The OTHER side of the Story: Behind the Board Complaints in Virginia

February 17, 2012

Dear list mates and colleagues,

Thus far, one side has framed this this issue as being solely about

WHO neurofeedback practitioners should BE (licensed vs unlicensed).

The following seems to indicate that the issue was actually about

HOW neurofeedback practitioners should BEHAVE.

As I read the series of posts alleging a cabal among my colleagues in this region to quash a competitor, I had several reactions.

Since I have known some of them for more than a decade, I began to question my own judgement about my associates. Who else was involved? I

wondered why there was no response from them, proffering their side.

I began to worry about who would be targeted next -- me?

To allay my anxiety, I began to ask them for their side of the story.

In the interest of economically presenting the " other side of the story " , this is what I was sent -- and asked to share.Sincerely, Sitar<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

After receiving many backchannel

messages over the last couple of months asking us to respond, we the

undersigned feel we must finally provide another side of the story to and

Sajeela Ramsey's frequent claims that a " frivolous, false

and defamatory " complaint was made against them by 6 mental health

therapists who went on a " witch hunt " after them.

Up to now we have

attempted to remain silent; none of us has wanted to stir the pot of innuendo

or to cause the Ramseys any further distress. But since they persist in

telling their side of the story, we feel that we have an obligation to provide

some of the other side. And there is always another side.

The Ramsey’s frequent

postings seem to be creating a climate of fear and paranoia on the lists. They

have stated that the " ISNR elite " is exhorting its members to report

the innocent unlicensed provider. This is simply untrue.

The complaint we filed

against Ms. Sajeela Ramsey was based on independent accounts of unethical,

unprofessional and at times, volatile behavior conveyed to us by ex-clients or

witnessed by us. Once we realized that, over the years, these complaints

might represent more than disgruntled clients or a “bad day” on Ms. Ramsey’s

part, a group of health care providers fulfilled their legal obligations to

report their concerns to the oversight entities of the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

Sajeela and Ramsey

are attempting to portray themselves as victims who were unfairly

" harassed and intimidated " by us. These are indeed the

behaviors Ms. Ramsey had allegedly displayed toward her clients. She has

also subsequently publicly displayed these behaviors on three occasions toward

at least two of us who had complained about her, causing us to fear for our

safety. This behavior toward her clients constitutes the primary impetus

for our eventually filing this complaint. With this behavior in mind, we have

obtained legal counsel to ensure that this email is not in any way libelous.

This is not about the " targeting and profiling " of a hapless

unlicensed provider or competitor in order to put them out of business, it is

about a pattern of harmful behavior. Three of us are not even competitors since

we live out of her area and several unlicensed providers continue to practice

in our area and have been left in peace since they have not exhibited a pattern

of unprofessional behavior.

Also, to clarify, the

reporting of Ms. Ramsey's behavior was not first initiated by Deborah Stokes

as the Ramseys have stated on public forums. We are very concerned that the one

sided reports by Sajeela and Ramsey are in retaliation to our complaint

and are an attempt to discredit ISNR and the Standards of Practice Paper since

Dr. Stokes was one of its co-authors and served a term on the ISNR Board.

We are also of the opinion that it is inappropriate for the various listservs

to host these inflammatory postings. Therefore, we will not continue to

contribute to the ruckus by publicly airing the specifics of our collective

complaints as this will only ensure further public outcry. And like those of

you who have back-channeled us, we would also like to see an end to this.

We hope that all in the

neurofeedback/biofeedback community feel that we must maintain respect and

courtesy for all our clients, particularly since many of them are needy and

vulnerable. When there is the appearance of a pattern of unprofessional

behavior, it can be detrimental to patients, it may reflect poorly on all the

providers of this service in the community, and ultimately it may undermine the

legitimacy that all in this field are trying to build.

To answer those who feel

we had a duty to go to Ms. Ramsey first, let us just say that we all followed

the guidelines of our respective licenses to the letter. The bottom line

is that there are no such provisions granted to unlicensed laypersons, only to

other professionals. Ms. Ramsey is not clinically trained nor professionally

licensed and, although she refers to herself as " Doctor " , her PhD is

in Intercultural Communication. Since the complaints were directed toward her

solo practice, we did not go to who, although he is a professional,

has a fulltime job in a nearby hospital and is not in her neurofeedback clinic

fulltime.

