Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi , My son, has had that happen a few times,the first xray would show no pneumonia and the labs and second xray a few hrs or a day later would show pneumonia. The doctor called the pneumonia, mircoplasma pneumonia. It is very frustrating, the pediatrician was sure my son had pneumonia several times and the xray would be negative, then the dr would say, I know that xray was negative but he would have all the symptoms and abnormal labs . Hugs & prayers to you and your daughter. My son has Hyper IgE, severe eczema,alot of food/ seasonal allergies,asthma ,he has been sick with chronic sinus /ear infections on top of all the other infections (MRSA ) and other stap infections,fungus blisters on his hands and feet doesn't sleep well at night ,and he is in a Clinical trial at the National Institute Of Health, for a study for eczema/ asthma and we are told our son has a immune deficiency but they aren't sure what type. The NIH checked my son for the Stat3 mutation for Jobs syndrome and praise God it was negative. God /Prayer and family and friends help us through the ups and downs. My son has been in the Ped ICU 3 times since May and in the hospital 4 other times times for his asthma,pneumonia, the flu, stomach bug,strep throat all at the same time 3 times this year. It is very frustrating and tiring, hang in there. Hugs On Mar 19, 2011 10:24 AM, " Roach " <kmr7275@...> wrote: > Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. > Thank you, > Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE > > > I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi , it sounds like she was having brochospasms too, that were reducing the size and function of her airway...these don't always show up vividly on the xray..but they do reduce the ability to move air and maintain a normal 02 sat. I hope she's feeing better, hugs sue From: Roach <kmr7275@...> Subject: General Question Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 2:24 PM  Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi , it sounds like she was having brochospasms too, that were reducing the size and function of her airway...these don't always show up vividly on the xray..but they do reduce the ability to move air and maintain a normal 02 sat. I hope she's feeing better, hugs sue From: Roach <kmr7275@...> Subject: General Question Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 2:24 PM  Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Hi , We have had that problem as well - and it is good to know that your doctor diagnosed and treated her without the confirmation of an xray. We have also had the problem where presents okay to the doctors - no temp, no cough, and low normal sats - but upon xray show a lung abcess and bloodwork with a high whitecell count. I would guess that a follow up xray in a few days will show a pneumonia. Remember that Hannah may take longer than " normal " to get over her pneumonia.... and may require a longer dose of antibiotics. Also remember that you know what to watch for with her and that early treatment will help prevent the next pneumonia. Kim, Mom to (9) with Hyper IgE From: kmr7275@... Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:24:40 -0700 Subject: General Question Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Yea, she was retracting quite a bit. I am exteremly thankful for the doctor not just going by the xray but going with what she knew was true. She's in the same office as our immunologist, so she was able to consult with him as well. god has always been faithful to put the right doctors in our path. Hannah is doing much better now. We are just watching her to make sure things don't take a turn. this is only our second hospitalization for her. The first was a week before with a skull fracture, so this part is kind of new to us. Thank you for your support and answers. I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  From: Roach <kmr7275@...> Subject: General Question Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 2:24 PM  Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Yea, she was retracting quite a bit. I am exteremly thankful for the doctor not just going by the xray but going with what she knew was true. She's in the same office as our immunologist, so she was able to consult with him as well. god has always been faithful to put the right doctors in our path. Hannah is doing much better now. We are just watching her to make sure things don't take a turn. this is only our second hospitalization for her. The first was a week before with a skull fracture, so this part is kind of new to us. Thank you for your support and answers. I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  From: Roach <kmr7275@...> Subject: General Question Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 2:24 PM  Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Thanks Kim. Yes, I do know what to watch for now. It happened SO quickly though. And see, Hannah does get fevers, but I was told not to give her Motrin because of an ear surgery that was scheduled for March 25th. Tylenol was not doing a single thing. Then she ended up getting dehydrated too. I think if we had given her the Motrin right away, at least she might have felt like drinking a little more. In the hospital, they gave her the Motrin and the fever broke right away. Next time, I know that the surgery will just have to wait. Her immediate health is WAY more important. They did do another xray yesterday, and still it showed nothing, but her lungs are sounding better. Still in antibiotics and breathing treatments. One good thing--her IGG level was elevated, so her little body was trying to fight it off, but her ige level was about a thousand higher than before. This is such a learning process ( : I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. From: Kim MacEachern <kimmaceachern@...