Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

The NeuroConnections newsletter is not on line. You can receive

a copy by writing to office@....

As said, I believe, the low frequency training at T3 – T4

is not SCP or DC training.

Sincerely,

Merlyn Hurd PhD;BCIAC/EEG Fellow

Editor of ISNR newsletter NeuroConnections

From:

braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf

Of Goldring

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:35 PM

To: braintrainer

Subject: Re: Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

There's an excellent article in the most recent

NeuroConnections newsletter, published jointly by ISNR and AAPB which has an

excellent simple article on SCP written by which may

offer some guidance to you. I read it in paper form and I can't offer an

internet connection for the article but perhaps someone else can.

> >

> > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of what

> > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.

> >

> > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

monopolar

> > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I will try

> > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix this.

> > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to fix

> > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one site,

> > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From what

> > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s

> > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since that is

> > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can

> > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but

even then the

> > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really

> > needs to be revers ed.

> >

> > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-agey

kind

> > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only

go on my

> > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is known to

> > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional

> > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening

> > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs to

be

> > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems

> > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if

> > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.

> > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that caused

> > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect to

how

> > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> >

> > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely

> > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just

> > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into consideration and

> > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The practitioner

> > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the

> > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but

go look at

> > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and

> > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best

> > thing to do.

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

Goldring

paul.goldring1@...

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

The NeuroConnections newsletter is not on line. You can receive

a copy by writing to office@....

As said, I believe, the low frequency training at T3 – T4

is not SCP or DC training.

Sincerely,

Merlyn Hurd PhD;BCIAC/EEG Fellow

Editor of ISNR newsletter NeuroConnections

From:

braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ] On Behalf

Of Goldring

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:35 PM

To: braintrainer

Subject: Re: Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

There's an excellent article in the most recent

NeuroConnections newsletter, published jointly by ISNR and AAPB which has an

excellent simple article on SCP written by which may

offer some guidance to you. I read it in paper form and I can't offer an

internet connection for the article but perhaps someone else can.

> >

> > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of what

> > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.

> >

> > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

monopolar

> > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I will try

> > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix this.

> > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to fix

> > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one site,

> > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From what

> > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s

> > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since that is

> > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can

> > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but

even then the

> > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really

> > needs to be revers ed.

> >

> > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-agey

kind

> > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only

go on my

> > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is known to

> > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional

> > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening

> > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs to

be

> > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems

> > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if

> > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.

> > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that caused

> > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect to

how

> > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> >

> > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely

> > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just

> > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into consideration and

> > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The practitioner

> > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the

> > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but

go look at

> > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and

> > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best

> > thing to do.

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

Goldring

paul.goldring1@...

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that reference. Based on that I was able to find article by

Andersen on SCPs in a 2006 newsletter of a California neurofeedback

group, which strongly reinforces my belief that the SCPs have in fact

been detrimentally affected.

My understanding is that the Focus is not a true DC amp -- or is it? I

am confused on that point, b/c supposedly according to Dr. Rocatti it

does not have some certain kind of " filters. " Are " filters " the same

as the capacitors that supposedly interfere with SCP signals?

So if Focus is not a true DC amp, it seems likely that the Othmer LF

training had an adverse effect because of that, and that it might be

able to be corrected simply by re-training that frequency on more

accurate or suitable equipment.

If that didn't work, then the question is whether training other more

conventional frequencies, sites, methodologies, etc. would affect the

SCPs and resolve the problem. Reading between the lines, I think Pete

at least believes that is possible, although it seems like it could

take a lot of work and perhaps not even fully succeed. On the

assumption that the SCPs were altered, the shortest distance to me

still appears to be actual SCP training (not meaning Othmer LF

training) to address the problem directly. But maybe I am just being

overly pessimistic on that point for some reason, and that

conventional training would fix it just as well.

JW

> > > >

> > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of

> > what

> > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.

> > > >

> > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

> > monopolar

> > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I

> > will try

> > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix

> > this.

> > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to

> > fix

> > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one

> > site,

> > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From

> > what

> > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s

> > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since

> > that is

> > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can

> > > > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but even

> > then the

> > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really

> > > > needs to be reversed.

> > > >

> > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-

> > agey kind

> > > > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only go on

> > my

> > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is

> > known to

> > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional

> > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening

> > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs

> > to be

> > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems

> > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if

> > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.

> > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that

> > caused

> > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect

> > to how

> > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> > > >

> > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely

> > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just

> > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into

> > consideration and

> > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The

> > practitioner

> > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the

> > > > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but go

> > look at

> > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and

> > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best

> > > > thing to do.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Van Deusen

> > > pvdtlc@

> > > http://www.brain-trainer.com

> > > 305/433-3160

> > > The Learning Curve, Inc.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Goldring

> paul.goldring1@...

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that reference. Based on that I was able to find article by

Andersen on SCPs in a 2006 newsletter of a California neurofeedback

group, which strongly reinforces my belief that the SCPs have in fact

been detrimentally affected.

My understanding is that the Focus is not a true DC amp -- or is it? I

am confused on that point, b/c supposedly according to Dr. Rocatti it

does not have some certain kind of " filters. " Are " filters " the same

as the capacitors that supposedly interfere with SCP signals?

So if Focus is not a true DC amp, it seems likely that the Othmer LF

training had an adverse effect because of that, and that it might be

able to be corrected simply by re-training that frequency on more

accurate or suitable equipment.

If that didn't work, then the question is whether training other more

conventional frequencies, sites, methodologies, etc. would affect the

SCPs and resolve the problem. Reading between the lines, I think Pete

at least believes that is possible, although it seems like it could

take a lot of work and perhaps not even fully succeed. On the

assumption that the SCPs were altered, the shortest distance to me

still appears to be actual SCP training (not meaning Othmer LF

training) to address the problem directly. But maybe I am just being

overly pessimistic on that point for some reason, and that

conventional training would fix it just as well.

JW

> > > >

> > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of

> > what

> > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.

> > > >

> > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

> > monopolar

> > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I

> > will try

> > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix

> > this.

> > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to

> > fix

> > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one

> > site,

> > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From

> > what

> > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s

> > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since

> > that is

> > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can

> > > > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but even

> > then the

> > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really

> > > > needs to be reversed.

> > > >

> > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-

> > agey kind

> > > > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only go on

> > my

> > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is

> > known to

> > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional

> > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening

> > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs

> > to be

> > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems

> > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if

> > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.

> > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that

> > caused

> > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect

> > to how

> > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> > > >

> > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely

> > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just

> > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into

> > consideration and

> > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The

> > practitioner

> > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the

> > > > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but go

> > look at

> > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and

> > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best

> > > > thing to do.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Van Deusen

> > > pvdtlc@

> > > http://www.brain-trainer.com

> > > 305/433-3160

> > > The Learning Curve, Inc.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Goldring

> paul.goldring1@...

>

[Guest guest]

JW-I don't at all follow your logic for a number of reasons. You say the approach messed up your SCP's but agknowledge that the hardware is realy set up to train it. So if SCP's realy were the thing that was messed up(you have no objective data to substantiate this though) it was messed up through other means that effect SCP's. Given that your willing to concede in the Othmer's approach that not realy being able to train it directly can influence it, why not use the TLC approach to adress your goals and symptoms.

Another reason that your logic seems flawed is that if the Othmer method realy was training it in the way you are guessing, than the Othmer method of going back up in frequencies until there was a resolution would be the obvious solution. However, it hasn't worked out that way.

There is more than one way to adress function . Read about Luria's cocept of equipontentiality.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Thanks for that reference. Based on that I was able to find article byAndersen on SCPs in a 2006 newsletter of a California neurofeedbackgroup, which strongly reinforces my belief that the SCPs have in factbeen detrimentally affected. My understanding is that the Focus is not a true DC amp -- or is it? Iam confused on that point, b/c supposedly according to Dr. Rocatti itdoes not have some certain kind of "filters." Are "filters" the sameas the capacitors that supposedly interfere with SCP signals? So if Focus is not a true DC amp, it seems likely that the Othmer LFtraining had an adverse effect because of that, and that it might beable to be corrected simply by re-training that frequency on moreaccurate or suitable equipment. If that didn't work, then the question is whether training other moreconventional frequencies, sites, methodologies, etc. would affect theSCPs and resolve the problem. Reading between the lines, I think Peteat least believes that is possible, although it seems like it couldtake a lot of work and perhaps not even fully succeed. On theassumption that the SCPs were altered, the shortest distance to mestill appears to be actual SCP training (not meaning Othmer LFtraining) to address the problem directly. But maybe I am just beingoverly pessimistic on that point for some reason, and thatconventional training would fix it just as well. JW> > > >> > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of > > what> > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.> > > >> > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4 > > monopolar> > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I > > will try> > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix > > this.> > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to > > fix> > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one > > site,> > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From > > what> > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s> > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since > > that is> > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can> > > > sometimes work to correct something more "globally," but even > > then the> > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really> > > > needs to be reversed.> > > >> > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new- > > agey kind> > > > of "brain is a symphony" ideas or whatever, but I can only go on > > my> > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is > > known to> > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional> > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening> > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs > > to be> > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems> > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if> > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.> > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that > > caused> > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect > > to how> > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.> > > >> > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely> > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just> > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into > > consideration and> > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The > > practitioner> > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the> > > > "right frequency," while you are saying don't do that but go > > look at> > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and> > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best> > > > thing to do.> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Van Deusen> > > pvdtlc@> > > http://www.brain-trainer.com> > > 305/433-3160> > > The Learning Curve, Inc.> > >> >> >> > > > Goldring> paul.goldring1@...>

