funds transferred to the Republic

National Bank.

Incredibly, at the time of the indictment, Horvath, Wirth's partner,

was already in jail, charged with arson for burning down his

Pennsylvania house to collect insurance money (10). The FBI

investigation revealed that Horvath had previously gone to prison in

a 1990 embezzlement and false identity case in California.

Interestingly, the investigation also revealed that he had also once

been arrested for posing as a doctor in California. It appears that

the " doctor " who performed biopsies on human research subjects in

Wirth's famous healing studies may have actually been Horvath

impersonating a doctor. Horvath was a co-author on another of Wirth's

studies in which salamander limbs were amputated and found to grow

back more quickly when " healers " waved their hands over the wounds.

Both Wirth and Horvath initially pled not guilty to the felony

charges, and over the next eighteen months their trial was delayed

six times. However, on May 18, 2004, just as the criminal trial of

the United States v. Wirth & Horvath was finally about to begin, both

men pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to

commit bank fraud (11). Each man faced a maximum of five years in

federal prison and agreed to forfeit assets of more than $1 million

obtained through fraudulent schemes. Horvath, however, was found dead

in his jail cell on July 13, 2004, an apparent suicide.

Wirth's Prior Research

Wirth, identified as Doctor Wirth on several of his

publications, has no medical degree. He holds a master's degree in

parapsychology and a law degree. Wirth has a long history of

publishing studies on mysterious supernatural or paranormal

phenomena, mainly dealing with alternative and spiritual healing.

Most of these studies originated from an entity called " Healing

Sciences Research International, " an organization that Mr. Wirth

supposedly headed. This entity, which sounds like a medical center or

impressive research facility, could only be contacted through a post

office box in Orinda, California. Between 1992 and 1997 approximately

eighteen research papers authored by D.P. Wirth were published,

mostly in obscure paranormal journals (12-29).

Wirth has stated that his experiments " represent a seminal research

effort within the field of complementary healing, " and many faith

healing advocates fully agree with his statement. Due to the

apparently meticulous design and conduct of Wirth's randomized,

double-blind controlled studies he has become the virtual poster boy

of alternative healing methods, particularly Noncontact Therapeutic

Touch (NCTT). In NCTT the " healer " does not actually touch the

patient but supposedly alters undetectable " human energy fields "

surrounding the patient. According to Wirth, NCTT apparently achieves

its healing effect by an interaction of " energy fields " between the

practitioner and the subject. The method requires the healer to

1) " center " his/herself both physically and psychologically,

2) " attune " to the " energy field " of the subject by " scanning " with

the hands two to six inches from the body in order to detect

imbalances within or blocks within the energy field, and 3)

consciously redirect and " rebalance " the energy in those areas of

blockage (24). The existence of these imagined human energy fields

has never been proven. Even if such fields did exist, it is not clear

how a healer could possibly detect or modify them. In fact, in a

recent study twenty-one experienced NCTT practitioners were unable to

detect any " human energy fields " under blinded conditions. The study

concluded that failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim is

unrefuted evidence that the claims of NCTT are completely groundless

(30).

In addition to his extensive work on NCTT, Wirth has previously

conducted several studies involving Christian faith healing. For

example, he evaluated and reported on forty-eight patients treated by

Greg Schelkun, a spiritual healer trained in the Philippines in

the " Espiritista System " of faith healing (17). This system

includes " psychic surgery, " laying on of hands, and distant prayer

healing. It has a Christian foundation in which the practitioner

supposedly cultivates divine healing by entering a trace-like state

and opening themselves to the healing power of the Holy Spirit.

Schelkun asserts that he acts only as a channel for the " universal

energies " of God and that any " miraculous cures " that occur are due

solely to the Grace of God. Wirth evaluated patients treated by

Schelkun for conditions ranging from ovarian cysts to AIDS and even

cancer. Wirth found that 90 percent of patients believed that their

condition was improved by the treatment.

In October 2001 narcotics officers raided the Santa ,

California, office of Dr. Eidelman, co-author of many of

Wirth's papers. Eidelman is a believer in paranormal healing

and an outspoken proponent of the medical use of marijuana. Officers

presented a search warrant charging that Eidelman provided undercover

narcotic agents with medical marijuana recommendations without valid

medical grounds. On May 28, 2002, Eidelman's license to practice

medicine was suspended.

Journal of Reproductive Medicine

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire sordid saga can be

summed up in one question: How did a bizarre study claiming

extraordinarily unlikely and apparently supernatural results end up

in a peer-reviewed medical journal? We may never know. For two years

the editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM) refused to

answer my calls or respond to letters about this study. The fact that

study co-author Lobo serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of the

JRM may or may not be relevant. It is known that Columbia University

Vice President Q. informed DHHS investigators that Dr.

Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months

after the study was completed and that Dr. Lobo primarily provided

editorial review and assistance with publication (8).

On May 30, 2004, the London Observer made many of these events public

for the first time in an article titled " Exposed: Conman's Role in

Prayer-power IVF 'Miracle' " (31). The Observer article noted that the

study was still posted on the JRM Web site and that phone calls from

the Observer to the JRM were not returned. Three days after the

scandal had been made public and linked to the journal, perhaps in

response to an avalanche of inquiries, JRM co-editor-in-chief Dr.

Lawrence Devoe finally stated that the Journal of Reproductive

Medicine would remove the flawed Columbia study from its Web site and

publish an editorial clarifying their author requirements. Both the

Observer article and a June 7, 2004, article in The New York Sun

stated that the authors did not respond to their requests for

comment.

It must be emphasized that, in the entire history of modern science,

no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been

replicated under strictly controlled conditions. The importance of

this fact cannot be overstated. One would think that all medical

journal editors would be keenly aware of this fact and therefore be

highly skeptical of paranormal or supernatural claims. One must

therefore wonder if the Columbia researchers and the JRM editors were

blinded by religious beliefs. Everything else being equal, if the

claimed supernatural intervention had been Ms. Cleo manipulating

Tarot cards rather than Christians praying, would the reviewers and

editors have taken this study seriously? In any case, the damage has

been done. The fact that a " miracle cure " study was deemed to be

suitable for publication in a scientific journal automatically

enhanced the study's credibility. Not surprisingly, the news media

quickly disseminated the " miraculous " results.

Damage Control

Clearly, JRM's belated decision to remove the Columbia study from its

Web site will not correct the errors it made in publishing an absurd

article and then persistently ignoring warnings about the mistake in

doing so. Serious damage has been done. The editors were informed of

several of the study's flaws within weeks of its publication and yet

allowed the entire study to remain on their Web site for two years.

During that time the public was never given any reason to doubt the

study's validity or its miraculous claims. As a result of JRM's

inaction the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has been cited in many

other " healing " publications and on other Web sites as strong

scientific evidence for the validity of faith healing. A Google

search performed on June 4, 2004, for the terms, " Wirth, Columbia,

prayer " found 686 sites; many of these links led to articles touting

the miraculous results of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study.

Worse yet, the Columbia study is now being cited by faith healers as

a shining example of " healing " research of the highest scientific

quality. For example, I recently wrote a letter to the editor of

Southern California Physician critical of its article " Prescription

for Prayer " and the appalling claim by noted faith healer Dr. Larry

Dossey that some 1,600 studies have revealed " something positive "

about intercessory prayer. I commented that if there were, in fact,

something positive it certainly wouldn't take 1,600 studies to find

it! Dr. Dossey's published response to my letter included the

following convincing argument, " Controlled clinical trials and the

peer-review process continue to serve us well. The most recent

example of this process in action in the area of intercessory prayer

is from Columbia Medical School-a positive, controlled clinical trial

published in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Reproductive

Medicine " (32). Yes, Dossey had used the hopelessly flawed

Columbia " miracle " study to demonstrate the scientific validity of

faith healing.

In the February 2004 edition of her nationally distributed

newsletter, faith healing advocate Dr. Lark cites the

Cha/Wirth/Lobo study as strong evidence for the power of prayer (33).

She notes that critics of faith healing have argued that most prayer

studies have not been credible due to weak methodologies. However,

she points out that " those researchers who believe in prayer are

answering this critique quickly-and effectively. The fact is, the

medical journals are rapidly filling with studies that are proving

the power of prayer. " She then presents the proof by describing the

Columbia " miracle " study.

In a published critique of phony healing methods, noted physician and

chairman of the Dutch Union Against Quackery Dr. Cees Renckens has

this to say about the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study: " Very recently a

seemingly impeccable paper proving absurd claims was published in a

serious and (hitherto?) respected journal in the field of

reproductive medicine " (34). Dr. Renckens also states, " Fraud is

difficult to extract from an apparently impeccable paper, but

everyone is invited to draw one's owns conclusions about the

trustworthiness of the authors. We do not believe anything of the

story and are very much opposed to publishing this kind of absurdity

in serious journals. "

For both Columbia University and the JRM, the only honorable solution

to this scandal is to fully and publicly disclose their mistakes and

apologize for the attempted cover-up. Columbia erroneously submitted

a profoundly flawed and absurd article and JRM erroneously published

it. Simply claiming that they were duped by Wirth and attempting to

blame him for their own mistakes would be unethical-and almost

certainly false. It would also be a setback for science.