> Subject: RE: General Question " Group " < > Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 10:13 AM Hi , We have had that problem as well - and it is good to know that your doctor diagnosed and treated her without the confirmation of an xray. We have also had the problem where presents okay to the doctors - no temp, no cough, and low normal sats - but upon xray show a lung abcess and bloodwork with a high whitecell count. I would guess that a follow up xray in a few days will show a pneumonia. Remember that Hannah may take longer than " normal " to get over her pneumonia.... and may require a longer dose of antibiotics. Also remember that you know what to watch for with her and that early treatment will help prevent the next pneumonia. Kim, Mom to (9) with Hyper IgE From: kmr7275@... Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:24:40 -0700 Subject: General Question Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Thanks Kim. Yes, I do know what to watch for now. It happened SO quickly though. And see, Hannah does get fevers, but I was told not to give her Motrin because of an ear surgery that was scheduled for March 25th. Tylenol was not doing a single thing. Then she ended up getting dehydrated too. I think if we had given her the Motrin right away, at least she might have felt like drinking a little more. In the hospital, they gave her the Motrin and the fever broke right away. Next time, I know that the surgery will just have to wait. Her immediate health is WAY more important. They did do another xray yesterday, and still it showed nothing, but her lungs are sounding better. Still in antibiotics and breathing treatments. One good thing--her IGG level was elevated, so her little body was trying to fight it off, but her ige level was about a thousand higher than before. This is such a learning process ( : I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. From: Kim MacEachern <kimmaceachern@...> Subject: RE: General Question " Group " < > Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 10:13 AM Hi , We have had that problem as well - and it is good to know that your doctor diagnosed and treated her without the confirmation of an xray. We have also had the problem where presents okay to the doctors - no temp, no cough, and low normal sats - but upon xray show a lung abcess and bloodwork with a high whitecell count. I would guess that a follow up xray in a few days will show a pneumonia. Remember that Hannah may take longer than " normal " to get over her pneumonia.... and may require a longer dose of antibiotics. Also remember that you know what to watch for with her and that early treatment will help prevent the next pneumonia. Kim, Mom to (9) with Hyper IgE From: kmr7275@... Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:24:40 -0700 Subject: General Question Hello everyone. I just had a question that I was curious about. My daughter is recovering from pneumonia. When I originally took her in, they did a chest xray that did not show anything, but the doctor listened to her and did lab work and completely disagreed with the xray results. I did as well. She was retracting and her sats were in the mid 80's when she was sleeping. After a lot of prayer, and the proper treatment, she is doing well. But I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this where the xray doesn't show. Thank you, Roach, mother of Hannah, 3, Hyper IGE I Corinthians 4:20 For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Ray,If evidence proved stuff to scientists, Galileo would be alive today.At 's home page there are links to a variety of files and things. At this address/files/ you can download a file called COMP BIBLIO NF that contains 2 copies (one of them clickable) of Cory Hammond's listing of peer-reviewed publications organized by category (e.g. attention, mood, addiction...) to find the references. Publications go all the way back into the 1960's In an information-driven society like ours, whoever has the bigger marketing budget wins--most the time. But taking the budgets of just a few of the major multinational drug companies, the amount of advertising and packaging they do dwarfs what " mom-and-pop stores " can do. NF is a service business--not a product. It's one-on-one, and though you can arrange ways to be seeing 2 or 3 clients at the same time, there still are no economies of scale. Nobody profits from NF financially--not like a drug company profits. Your point about physicians is just naive. They are bombarded from the beginning of their schooling by a view of the world which is chemically-driven. Surgeons cut, and everyone else medicates. Their professional organizations and journals and continuing education are all about drugs--often funded by the manufacturers as a public service. Ask your doctor about acupuncture or dietary supplements or most anything outside the medical/pharmaceutical complex, and you'll get the same dismissive attitude you get when you mention NF. The point is not that it's necessary to show that NF works--often as well or better than the chemical approach. We know it works to the extent that--as far back as 1994, I kept 4 offices busy in my Atlanta practice pretty much completely on word-of-mouth referrals. Twice in the first couple years, I contacted psychologists to make a presentation to them about NF (back when I believed that " published evidence " would open professional eyes. Neither of them would see me. One, whom I knew from previous work, told me he couldn't refer anyone to me because his reputation would be damaged--before he even knew a thing about NF. But both of them referred their own kids to me, and both of them improved significantly with the training. I didn't get any word-of-mouth from them. The important point, to a practical guy like me, is that YOU have found it, and you have looked at it and you are beginning to believe that people can use this technology to change their own lives in permanent ways. Public awareness of NF has changed a lot since I started in 1992. It's on the fringe of " health care " and it probably always will be, but if you give a moment's thought to what the mainstream is, it's not a bad thing to be on the fringe. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Ray Cole <RayRoshi@...