[Guest guest]

JW-I don't at all follow your logic for a number of reasons. You say the approach messed up your SCP's but agknowledge that the hardware is realy set up to train it. So if SCP's realy were the thing that was messed up(you have no objective data to substantiate this though) it was messed up through other means that effect SCP's. Given that your willing to concede in the Othmer's approach that not realy being able to train it directly can influence it, why not use the TLC approach to adress your goals and symptoms.

Another reason that your logic seems flawed is that if the Othmer method realy was training it in the way you are guessing, than the Othmer method of going back up in frequencies until there was a resolution would be the obvious solution. However, it hasn't worked out that way.

There is more than one way to adress function . Read about Luria's cocept of equipontentiality.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Thanks for that reference. Based on that I was able to find article byAndersen on SCPs in a 2006 newsletter of a California neurofeedbackgroup, which strongly reinforces my belief that the SCPs have in factbeen detrimentally affected. My understanding is that the Focus is not a true DC amp -- or is it? Iam confused on that point, b/c supposedly according to Dr. Rocatti itdoes not have some certain kind of "filters." Are "filters" the sameas the capacitors that supposedly interfere with SCP signals? So if Focus is not a true DC amp, it seems likely that the Othmer LFtraining had an adverse effect because of that, and that it might beable to be corrected simply by re-training that frequency on moreaccurate or suitable equipment. If that didn't work, then the question is whether training other moreconventional frequencies, sites, methodologies, etc. would affect theSCPs and resolve the problem. Reading between the lines, I think Peteat least believes that is possible, although it seems like it couldtake a lot of work and perhaps not even fully succeed. On theassumption that the SCPs were altered, the shortest distance to mestill appears to be actual SCP training (not meaning Othmer LFtraining) to address the problem directly. But maybe I am just beingoverly pessimistic on that point for some reason, and thatconventional training would fix it just as well. JW> > > >> > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose sight of > > what> > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training at T3-T4.> > > >> > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4 > > monopolar> > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I > > will try> > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to fix > > this.> > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really have to > > fix> > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at one > > site,> > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other site. From > > what> > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the site/s> > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since > > that is> > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other sites can> > > > sometimes work to correct something more "globally," but even > > then the> > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And this really> > > > needs to be reversed.> > > >> > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new- > > agey kind> > > > of "brain is a symphony" ideas or whatever, but I can only go on > > my> > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is > > known to> > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused attentional> > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is happening> > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that needs > > to be> > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only seems> > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and then if> > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other sites.> > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones that > > caused> > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due respect > > to how> > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.> > > >> > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is completely> > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm really just> > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into > > consideration and> > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The > > practitioner> > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to find the> > > > "right frequency," while you are saying don't do that but go > > look at> > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my way and> > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be the best> > > > thing to do.> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Van Deusen> > > pvdtlc@> > > http://www.brain-trainer.com> > > 305/433-3160> > > The Learning Curve, Inc.> > >> >> >> > > > Goldring> paul.goldring1@...>

[Guest guest]

Bruce -

I'm just speculating that if the Focus does not give a true reading of

the SCPs, but a delayed or incomplete reading, then it seems logical

to me that it could have had a detrimental effect at those

frequencies. Perhaps the delay was even so great that what was trained

was actually the opposite of what should have been trained, e.g., the

reward happened when the signal was going up (or down), when in " real

time " the signal in the brain was actually going in the opposite

direction.