We hope this puts an end

to all the speculation and judgment about the other side and we collectively

hope that things will quiet down. If they do not, we will not continue to

engage in public battle. For those who have comments or questions, we

would be happy to answer them offline, as that is a better place for airing

these types of issues. For those of you who know us, you know that we

acted professionally.

The debate regarding the

role of neurofeedback in the delivery of non-clinical services is an important

one and should continue with legitimate differences of professional opinion but

the ethical and moral implications of the delivery of such services involving clinical

applications must continue to follow the highest ethical and legal standards.

We apologize to the list if this topic still continues to take up valuable

space here. We had to speak out as indeed, there is always another

side. Thank you for listening and feel free to disseminate this to

others.

Respectfully,

Decker, PhD, Nina McCormack, LCSW, Doreen McMahon, MD, Robin , LCPC, Dee

O'Neill, MS, LPC, BCN, Deborah Stokes, PhD, BCN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

February 17, 2012

, feelings and attitudes about ourselves and others drive the actions we take. Righteous indignation coupled with the belief that ones own work is beyond reproach and that others work is impure can certainly lead to crusades against others. Based purely on the feelings and attitudes that emerged as I read what you forwarded here, I find myself worried about future casualties.

Bruce

The OTHER side of the Story: Behind the Board Complaints in Virginia

The OTHER side of the Story: Behind the Board Complaints in VirginiaDear list mates and colleagues,Thus far, one side has framed this this issue as being solely about WHO neurofeedback practitioners should BE (licensed vs unlicensed).The following seems to indicate that the issue was actually about HOW neurofeedback practitioners should BEHAVE.As I read the series of posts alleging a cabal among my colleagues in this region to quash a competitor, I had several reactions.Since I have known some of them for more than a decade, I began to question my own judgement about my associates. Who else was involved? I wondered why there was no response from them, proffering their side.I began to worry about who would be targeted next -- me?To allay my anxiety, I began to ask them for their side of the story.In the interest of economically presenting the "other side of the story", this is what I was sent -- and asked to share.Sincerely, Sitar<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<After receiving many backchannel messages over the last couple of months asking us to respond, we the undersigned feel we must finally provide another side of the story to and Sajeela Ramsey's frequent claims that a "frivolous, false and defamatory" complaint was made against them by 6 mental health therapists who went on a "witch hunt" after them.

Up to now we have attempted to remain silent; none of us has wanted to stir the pot of innuendo or to cause the Ramseys any further distress. But since they persist in telling their side of the story, we feel that we have an obligation to provide some of the other side. And there is always another side.

The Ramsey’s frequent postings seem to be creating a climate of fear and paranoia on the lists. They have stated that the "ISNR elite" is exhorting its members to report the innocent unlicensed provider. This is simply untrue.

The complaint we filed against Ms. Sajeela Ramsey was based on independent accounts of unethical, unprofessional and at times, volatile behavior conveyed to us by ex-clients or witnessed by us. Once we realized that, over the years, these complaints might represent more than disgruntled clients or a “bad day” on Ms. Ramsey’s part, a group of health care providers fulfilled their legal obligations to report their concerns to the oversight entities of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sajeela and Ramsey are attempting to portray themselves as victims who were unfairly "harassed and intimidated" by us. These are indeed the behaviors Ms. Ramsey had allegedly displayed toward her clients. She has also subsequently publicly displayed these behaviors on three occasions toward at least two of us who had complained about her, causing us to fear for our safety. This behavior toward her clients constitutes the primary impetus for our eventually filing this complaint. With this behavior in mind, we have obtained legal counsel to ensure that this email is not in any way libelous. This is not about the "targeting and profiling" of a hapless unlicensed provider or competitor in order to put them out of business, it is about a pattern of harmful behavior. Three of us are not even competitors since we live out of her area and several unlicensed providers continue to practice in our area and have been left in peace since they have not exhibited a pattern of unprofessional behavior.