> wrote: I have a general question for the group. If neurofeedback is as effective as is claimed by so many in the field, then why hasn't the mainstream medical community embraced it? Most (not all) doctors scoff at the idea of neurofeedback's effectiveness, dismissing any ostensible positive results as being thanks to the placebo effect. They compare neurofeedback to such " New Age " practices as crystal therapy, prayer, or other non-scientific interventions. Insurance companies often refuse to pay for it, for the same reason. Yet, from what I have read, neurofeedback has a pretty well-established track record in some areas, such as with the amelioration of ADD. In view of such widespread claims to success, I find it hard to believe that the medical community hasn't performed well-designed, scientific studies pursuant to studying these claims. Such experimental designs would, of course, include the usual criteria, such as inclusion of only a single variable (an admittedly almost-impossible feat), random assignment of subjects, replicability, statistical analysis, double-blinded structure and analysis, etc. Such studies are, admittedly, notoriously more difficult in the social sciences than they are in the " hard " sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and the like, but they are obviously not impossible. I can understand how the pharmaceutical industry might be hesitant to support something that might take away from their profits. They must, to use only a single example, make a lot of money from the tons of psychoactive chemicals, such as Ritalin, which they sell to the anxious parents of children who have been diagnosed with ADD. But, as easy as it is to see why the pharmaceutical giants might not want to lose revenue, I also find it hard to agree with those " conspiracy-minded " individuals who are of the opinion that doctors and medical researcher don't really want to find the cure for such anomalies as ADD, because they, too, are making an enormous profit from it. Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If that were true, we wouldn't be doing any valid research in any areas of pathology, trauma, birth defects,etc. So, I am truly perplexed. Admittedly, the books I have read have all been one-sided. Like the other members of this group, I am a " believer, " as it were. Maybe I'm a believer because I want it to be true, or because I have a personal stake in it's being true, or maybe because it's all so logical and just plain interesting, to boot. Of course, none of that is very scientific, so I am then still left with this nagging question: If it truly works, then why not just prove it, scientifically, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of repute? And, yes, I also realize that there have been a few small studies done which hold forth the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and that these same studies have, in fact, been published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. I think one of the things which bothers me so much is the fact that this field really took wings in the Sixties, with the likes of Joe Kamiya and Barry Sterman, and we are now over a decade into the next century, so why hasn't its effectiveness been proved and replicated over and over, by now? As the old saying goes, " The proof's in the pudding. " I realize that, sometimes, such acceptance takes time, but it has been about fifty years, now, not counting the work of even earlier researchers, such as Caton, Hans Berger, Edgar and others. Why haven't there been large studies done by well-known, respected medical researchers, instead of small studies done by relatively unknown researcher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Thanks for that reply, Uwe. This is such a great, active forum. I really appreciate the fact that, when a question or topic is posted, there are so many thoughtful responses. I noticed that you used the term "dissipative," and that you had used the same term, the other day, when responding to a different message. I was wondering if you could possibly explain, exactly, what it is that you imply with this term, as far as how it relates to the brain. Yes, I wish that I had even a small fraction of what Pete knows about neurofeedback. But, even more than his knowledge, I admire his willingness and effort to share his ideas and advice with the rest of us. In our world, it seems that things have become so fast-paced that few people now are so willing to take their personal time in helping others. I built my EEG device over four years ago, following the openEEG forum's plans, but after doing so, I didn't really get into it. I think that I was more interested in just putting it all together, then playing with it, trather han doing any serious neurofeedback, and when it worked, I was delighted, but soon lost interest. I remember that, even back then, Pete was always helping others, as well, so his efforts have been a long-term comittment. I, too, am past the age of sixty, and have been retired from the world of teaching physics for over six years, now, but this whole new (to me) field of neurofeedback, is something I am now trying to learn, and I feel like a young, wide-eyed kid, just trying to catch onto the basics. The brain and nervous system are so complex and so fascinating. --Ray Cole From: uwegerlach@...Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:56:22 -0500Subject: General Question Ray, Pete is absolutely right with his comments. He certainly has more practical experience with NF than many of us. There is another big argument that much more healthcare professionals should quickly deal with and adopt brainwave training, the argument coming from a totally different discipline: chaos theory and the theory of dissipative structures (which is the same topic). We as a whole on the planet are moving away from stabile patterns of living together. We living at the edge of chaos - actual still living scientists with big names (e.g. Ervin Laszlo) stress this point. The rules how to navigate through chaos are much more complicated than in stabile regions. Anyway, the rules must take into account that we have two hemispheres, not only the left one what can be seen everywhere in our civilization. So, one of the major consequences for young people (who want to live in a peaceful society, also in the not so near future) is to consider brainwave training.... Pete and me