If something like that did in fact happen (again, just a speculation,

but if the Focus isn't DC it seems to me a logical one), then wouldn't

it also make sense that training those same frequencies with equipment

that was measuring and feeding back closer to real time could correct

it?

I don't necessarily agree with your statement about going up using the

Othmer method should fix it. If it's out of whack because the amp

isn't DC (though still waiting to find out about that for sure), then

no amount of going up should matter. The amp isn't capable at those

frequencies in a reliable way. Also, the training is bipolar, T3-T4,

not simple monopolar. So I think the effects of that are different

because you are training a difference, and at two sites, and it's kind

of screwy compared to simple monopolar. I think Pete has spoken on

this point.

Of course, if the amp IS true DC, then that theory is totally wrong.

But I'm completely willing to change my idea of it if it turns out

it's not the amp.

As for TLC, I am definitely planning to do another TLC assessment.

Fortunately I have one from only a few weeks (6? 8?) before this

happened to compare it against. The person who I am working with now

is also knowledgeable about the TLC methods and is BCIA certified, so

ultimately that will probably be the direction I go in. But if this

could be addressed by a simple corrective approach on suitable DC

equipment, I think that would make all the other things I have to fix

that much easier.

I guess it's hard for me to convey or for most practitioners to

understand (or believe), but I have often had dramatic effects from a

single NF session (this session itself was a single session, in fact),

and I have also had dramatic fixes and reversals of things from a

single session -- when it's the right protocol. I guess that is the

curse of having such an unstable brain. But that also means when

something gets acutely wacked out it can be possible for me to correct

it quickly with the right protocol. So that is why I am oriented this

way when something goes wrong -- toward getting a quick, direct fix --

because I've had it happen before. It's not that I don't understand

the importance of stabilizing the brain globally, but all that stuff's

still there anyway " underneath " this latest dysfunction. That's not

going anywhere. So if possible I'd like to get a fix of the acute

thing in the meantime, back more toward " normal. " I hope that makes

sense.

JW

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose

sight of

> > > what

> > > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training

at T3-T4.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

> > > monopolar

> > > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I

> > > will try

> > > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to

fix

> > > this.

> > > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really

have to

> > > fix

> > > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at

one

> > > site,

> > > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other

site. From

> > > what

> > > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the

site/s

> > > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since

> > > that is

> > > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other

sites can

> > > > > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but even

> > > then the

> > > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And

this really

> > > > > needs to be reversed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-

> > > agey kind

> > > > > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only

go on

> > > my

> > > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is

> > > known to

> > > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused

attentional

> > > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is

happening

> > > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that

needs

> > > to be

> > > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only

seems

> > > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and

then if

> > > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other

sites.

> > > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones

that

> > > caused

> > > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due

respect

> > > to how

> > > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> > > > >

> > > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is

completely

> > > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm

really just

> > > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into

> > > consideration and

> > > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The

> > > practitioner

> > > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to

find the

> > > > > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but go

> > > look at

> > > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my

way and

> > > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be

the best

> > > > > thing to do.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > Van Deusen

> > > > pvdtlc@

> > > > http://www.brain-trainer.com

> > > > 305/433-3160

> > > > The Learning Curve, Inc.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Goldring

> > paul.goldring1@

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Bruce -

I'm just speculating that if the Focus does not give a true reading of

the SCPs, but a delayed or incomplete reading, then it seems logical

to me that it could have had a detrimental effect at those

frequencies. Perhaps the delay was even so great that what was trained

was actually the opposite of what should have been trained, e.g., the

reward happened when the signal was going up (or down), when in " real

time " the signal in the brain was actually going in the opposite

direction.

If something like that did in fact happen (again, just a speculation,

but if the Focus isn't DC it seems to me a logical one), then wouldn't

it also make sense that training those same frequencies with equipment

that was measuring and feeding back closer to real time could correct

it?

I don't necessarily agree with your statement about going up using the

Othmer method should fix it. If it's out of whack because the amp

isn't DC (though still waiting to find out about that for sure), then

no amount of going up should matter. The amp isn't capable at those

frequencies in a reliable way. Also, the training is bipolar, T3-T4,

not simple monopolar. So I think the effects of that are different

because you are training a difference, and at two sites, and it's kind

of screwy compared to simple monopolar. I think Pete has spoken on

this point.