Also, to clarify, the reporting of Ms. Ramsey's behavior was not first initiated by Deborah Stokes as the Ramseys have stated on public forums. We are very concerned that the one sided reports by Sajeela and Ramsey are in retaliation to our complaint and are an attempt to discredit ISNR and the Standards of Practice Paper since Dr. Stokes was one of its co-authors and served a term on the ISNR Board. We are also of the opinion that it is inappropriate for the various listservs to host these inflammatory postings. Therefore, we will not continue to contribute to the ruckus by publicly airing the specifics of our collective complaints as this will only ensure further public outcry. And like those of you who have back-channeled us, we would also like to see an end to this.

We hope that all in the neurofeedback/biofeedback community feel that we must maintain respect and courtesy for all our clients, particularly since many of them are needy and vulnerable. When there is the appearance of a pattern of unprofessional behavior, it can be detrimental to patients, it may reflect poorly on all the providers of this service in the community, and ultimately it may undermine the legitimacy that all in this field are trying to build.

To answer those who feel we had a duty to go to Ms. Ramsey first, let us just say that we all followed the guidelines of our respective licenses to the letter. The bottom line is that there are no such provisions granted to unlicensed laypersons, only to other professionals. Ms. Ramsey is not clinically trained nor professionally licensed and, although she refers to herself as "Doctor", her PhD is in Intercultural Communication. Since the complaints were directed toward her solo practice, we did not go to who, although he is a professional, has a fulltime job in a nearby hospital and is not in her neurofeedback clinic fulltime.

We hope this puts an end to all the speculation and judgment about the other side and we collectively hope that things will quiet down. If they do not, we will not continue to engage in public battle. For those who have comments or questions, we would be happy to answer them offline, as that is a better place for airing these types of issues. For those of you who know us, you know that we acted professionally.

The debate regarding the role of neurofeedback in the delivery of non-clinical services is an important one and should continue with legitimate differences of professional opinion but the ethical and moral implications of the delivery of such services involving clinical applications must continue to follow the highest ethical and legal standards. We apologize to the list if this topic still continues to take up valuable space here. We had to speak out as indeed, there is always another side. Thank you for listening and feel free to disseminate this to others.

Respectfully,

Decker, PhD, Nina McCormack, LCSW, Doreen McMahon, MD, Robin , LCPC, Dee O'Neill, MS, LPC, BCN, Deborah Stokes, PhD, BCN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

February 18, 2012

,Thanks for providing this. I sent along Sajeela's post since it appeared that, though she hadn't sent it directly to this list, it appeared to have been screened out of a pretty significant set of others (I say appeared, since I only have her word for it).

My reason for thinking it was worth looking at was that it touched on some underlying issues. In short, it was a perfect soapbox for me to hop onto and declaim (so those not fond of my rants can change the channel now.)

I don't believe that Sajeela's is an isolated case. Again, this is all second-hand knowledge, but it is from multiple sources. To the best of my information:1. There continues never to have been a malpractice claim filed or pursued against any NF provider (though certainly anyone who has been in the field for 20 years, as I have, has seen and heard cases that probably could have been pursued in that way). When I hear of such cases, I always suggest to the client that they have that option. The cases I've personally been in contact with--a number of them trying to train a client out of a mess that allegedly resulted from horrible treatment decisions and approaches--have been slightly over-balanced in the direction of licensed providers vs. unlicensed, and I've also pointed out in those cases the option of going to licensing boards.

2. There HAVE been at least 17 cases I've heard of--some of which I've been personally involved with at some level--of providers who have been attacked in a legal or licensure sense--not by their clients or their clients' families, but--by other providers! In fact, again the knowledge is second-hand, it has almost always been the SAME people who have done the attacking. And it is also my understanding that in every one of those cases, the plaintiffs, or watchdogs, or however they see their role, ended up losing. In other words, when these complaints went before licensing boards or whoever--as in Sajeela's case--they were not found to be doing wrong things. But, of course, it's also true that, in every one of those cases, the effect on the provider was significant, both financially and personally.

This list has always been about collegial discussion of whatever interests us. The only people who have ever been removed from it were as a result of a demonstrated inability to talk about issues without blasting people. If there develops a discussion here, I'll hold everyone to the same standard--and your post certainly met it.