are beyond the sixties of age. We want to teach something really essential to the younger generation. Uwe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Pete, Thanks for that thoughtful answer. Wow, you have to just shake your head, when you consider how much gall and hypocrisy it takes to come right out and admit to your face that referring patients to you would harm their reputations, all the while referring their own children. Amazing. That would make me look in the mirror and kinda question my own standards, if it had been me in their shoes; "double standards" would seem to fit better, there. But then reputations and money, as shallow as they are, seems to take precedence over more important matters, now. I hate to sound cynical, or to generalize, but it often seems that our society's moral fiber is not what it ought to be. A few days ago, in the news, it was reported how a person who was trying to cross the street in a wheelchair was hit by no less than three different people...all of whom continued on their way. I can maybe picture one panicked or possibly drugged-up, motorist, but three in a row?; that begins to say something different. One can only try to focus on the many good people who are out there; doing otherwise is of no value, and even harmful. Talk about training your brain. You mentioned acupuncture. That's interesting, because, although it certainly does not have a rational, scientific mechanism/theory with which to explain itself, it is often covered by the insurance companies and is recommended by many mainstream doctors. There's no question that it does work in so many cases, and it's hard to argue with success, to use a hackneyed phrase. I have a hard time squaring its relative, albeit minor, acceptance with the non-acceptance of neurofeedback, which has a much greater claim to western-style medicine. Acupuncture's reference to undetectable "channels," or, "meridians" through which some mysterious "chi" flows is certainly a long ways from the obviously-visible, measureable brain waves, which can be explained with well-established neurological, biochemical processes. Again, an odd double-standard, it seems, because acupuncturists don't have the legions of representatives going forth to doctor's office, carrying little suitcases full of free samples and literature. They are more of the "mom-pop" types, as you described. Maybe the insurance companies can see its effectiveness, so they realize how much they're saving by covering it, instead of paying for prolonged office visits to cover a patient's treatment using medicines. So the question then arises as to why they can't see the same thing with neurofeedback. You would think that they'd be perceptive enough to realize how it'd be in their own best interests to steer people toward something that would result in real cures at less expense to them. From: pvdtlc@...Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:33:30 -0200Subject: Re: General Question Ray,If evidence proved stuff to scientists, Galileo would be alive today.At 's home page there are links to a variety of files and things. At this address/files/ you can download a file called COMP BIBLIO NF that contains 2 copies (one of them clickable) of Cory Hammond's listing of peer-reviewed publications organized by category (e.g. attention, mood, addiction...) to find the references. Publications go all the way back into the 1960's In an information-driven society like ours, whoever has the bigger marketing budget wins--most the time. But taking the budgets of just a few of the major multinational drug companies, the amount of advertising and packaging they do dwarfs what "mom-and-pop stores" can do. NF is a service business--not a product. It's one-on-one, and though you can arrange ways to be seeing 2 or 3 clients at the same time, there still are no economies of scale. Nobody profits from NF financially--not like a drug company profits. Your point about physicians is just naive. They are bombarded from the beginning of their schooling by a view of the world which is chemically-driven. Surgeons cut, and everyone else medicates. Their professional organizations and journals and continuing education are all about drugs--often funded by the manufacturers as a public service. Ask your doctor about acupuncture or dietary supplements or most anything outside the medical/pharmaceutical complex, and you'll get the same dismissive attitude you get when you mention NF. The point is not that it's necessary to show that NF works--often as well or better than the chemical approach. We know it works to the extent that--as far back as 1994, I kept 4 offices busy in my Atlanta practice pretty much completely on word-of-mouth referrals. Twice in the first couple years, I contacted psychologists to make a presentation to them about NF (back when I believed that "published evidence" would open professional eyes. Neither of them would see me. One, whom I knew from previous work, told me he couldn't refer anyone to me because his reputation would be damaged--before he even knew a thing about NF. But both of them referred their own kids to me, and both of them improved significantly with the training. I didn't get any word-of-mouth from them. The important point, to a practical guy like me, is that YOU have found it, and you have looked at it and you are beginning to believe that people can use this technology to change their own lives in permanent ways. Public awareness of NF has changed a lot since I started in 1992. It's on the fringe of "health care" and it probably always will be, but if you give a moment's thought to what the mainstream is, it's not a bad thing to be on the fringe. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Ray Cole <RayRoshi@...