Of course, if the amp IS true DC, then that theory is totally wrong.

But I'm completely willing to change my idea of it if it turns out

it's not the amp.

As for TLC, I am definitely planning to do another TLC assessment.

Fortunately I have one from only a few weeks (6? 8?) before this

happened to compare it against. The person who I am working with now

is also knowledgeable about the TLC methods and is BCIA certified, so

ultimately that will probably be the direction I go in. But if this

could be addressed by a simple corrective approach on suitable DC

equipment, I think that would make all the other things I have to fix

that much easier.

I guess it's hard for me to convey or for most practitioners to

understand (or believe), but I have often had dramatic effects from a

single NF session (this session itself was a single session, in fact),

and I have also had dramatic fixes and reversals of things from a

single session -- when it's the right protocol. I guess that is the

curse of having such an unstable brain. But that also means when

something gets acutely wacked out it can be possible for me to correct

it quickly with the right protocol. So that is why I am oriented this

way when something goes wrong -- toward getting a quick, direct fix --

because I've had it happen before. It's not that I don't understand

the importance of stabilizing the brain globally, but all that stuff's

still there anyway " underneath " this latest dysfunction. That's not

going anywhere. So if possible I'd like to get a fix of the acute

thing in the meantime, back more toward " normal. " I hope that makes

sense.

JW

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to lose

sight of

> > > what

> > > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency training

at T3-T4.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4

> > > monopolar

> > > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I

> > > will try

> > > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try to

fix

> > > this.

> > > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I really

have to

> > > fix

> > > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out at

one

> > > site,

> > > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some other

site. From

> > > what

> > > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at the

site/s

> > > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since

> > > that is

> > > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to other

sites can

> > > > > sometimes work to correct something more " globally, " but even

> > > then the

> > > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. And

this really

> > > > > needs to be reversed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new-

> > > agey kind

> > > > > of " brain is a symphony " ideas or whatever, but I can only

go on

> > > my

> > > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is

> > > known to

> > > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely caused

attentional

> > > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something is

happening

> > > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site that

needs

> > > to be

> > > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it only

seems

> > > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, and

then if

> > > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to other

sites.

> > > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the ones

that

> > > caused

> > > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all due

respect

> > > to how

> > > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.

> > > > >

> > > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that is

completely

> > > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'm

really just

> > > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into

> > > consideration and

> > > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The

> > > practitioner

> > > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning to

find the

> > > > > " right frequency, " while you are saying don't do that but go

> > > look at

> > > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming my

way and

> > > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might be

the best

> > > > > thing to do.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > Van Deusen

> > > > pvdtlc@

> > > > http://www.brain-trainer.com

> > > > 305/433-3160

> > > > The Learning Curve, Inc.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Goldring

> > paul.goldring1@

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Pete's approach can also work quite quickly with such brains. I just don't get the obsession with only one way of adressing that(SCP). Have you actualy attended his level 2 and level three courses. Espcialy level three would make this clear to you.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Bruce - I'm just speculating that if the Focus does not give a true reading ofthe SCPs, but a delayed or incomplete reading, then it seems logicalto me that it could have had a detrimental effect at thosefrequencies. Perhaps the delay was even so great that what was trainedwas actually the opposite of what should have been trained, e.g., thereward happened when the signal was going up (or down), when in "realtime" the signal in the brain was actually going in the oppositedirection. If something like that did in fact happen (again, just a speculation,but if the Focus isn't DC it seems to me a logical one), then wouldn'tit also make sense that training those same frequencies with equipmentthat was measuring and feeding back closer to real time could correctit? I don't necessarily agree with your statement about going up using theOthmer method should fix it. If it's out of whack because the ampisn't DC (though still waiting to find out about that for sure), thenno amount of going up should matter. The amp isn't capable at thosefrequencies in a reliable way. Also, the training is bipolar, T3-T4,not simple monopolar. So I think the effects of that are differentbecause you are training a difference, and at two sites, and it's kindof screwy compared to simple monopolar. I think Pete has spoken onthis point. Of course, if the amp IS true DC, then that theory is totally wrong.But I'm completely willing to change my idea of it if it turns outit's not the amp. As for TLC, I am definitely planning to do another TLC assessment.Fortunately I have one from only a few weeks (6? 8?) before thishappened to compare it against. The person who I am working with nowis also knowledgeable about the TLC methods and is BCIA certified, soultimately that will probably be the direction I go in. But if thiscould be addressed by a simple corrective approach on suitable DCequipment, I think that would make all the other things I have to fixthat much easier.I guess it's hard for me to convey or for most practitioners tounderstand (or believe), but I have often had dramatic effects from asingle NF session (this session itself was a single session, in fact),and I have also had dramatic fixes and reversals of things from asingle session -- when it's the right protocol. I guess that is thecurse of having such an unstable brain. But that also means whensomething gets acutely wacked out it can be possible for me to correctit quickly with the right protocol. So that is why I am oriented thisway when something goes wrong -- toward getting a quick, direct fix --because I've had it happen before. It's not that I don't understandthe importance of stabilizing the brain globally, but all that stuff'sstill there anyway "underneath" this latest dysfunction. That's notgoing anywhere. So if possible I'd like to get a fix of the acutething in the meantime, back more toward "normal." I hope that makessense. JW> > > > >> > > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to losesight of > > > what> > > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency trainingat T3-T4.> > > > >> > > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4 > > > monopolar> > > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I > > > will try> > > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try tofix > > > this.> > > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I reallyhave to > > > fix> > > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out atone > > > site,> > > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some othersite. From > > > what> > > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at thesite/s> > > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since > > > that is> > > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to othersites can> > > > > sometimes work to correct something more "globally," but even > > > then the> > > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. Andthis really> > > > > needs to be reversed.> > > > >> > > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new- > > > agey kind> > > > > of "brain is a symphony" ideas or whatever, but I can onlygo on > > > my> > > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is > > > known to> > > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely causedattentional> > > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something ishappening> > > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site thatneeds > > > to be> > > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it onlyseems> > > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, andthen if> > > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to othersites.> > > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the onesthat > > > caused> > > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all duerespect > > > to how> > > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.> > > > >> > > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that iscompletely> > > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'mreally just> > > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into > > > consideration and> > > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The > > > practitioner> > > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning tofind the> > > > > "right frequency," while you are saying don't do that but go > > > look at> > > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming myway and> > > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might bethe best> > > > > thing to do.> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --> > > > Van Deusen> > > > pvdtlc@> > > > http://www.brain-trainer.com> > > > 305/433-3160> > > > The Learning Curve, Inc.> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Goldring> > paul.goldring1@> >>

[Guest guest]

