[Fwd: Fw: Re: [PSYPHY] Calling a spade a damned shovel]

[Guest guest]

I don't usually like to cross-post from other lists, but I thought this might be

of interest to many of you brain trainers. It is the latest in a recent thread

from the psychophysiology list, a response I sent to a comment from another

member (further down):

>

> I doubt I could ever have demonstrated my concerns over the chilling effects

of this " regulation " thrust more clearly. " More than half the field " needs to

be cut out by " professional regulation " because they don't have " our " background

or practice like " we " do. Effectiveness of " their " approach is not an issue. The

outcomes " they " achieve are moot. And, of course, it is all because " they " are

purely financially motivated, while " we " are pure and scientific in ours.

>

> Al, if you actually believe that simply cleansing the field of the Othmers,

Val and me (and our like--and I'm proud to be included on a list with people who

have done so much to expand the awareness of neurofeedback's benefits and its

approaches) would get more referrals and insurance coverage for the rest of you,

you display a level of naivete which is quite breathtaking. Not that either of

these things would have any financial benefit to those few true believers who

would be left...

>

> Pete

>

> [PSYPHY] Calling a spade a damned shovel

>

> Cory,

>

> I suspect we have already lost the battle for professional standards in

neurofeedback, with horrible consequences that we have already had to live with

for years. I think it is well to think about this when we frame the matter, as

Pete van Deusen et al do, in the language of an enthusiastic salesman.

Neurofeedback has lots of empirical support, we all agree. So why has it not

been accepted by the medical and educational community? Primarily, I think,

because of the taint it carries from the fact that more than half of the field

has been taken over by outfits like Mr. Van Deusen's, the Othmers, Val Brown, et

al. I mean people who are not mental/behavioral health professionals or don't

practice like they are.

>

> Why is biofeedback not covered by insurance? Because it is practiced by

people who are not respected by the healing communities, which gives the

carriers an excuse to exclude it. Why don't pediatricians refer ADHD kids for

neurofeedback routinely? Because the field is choked with people like the ones

Mr. Van Deusen celebrates, all doing it without regulation. Do we really want

to frame neurofeedback as a woo-woo practice adjacent to energy medicine? Not

that Van Deusen does that; in fact, his attempt to boil down the literature has

some merit (and also makes some mistakes, IMHO). The problem here is not that

he is vague and oversimplified but that he is unavoidably compromised by his

economic motives. He is, like Sieg Othmer years ago and Val Brown then and

today, filled with--indeed overflowing with--passionate intensity (W.B. Yeats)

for his methods and their supposed outcomes. The same thing was, and perhaps

still is, found in the Christian Science community, or am

> ong the initiates of the Order of the Golden Dawn in turn-of-the-century

England. And how can I prove their claims for spirit healing, soul travel, etc.

are not true? Perhaps Dr. Brown really does cure (sorry, REGULATE) everything

that walks in the door and my failure to replicate is the unfortunate result of

my inability to believe. I don't think so, but that is not the point. The

basic issue is that there needs to be some standard of authority beyond the

enthusiasm of the amateur, the convert, the healed--and the Professor Marvels of

the sales community. That is why we must have professional regulation, as much

as we all (I included) fear its abuses.

>

> Al