As I've said repeatedly over the years, I've trained and worked with many hundreds of providers, both professional and unlicensed. I've trained people who had gone through the BCIA process and many who didn't and many who, like myself, couldn't if they wanted to. I've seen and worked with unlicensed people whose commitment to learning and ability to relate to clients was such that they became among the best NF providers I know. The same is true for professional, licensed clinician providers. And I can say there are some in each group I would not comfortably send a client to. Based on my personal experience, here are my beliefs about brain training:

1. It is a technique, a tool, a technology that can be applied within many different disciplines, from medicine and psychology to teaching, coaching and parenting. The attempt by some in the field, going back many years, to make of NF a discipline in itself and to decide who should be allowed to practice it and how they should practice, is in my opinion a divisive waste of time and energy--both among these self-appointed judges (most of whom are highly trained and skilled and ideally would be using their time with clients or students)--and among those who end up targeted by them.

2. In a small field like ours, one of the greatest forces is creativity and innovation. This field needs to be able to compass Marvin Sams and Val Brown and Jim Hardt and Len Ochs and Othmer and even me. The range of approaches represented on that group is very broad as are the types of professional formation. In my belief, that is a strength to be nourished--even when one of us makes some of the others of us uncomfortable. Judging each other--or rather accusing one another (on lists is one thing, but) in public accusations of malfeasance--I take to be a misuse of limited energy--especially when it turns out never to have been validated by an outside source.

3. It is wonderful when professions like psychology, medicine, nursing, physical therapy, etc. recognize NF and list it within the competencies and tools of their members. Of course doing that--e.g. professional Psychology listing NF within the scope of practice of its members--can't in any way LIMIT the potential for others to use the tool. Psychologists can't exclude, say, physicians from using NF just because they claim it in their scope of practice.

4. I've been around long enough to have seen a number of " outsiders " in our field open it up and remix it in ways that benefit all of us--or those who are open enough to listen instead of judging. My first visits to SNR (in those days) were experiences of polarization between the camp of the Lubars ( had trained and mentored me) and the Othmers (whose ways of re-framing NF I found liberating). Well, the effect of the Othmers claims that one could work with ANYTHING that came from the brain--not just those things which had been published in our peer-reviewed journals--created the field we have today. They were a physicist and an EEG tech (forgive please errors in memory, but I'm speaking of 1994-95) who got into the field to work with their own kids! Neither licensed at that time. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it A current pariah is Lee Gerdes and BrainStates Technology (I'll just call them BS for the sake of brevity). I personally have plenty of reason to be irritated with a guy I trained nearly a decade ago, who took part of the TLC approach, nearly word for word, stripped down its assessment, renamed exact copies bought from me of my training designs, used amplifiers and software commonly used in the field, and claimed to have invented and produced the whole thing himself! I know all the PT Barnum arguments about him. He's a marketer first and foremost, and I find much in his approach to " affiliates " abhorrent. But I have to go by my own experience speaking with clients and providers, who are reporting results that are excellent (they are using NF, after all, whether or not they do it the way " we " would). Of course I've run into people who didn't get results--or got bad ones--coming out of BS, but that percentage has been very low so far. And, like it or not, a lot more people have learned about brain training (or harmonizing or balancing or whatever they are calling it now) from Lee Gerdes--by a factor of 5 or 10!--than ever heard of it through iSNR and AAPB put together! I tell people that I can get them doing the same things, with the same equipment, perhaps with some greater sophistication and safety for $3500 instead of $50,000. But I also admit that I personally am training in a different way because of what BS does and how it seems to work. It's primarily just a way of putting together stuff I do and stuff Jim Hardt does when you strip away the packaging, so I'd expect it to work.

My bottom line is that we need to reinforce those growing tips that have the potential to inform and extend our technology, even when we don't like the person. I have no difficulty at all explaining the difference between what I do and what BS does, and I can demolish the argument that they are doing something revolutionary and different from the rest of us. That's my approach to anyone who has a different background or way or training than I do. So I deplore events where we attack ourselves. Listening to each other and trying to see what we can take away from what we hear is much more productive for us as trainers, and for the field.

Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com

USA 678 224 5895BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Sitar <michaelasitar@...> wrote: