General Question

[Guest guest]

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?