Conclusion

In summary, one of the authors of the Columbia Cha/Wirth/Lobo study

has left the University and refuses to comment, another now claims he

did not even know about the study until six months to a year after

its completion and also refuses to comment. The remaining author is

on his way to federal prison for fraud and conspiracy. Fraud is the

operative word here. In reality, the Columbia University prayer study

was based on a bewildering study design and included many sources of

error. But worse than flaws, in light of all of the shocking

information presented above, one must consider the sad possibility

that the Columbia prayer study may never have been conducted at all.

Finally, Wirth's history of criminal fraudulent activity casts

a dark shadow over many of the supposedly seminal publications in the

field of alternative and faith healing. In light of these facts, all

of his frequently-cited publications must now be viewed with

suspicion. While faith healers have performed rituals and cast out

demons for millennia, they are now attempting to validate their

claims with scientific methods and publish their results in peer-

reviewed medical journals. It is one thing to tell an audience at a

tent revival that prayers yield miracle cures but quite another thing

to make the same claim in a scientific journal. By doing so, faith

healers cross the line into the domain of science, a domain where

superstitious and supernatural claims are not taken seriously.

Lessons from the 'Miracle' Study Scandal

The real scandal here lies not in Wirth's actions but in those of

Columbia University and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The

scientific method is designed to detect and correct errors and

misconduct. In this case the system failed in many places. In fact,

if Wirth had not been arrested, the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study might have

never been retracted.

Faith healing advocates like Drs. Dossey and Lark will no doubt try

to put a positive spin on this scandal by claiming that it has

successfully weeded out a few bad apples from an otherwise pristine

bunch. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Unless replicated

under strictly controlled conditions, studies claiming to have

demonstrated " miracle " cures belong in religious and paranormal

magazines, not in scientific journals. This is true regardless of

whether the claimed " miracle " involves supposed actions of deities,

ghosts, psychic powers, or other " mysterious " phenomena.

It is often claimed that faith healing may not work but at least does

no harm. In fact, reliance on faith healing can cause serious harm

and even death (35).

In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of

supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly

controlled conditions. All scientists and editors of scientific and

medical journals should be fully aware of this obvious fact.

The " faith " in faith healing refers to an irrational belief,

unsupported by evidence, that mysterious supernatural powers can

eradicate disease. Science deals with evidence, not faith.

Publication of absurd studies and pseudoscience in medical and

scientific journals does serious damage to the public's perception of

medical science and science in general.

> >

> > We train with 40 Hz bilaterally all the time and have done so for

> > the last nine years.

> >

> > The other point that was interesting in the original Lehmann

> article

> > was his reference to 21 Hz as a separable factor

> > that " counterbalances " the effect of 40 Hz training. Sue and I

> > first identified the use of 21 Hz in NF and have been using it

> since

> > we first worked together.

> >

> > We have these two targeting pairs always working concurrently in

> our

> > way of providing NF training. Being comprehensive and adaptive

in

> > the way we work makes the overall task of providing useful NF

far,

> > far easier -- and more fun!

> >

> > I don't use the A1, however, NeuroCARE Pro will support the use

of

> > ProComp, Nexis and presently the BrainMaster (if the validation

> > tests continue to support its frequency response).

> >

> > val

> >

> > > Adding to this, in a post to the biofeedback group ,Val

> Brown

> > said the following about the pRoshi:

> > >

> > > " I do understand that you believe that pumping in a 40 Hz

signal

> > at

> > > 90 degress out of phase will stabilize the CNS. I remember the

> > > conversation that you and I had about that at an iSNR

conference

> a

> > > very long time ago. But what I'm wondering is how do you

respond

> > to

> > > the idea and concern that precisely because you are NOT

tracking

> > the

> > > EEG there really is no way to know how an individual is being

> > > affected by pROSHI until after the effect has occurred? "

> > >

> > > It looks like 40hz is the wave dujour.

> > >

> > > Is anyone training the 40hz range with an A1 ? If so, how good

> are

> > you finding it with this higher waves ?

> > >

> > > Ulisses

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mark:

I've already done so repeatedly and in several different formats. I

suspect that, one way or another, a unit will show up here at some

point.

And then the real work can begin!

val

> Val,

>

> To expedite matters, can you ask Bruce again for the pendant -

> Since it is a brand new product there has been a strong demand but

I know

> that he will respond.

>

> Thank You

> Mark Berman, Psy.D.

>

>

> I am still waiting to receive an updated pendant from Bruce for

> > testing and validation. Once I receive it, and can validate the

> > frequency response and training value of the device, I'll release

> > the interface -- if all goes as expected.

> >

> >