> wrote: I have a general question for the group. If neurofeedback is as effective as is claimed by so many in the field, then why hasn't the mainstream medical community embraced it? Most (not all) doctors scoff at the idea of neurofeedback's effectiveness, dismissing any ostensible positive results as being thanks to the placebo effect. They compare neurofeedback to such "New Age" practices as crystal therapy, prayer, or other non-scientific interventions. Insurance companies often refuse to pay for it, for the same reason. Yet, from what I have read, neurofeedback has a pretty well-established track record in some areas, such as with the amelioration of ADD. In view of such widespread claims to success, I find it hard to believe that the medical community hasn't performed well-designed, scientific studies pursuant to studying these claims. Such experimental designs would, of course, include the usual criteria, such as inclusion of only a single variable (an admittedly almost-impossible feat), random assignment of subjects, replicability, statistical analysis, double-blinded structure and analysis, etc. Such studies are, admittedly, notoriously more difficult in the social sciences than they are in the "hard" sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and the like, but they are obviously not impossible. I can understand how the pharmaceutical industry might be hesitant to support something that might take away from their profits. They must, to use only a single example, make a lot of money from the tons of psychoactive chemicals, such as Ritalin, which they sell to the anxious parents of children who have been diagnosed with ADD. But, as easy as it is to see why the pharmaceutical giants might not want to lose revenue, I also find it hard to agree with those "conspiracy-minded" individuals who are of the opinion that doctors and medical researcher don't really want to find the cure for such anomalies as ADD, because they, too, are making an enormous profit from it. Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If that were true, we wouldn't be doing any valid research in any areas of pathology, trauma, birth defects,etc. So, I am truly perplexed. Admittedly, the books I have read have all been one-sided. Like the other members of this group, I am a "believer," as it were. Maybe I'm a believer because I want it to be true, or because I have a personal stake in it's being true, or maybe because it's all so logical and just plain interesting, to boot. Of course, none of that is very scientific, so I am then still left with this nagging question: If it truly works, then why not just prove it, scientifically, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of repute? And, yes, I also realize that there have been a few small studies done which hold forth the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and that these same studies have, in fact, been published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. I think one of the things which bothers me so much is the fact that this field really took wings in the Sixties, with the likes of Joe Kamiya and Barry Sterman, and we are now over a decade into the next century, so why hasn't its effectiveness been proved and replicated over and over, by now? As the old saying goes, "The proof's in the pudding." I realize that, sometimes, such acceptance takes time, but it has been about fifty years, now, not counting the work of even earlier researchers, such as Caton, Hans Berger, Edgar and others. Why haven't there been large studies done by well-known, respected medical researchers, instead of small studies done by relatively unknown researcher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Greetings Ray,As a physicist surely you are aware of the work of Nicola Tesla and how the whole energy paradigm went. We could have had a world of free energy right out of the vacuum. But the powers to be () cut his funding when he discovered he wouldn't make a greater fortune stringing his copper wire all over the country.Look what happened to Royal Rife. He discovered you could kill pathogens by subjecting them to a harmonic frequency at an amplitude greater than they can absorb, they explode just like a crystal glass. Imagine, a van pulls up to a public school experiencing a flu outbreak and broadcasts the appropriate radio frequency. All the people get treated without any of them being aware. Not to mention all the other diseases that could be resolved.Look what happened to cannabis. The very first people prosecuted were doctors who were treating all kinds of diseases. Current research demonstrates it's cancer killing ability. Do we see any of this research coming out?Consider the banking conundrum. Money is our faith in each other but we have a few people with the monopoly on creating the symbol and they use the privilege to bootstrap vast fortunes into their pockets.This situation isn't isolated to NFB. Yes, we hate to thing in terms of conspiracy theories but remember the state of the union address President Kennedy gave before his assassination. It was about a vast conspiracy.I appreciate watching this conversation. Thank you. From: RayRoshi@...Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:37:07 -0800Subject: RE: General Question Hi Pete, Thanks for that thoughtful answer. Wow, you have to just shake your head, when you consider how much gall and hypocrisy it takes to come right out and admit to your face that referring patients to you would harm their reputations, all the while referring their own children. Amazing. That would make me look in the mirror and kinda question my own standards, if it had been me in their shoes; "double standards" would seem to fit better, there. But then reputations and money, as shallow as they are, seems to take precedence over more important matters, now. I hate to sound cynical, or to generalize, but it often seems that our society's moral fiber is not what it ought to be. A few days ago, in the news, it was reported how a person who was trying to cross the street in a wheelchair was hit by no less than three different people...all of whom continued on their way. I can maybe picture one panicked or possibly drugged-up, motorist, but three in a row?; that begins to say something different. One can only try to focus on the many good people who are out there; doing otherwise is of no value, and even harmful. Talk about training your brain. You mentioned acupuncture. That's interesting, because, although it certainly does not have a rational, scientific mechanism/theory with which to explain itself, it is often covered by the insurance companies and is recommended by many mainstream doctors. There's no question that it does work in so many cases, and it's hard to argue with success, to use a hackneyed phrase. I have a hard time squaring its relative, albeit minor, acceptance with the non-acceptance of neurofeedback, which has a much greater claim to western-style medicine. Acupuncture's reference to undetectable "channels," or, "meridians" through which some mysterious "chi" flows is certainly a long ways from the obviously-visible, measureable brain waves, which can be explained with well-established neurological, biochemical processes. Again, an odd double-standard, it seems, because acupuncturists don't have the legions of representatives going forth to doctor's office, carrying little suitcases full of free samples and literature. They are more of the "mom-pop" types, as you described. Maybe the insurance companies can see its effectiveness, so they realize how much they're saving by covering it, instead of paying for prolonged office visits to cover a patient's treatment using medicines. So the question then arises as to why they can't see the same thing with neurofeedback. You would think that they'd be perceptive enough to realize how it'd be in their own best interests to steer people toward something that would result in real cures at less expense to them. From: pvdtlc@...Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:33:30 -0200Subject: Re: General Question Ray,If evidence proved stuff to scientists, Galileo would be alive today.At 's home page there are links to a variety of files and things. At this address/files/ you can download a file called COMP BIBLIO NF that contains 2 copies (one of them clickable) of Cory Hammond's listing of peer-reviewed publications organized by category (e.g. attention, mood, addiction...) to find the references. Publications go all the way back into the 1960's In an information-driven society like ours, whoever has the bigger marketing budget wins--most the time. But taking the budgets of just a few of the major multinational drug companies, the amount of advertising and packaging they do dwarfs what "mom-and-pop stores" can do. NF is a service business--not a product. It's one-on-one, and though you can arrange ways to be seeing 2 or 3 clients at the same time, there still are no economies of scale. Nobody profits from NF financially--not like a drug company profits. Your point about physicians is just naive. They are bombarded from the beginning of their schooling by a view of the world which is chemically-driven. Surgeons cut, and everyone else medicates. Their professional organizations and journals and continuing education are all about drugs--often funded by the manufacturers as a public service. Ask your doctor about acupuncture or dietary supplements or most anything outside the medical/pharmaceutical complex, and you'll get the same dismissive attitude you get when you mention NF. The point is not that it's necessary to show that NF works--often as well or better than the chemical approach. We know it works to the extent that--as far back as 1994, I kept 4 offices busy in my Atlanta practice pretty much completely on word-of-mouth referrals. Twice in the first couple years, I contacted psychologists to make a presentation to them about NF (back when I believed that "published evidence" would open professional eyes. Neither of them would see me. One, whom I knew from previous work, told me he couldn't refer anyone to me because his reputation would be damaged--before he even knew a thing about NF. But both of them referred their own kids to me, and both of them improved significantly with the training. I didn't get any word-of-mouth from them. The important point, to a practical guy like me, is that YOU have found it, and you have looked at it and you are beginning to believe that people can use this technology to change their own lives in permanent ways. Public awareness of NF has changed a lot since I started in 1992. It's on the fringe of "health care" and it probably always will be, but if you give a moment's thought to what the mainstream is, it's not a bad thing to be on the fringe. Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.comUSA 678 224 5895 BR 47 3346 6235The Learning Curve, Inc. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Ray Cole <RayRoshi@...> wrote: I have a general question for the group. If neurofeedback is as effective as is claimed by so many in the field, then why hasn't the mainstream medical community embraced it? Most (not all) doctors scoff at the idea of neurofeedback's effectiveness, dismissing any ostensible positive results as being thanks to the placebo effect. They compare neurofeedback to such "New Age" practices as crystal therapy, prayer, or other non-scientific interventions. Insurance companies often refuse to pay for it, for the same reason. Yet, from what I have read, neurofeedback has a pretty well-established track record in some areas, such as with the amelioration of ADD. In view of such widespread claims to success, I find it hard to believe that the medical community hasn't performed well-designed, scientific studies pursuant to studying these claims. Such experimental designs would, of course, include the usual criteria, such as inclusion of only a single variable (an admittedly almost-impossible feat), random assignment of subjects, replicability, statistical analysis, double-blinded structure and analysis, etc. Such studies are, admittedly, notoriously more difficult in the social sciences than they are in the "hard" sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and the like, but they are obviously not impossible. I can understand how the pharmaceutical industry might be hesitant to support something that might take away from their profits. They must, to use only a single example, make a lot of money from the tons of psychoactive chemicals, such as Ritalin, which they sell to the anxious parents of children who have been diagnosed with ADD. But, as easy as it is to see why the pharmaceutical giants might not want to lose revenue, I also find it hard to agree with those "conspiracy-minded" individuals who are of the opinion that doctors and medical researcher don't really want to find the cure for such anomalies as ADD, because they, too, are making an enormous profit from it. Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If that were true, we wouldn't be doing any valid research in any areas of pathology, trauma, birth defects,etc. So, I am truly perplexed. Admittedly, the books I have read have all been one-sided. Like the other members of this group, I am a "believer," as it were. Maybe I'm a believer because I want it to be true, or because I have a personal stake in it's being true, or maybe because it's all so logical and just plain interesting, to boot. Of course, none of that is very scientific, so I am then still left with this nagging question: If it truly works, then why not just prove it, scientifically, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of repute? And, yes, I also realize that there have been a few small studies done which hold forth the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and that these same studies have, in fact, been published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. I think one of the things which bothers me so much is the fact that this field really took wings in the Sixties, with the likes of Joe Kamiya and Barry Sterman, and we are now over a decade into the next century, so why hasn't its effectiveness been proved and replicated over and over, by now? As the old saying goes, "The proof's in the pudding." I realize that, sometimes, such acceptance takes time, but it has been about fifty years, now, not counting the work of even earlier researchers, such as Caton, Hans Berger, Edgar and others. Why haven't there been large studies done by well-known, respected medical researchers, instead of small studies done by relatively unknown researcher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Ray, As one who shares an office suite with acupuncturists, I'd like to add my two cents' worth. Acupuncture has been around for thousands of years, yet insurance began covering it only once state health boards started requiring licensure to be an acupuncturist. In my home state, acupuncturists weren't allowed to practice except under a physician's supervision (what a joke--how many MDs have expertise in acupuncture???) for several years before the acupuncture community was able to convince the state legislature to allow acupuncture to stand on its own. Even today, there are those who say that acupuncture needs to be legitimized via National Institute of Health studies rather than thousands of years of practice. Some studies that show variance in electrical resistance at key acupuncture points (pardon my lack of the correct terminology here) are hailed by a few as the beginning of proof that acupuncture has merit, whereas those same studies infuriate many acupuncturists, who believe that such studies are reductionist and pointless. I am hopeful that neurofeedback does not go down the same road as acupuncture. Instead, I hope that neurofeedback remains out of the hands of the insurance industry, because then there will be bean counters who establish standards of practice that are not customized for individual needs, access to NF will be limited by those whose credentials match whatever insurance companies want to see, and the public will get less from neurofeedback than they do now. Although I agree with you that neurofeedback ought to be better known, I believe that it is gaining increasing acceptance among the public, especially for those who are thinking and researching beyond whatever their physician has to say on the matter. For whatever it's worth, I've only ever had ONE referral from a physician, and just a handful from psychotherapists. I have had a few more referrals than that from chiropractors, but most of my clients are word-of-mouth. And as for research funds, neurofeedback is unlikely to have the millions poured into it that pharmaceuticals or surgical techniques garner because it doesn't make economic sense--the profit on the other end of the study just won't be there. Plus, a great deal of the research I see is based on DSM diagnoses, and those are methodologically unsound--and especially so when used as a basis for NF research, because our brains just don't conform to the DSM. Tamera Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 [text here] From: siminowdt@...Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:56:28 -0500Subject: Re: General Question Ray, As one who shares an office suite with acupuncturists, I'd like to add my two cents' worth. Acupuncture has been around for thousands of years, yet insurance began covering it only once state health boards started requiring licensure to be an acupuncturist. In my home state, acupuncturists weren't allowed to practice except under a physician's supervision (what a joke--how many MDs have expertise in acupuncture???) for several years before the acupuncture community was able to convince the state legislature to allow acupuncture to stand on its own. Even today, there are those who say that acupuncture needs to be legitimized via National Institute of Health studies rather than thousands of years of practice. Some studies that show variance in electrical resistance at key acupuncture points (pardon my lack of the correct terminology here) are hailed by a few as the beginning of proof that acupuncture has merit, whereas those same studies infuriate many acupuncturists, who believe that such studies are reductionist and pointless. I am hopeful that neurofeedback does not go down the same road as acupuncture. Instead, I hope that neurofeedback remains out of the hands of the insurance industry, because then there will be bean counters who establish standards of practice that are not customized for individual needs, access to NF will be limited by those whose credentials match whatever insurance companies want to see, and the public will get less from neurofeedback than they do now. Although I agree with you that neurofeedback ought to be better known, I believe that it is gaining increasing acceptance among the public, especially for those who are thinking and researching beyond whatever their physician has to say on the matter. For whatever it's worth, I've only ever had ONE referral from a physician, and just a handful from psychotherapists. I have had a few more referrals than that from chiropractors, but most of my clients are word-of-mouth. And as for research funds, neurofeedback is unlikely to have the millions poured into it that pharmaceuticals or surgical techniques garner because it doesn't make economic sense--the profit on the other end of the study just won't be there. Plus, a great deal of the research I see is based on DSM diagnoses, and those are methodologically unsound--and especially so when used as a basis for NF research, because our brains just don't conform to the DSM. Tamera Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Ray, your question was what I mean with "dissipative structure" in context with the brain. My private interest actually is to find some - not too complex - modeling of what is going on in the brain during NF training. I`m convinced that we need two famous models by all means. These are trauma model stemming from psychotherapy and dissipative structure/deterministic chaos popping up in the eighties in physicochemistry. Ilya Prigogine won the nobel prize in 77 with his theory of dissipative structures. Every localized living entity having a membrane to its surroundings and interchanging energy with it is a dissipative structure. So, if we deal with an organ and especially the brain, we deal with a dissipative structure. Now we must learn the dynamics of such a structure. These are the laws of deterministic chaos: stabile and strange attractors, how phase transitions work, bifurcations, intermittencies, temporary order, edge of chaos, chaos itself. During NF training we "meet" trauma, of minor and major "stiffness, rigidity". However we really don`t know how to define trauma neurobiologically - in which way it imprints into the biology of the brain. This is a big scientific task for the future. We can`t model NF training sufficiently before we havn`t solved this mystery. Uwe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 There's no reason why neurofeedback couldn't be a flourishing area of research if the right people came along and made it a priority. Take a look at MAPS. This is an organization that raises over a million dollars a year for research into the medical uses of psychedelic drugs, an area of research that is much more fraught with political obstacles than neurofeedback (and equally unprofitable). Chivers > I have a general question for the group. If neurofeedback is as effective as is claimed by so many in the field, then why hasn't the mainstream medical community embraced it? Most (not all) doctors scoff at the idea of neurofeedback's effectiveness, dismissing any ostensible positive results as being thanks to the placebo effect. They compare neurofeedback to such " New Age " practices as crystal therapy, prayer, or other non-scientific interventions. Insurance companies often refuse to pay for it, for the same reason. > > Yet, from what I have read, neurofeedback has a pretty well-established track record in some areas, such as with the amelioration of ADD. In view of such widespread claims to success, I find it hard to believe that the medical community hasn't performed well-designed, scientific studies pursuant to studying these claims. Such experimental designs would, of course, include the usual criteria, such as inclusion of only a single variable (an admittedly almost-impossible feat), random assignment of subjects, replicability, statistical analysis, double-blinded structure and analysis, etc. Such studies are, admittedly, notoriously more difficult in the social sciences than they are in the " hard " sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and the like, but they are obviously not impossible. I can understand how the pharmaceutical industry might be hesitant to support something that might take away from their profits. They must, to use only a single example, make a lot of money from the tons of psychoactive chemicals, such as Ritalin, which they sell to the anxious parents of children who have been diagnosed with ADD. But, as easy as it is to see why the pharmaceutical giants might not want to lose revenue, I also find it hard to agree with those " conspiracy-minded " individuals who are of the opinion that doctors and medical researcher don't really want to find the cure for such anomalies as ADD, because they, too, are making an enormous profit from it. Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If that were true, we wouldn't be doing any valid research in any areas of pathology, trauma, birth defects,etc. So, I am truly perplexed. Admittedly, the books I have read have all been one-sided. Like the other members of this group, I am a " believer, " as it were. Maybe I'm a believer because I want it to be true, or because I have a personal stake in it's being true, or maybe because it's all so logical and just plain interesting, to boot. Of course, none of that is very scientific, so I am then still left with this nagging question: If it truly works, then why not just prove it, scientifically, then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of repute? And, yes, I also realize that there have been a few small studies done which hold forth the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and that these same studies have, in fact, been published in respected, peer-reviewed journals. I think one of the things which bothers me so much is the fact that this field really took wings in the Sixties, with the likes of Joe Kamiya and Barry Sterman, and we are now over a decade into the next century, so why hasn't its effectiveness been proved and replicated over and over, by now? As the old saying goes, " The proof's in the pudding. " I realize that, sometimes, such acceptance takes time, but it has been about fifty years, now, not counting the work of even earlier researchers, such as Caton, Hans Berger, Edgar and others. Why haven't there been large studies done by well-known, respected medical researchers, instead of small studies done by relatively unknown researcher? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.