Pete's approach can also work quite quickly with such brains. I just don't get the obsession with only one way of adressing that(SCP). Have you actualy attended his level 2 and level three courses. Espcialy level three would make this clear to you.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Bruce - I'm just speculating that if the Focus does not give a true reading ofthe SCPs, but a delayed or incomplete reading, then it seems logicalto me that it could have had a detrimental effect at thosefrequencies. Perhaps the delay was even so great that what was trainedwas actually the opposite of what should have been trained, e.g., thereward happened when the signal was going up (or down), when in "realtime" the signal in the brain was actually going in the oppositedirection. If something like that did in fact happen (again, just a speculation,but if the Focus isn't DC it seems to me a logical one), then wouldn'tit also make sense that training those same frequencies with equipmentthat was measuring and feeding back closer to real time could correctit? I don't necessarily agree with your statement about going up using theOthmer method should fix it. If it's out of whack because the ampisn't DC (though still waiting to find out about that for sure), thenno amount of going up should matter. The amp isn't capable at thosefrequencies in a reliable way. Also, the training is bipolar, T3-T4,not simple monopolar. So I think the effects of that are differentbecause you are training a difference, and at two sites, and it's kindof screwy compared to simple monopolar. I think Pete has spoken onthis point. Of course, if the amp IS true DC, then that theory is totally wrong.But I'm completely willing to change my idea of it if it turns outit's not the amp. As for TLC, I am definitely planning to do another TLC assessment.Fortunately I have one from only a few weeks (6? 8?) before thishappened to compare it against. The person who I am working with nowis also knowledgeable about the TLC methods and is BCIA certified, soultimately that will probably be the direction I go in. But if thiscould be addressed by a simple corrective approach on suitable DCequipment, I think that would make all the other things I have to fixthat much easier.I guess it's hard for me to convey or for most practitioners tounderstand (or believe), but I have often had dramatic effects from asingle NF session (this session itself was a single session, in fact),and I have also had dramatic fixes and reversals of things from asingle session -- when it's the right protocol. I guess that is thecurse of having such an unstable brain. But that also means whensomething gets acutely wacked out it can be possible for me to correctit quickly with the right protocol. So that is why I am oriented thisway when something goes wrong -- toward getting a quick, direct fix --because I've had it happen before. It's not that I don't understandthe importance of stabilizing the brain globally, but all that stuff'sstill there anyway "underneath" this latest dysfunction. That's notgoing anywhere. So if possible I'd like to get a fix of the acutething in the meantime, back more toward "normal." I hope that makessense. JW> > > > >> > > > > Hi Pete - As I just said to Mark, I don't want to losesight of > > > what> > > > > actually caused this malfunction: low frequency trainingat T3-T4.> > > > >> > > > > If you are telling me that the correct SCP training is T3/T4 > > > monopolar> > > > > at 0-0.6 (0.3Hz), then I guess with lack of any other info I > > > will try> > > > > up or downtraining that frequency at those sites to try tofix > > > this.> > > > > That is the location it got whacked out in, and I reallyhave to > > > fix> > > > > this. In my experience, when something gets whacked out atone > > > site,> > > > > it almost never gets corrected by going to some othersite. From > > > what> > > > > I have experienced over the years, you have to stay at thesite/s> > > > > where the malfunction occurred and try to fix it there, since > > > that is> > > > > the location where it got whacked out. Going to othersites can> > > > > sometimes work to correct something more "globally," but even > > > then the> > > > > original problem sometimes doesn't get 100% fixed. Andthis really> > > > > needs to be reversed.> > > > >> > > > > I realize that flies in the face of all the theoretical, new- > > > agey kind> > > > > of "brain is a symphony" ideas or whatever, but I can onlygo on > > > my> > > > > actual experience. Training in that range at those sites is > > > known to> > > > > cause effects on attention, and they definitely causedattentional> > > > > effects for me, albeit negative. So we know something ishappening> > > > > there. It only stands to reason that that is the site thatneeds > > > to be> > > > > tweaked to get it back in line. Or stated better, it onlyseems> > > > > logical that those are the sites one should start at, andthen if> > > > > nothing works to fix it, then consider moving on to othersites.> > > > > Jumping all around to other sites when these are the onesthat > > > caused> > > > > the problem doesn't make much sense to me, with all duerespect > > > to how> > > > > most people perhaps respond to NF.> > > > >> > > > > That's just the way I see it, but if you think that iscompletely> > > > > unreasonable or irrational, feel free to tell me. I'mreally just> > > > > trying to sound this out taking all viewpoints into > > > consideration and> > > > > figure out what is the best way to try to fix this. The > > > practitioner> > > > > and the Othmer protocol say I should keep fine tuning tofind the> > > > > "right frequency," while you are saying don't do that but go > > > look at> > > > > other sites. So there is conflicting information coming myway and> > > > > it's difficult to sort through it and find what might bethe best> > > > > thing to do.> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --> > > > Van Deusen> > > > pvdtlc@> > > > http://www.brain-trainer.com> > > > 305/433-3160> > > > The Learning Curve, Inc.> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Goldring> > paul.goldring1@> >>

[Guest guest]

JW,

Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

-------------- Original message from "st4rcycle" : --------------

Hi -I'm sorry to hear you've had bad effects too, but I can't thank youenough for posting your experience. I feel like I'm the only one who'sever had a bad result, and then when I go to the doctors for CFSsymptoms and problems, I get the same thing from them: "I've neverheard of that, you must be a head case." It's at least reassuring in aconfirming way to know other people have had similar experiences, thatit's not just me. In your case, however, I would have no reservations whatsoever inrecommending the TLC method. The frequencies you trained are all"covered" by the assessment and the methods that follow from that. Youdidn't directly mess up any of these low frequencies that aren't"seen" by the assessment or dealt with afterward. This system takes alot of the guesswork out of it. You just hook up electrodes at the Csites, T, F, P and front to back sites, and get the data for 3 minutesat each site. It's very easy. Then you develop a plan from that basedon your actual brain, and not guesswork. I confess to not having had great results with the plans that follow,but there are a lot of variables involved there, including I justmight not have done the training long enough. I didn't have anythingbad happen from it, though -- no bad effects. And who am I to giveadvice, right? In my condition. But I wish I had just stuck to the TLCdesigns even if they were very mild. Like I said, I got impatient fornoticeable results and just might not have stuck with them long enough. Just whatever you do, please don't let anyone talk you into doing this low frequency bipolar training (T3-T4). From what I'm learningfrom my bad experience, it's experimental, not really grounded in anydocumented results yet, very risky, and can really mess you up (andbtw, the same is true of just about any training where the person isbasically just guessing, or using a "one-size fits all" approach).What I didn't mention is that like you I also have severe anxiety fromraising the frequency to try to fix it, and I think it's even changedmy personality. So if you want my advice, fwiw, stay away from anyonepeddling that kind of snake oil. Hope this goes through - not sure if Pete banned me from posting ornot. :-oJW>> FWIW I have had a similar experience. My cognitive problems wereinduced by doing SMR > training at CZ and C3. My "sessions" were 3 minutes each, with a 1minute rest in > between. After 10 - 3 minute sessions of SMR (inhibit practiallyall below and above) with > me manipulating the "user" value manually (whatever that means) mycognitive function > and memory got totally whacked, it also made me totally emotionallyflat, unmotivated, > and disconnected. Its as if I was overdosed on an SSRI orsomething. The effects were > cumulative, with each succesive 3 minute run, the effects(spaciness, memory problems, > cognitive dysfunction) intensified and stayed persistent. Finally Iquit the training because > obviously it wasn't the right thing for me, and the pracitioner wasin over her head.> > This protocol (and another one which made me very anxious) waspicked after a > practitioner did a particularly bad job at listening to my symptomsand history and > qualifying me as a candidate for NF. I think this training is whatthis practioner does on > everyone, regardless of symptoms/history/other health problems... idunno.> > Unfortunately I haven't found a resolution to the problem. I haverun into many > practitioners who just wanted to "hook me up" and "try stuff" - Ihaven't taken them up, > heh... Perhaps in "normal" people they have enough resilience intheir brains to resist > innapropriate NF protocols so these practitioners don't run intotrouble with them. But, > because of my sensitivty to the training, I can't "try the protocolon for size" as a > diagnostic, and then "train repeatedly to get it to stick" like mostpeople seem to do. > Perhaps my brain is just really quick at "learning"? Or perhaps itsunstable enough that it > can't resist being "pushed" by the NF, I dunno..> > I am working with someone locally who is cautiously looking intooptions for me... and at > least he admits things like these can and do happen - but aren'toften acknowledged. I > know this won't help you objectively, but maybe it will give yousome solace that you > aren't the only one in the world who has had this experience? Itsure did piss me off when > I was told that I was the only person on earth to react to NF thisway, even though that > can't possibly be the case.> > >

[Guest guest]

JW,

Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

-------------- Original message from "st4rcycle" : --------------

Hi -I'm sorry to hear you've had bad effects too, but I can't thank youenough for posting your experience. I feel like I'm the only one who'sever had a bad result, and then when I go to the doctors for CFSsymptoms and problems, I get the same thing from them: "I've neverheard of that, you must be a head case." It's at least reassuring in aconfirming way to know other people have had similar experiences, thatit's not just me. In your case, however, I would have no reservations whatsoever inrecommending the TLC method. The frequencies you trained are all"covered" by the assessment and the methods that follow from that. Youdidn't directly mess up any of these low frequencies that aren't"seen" by the assessment or dealt with afterward. This system takes alot of the guesswork out of it. You just hook up electrodes at the Csites, T, F, P and front to back sites, and get the data for 3 minutesat each site. It's very easy. Then you develop a plan from that basedon your actual brain, and not guesswork. I confess to not having had great results with the plans that follow,but there are a lot of variables involved there, including I justmight not have done the training long enough. I didn't have anythingbad happen from it, though -- no bad effects. And who am I to giveadvice, right? In my condition. But I wish I had just stuck to the TLCdesigns even if they were very mild. Like I said, I got impatient fornoticeable results and just might not have stuck with them long enough. Just whatever you do, please don't let anyone talk you into doing this low frequency bipolar training (T3-T4). From what I'm learningfrom my bad experience, it's experimental, not really grounded in anydocumented results yet, very risky, and can really mess you up (andbtw, the same is true of just about any training where the person isbasically just guessing, or using a "one-size fits all" approach).What I didn't mention is that like you I also have severe anxiety fromraising the frequency to try to fix it, and I think it's even changedmy personality. So if you want my advice, fwiw, stay away from anyonepeddling that kind of snake oil. Hope this goes through - not sure if Pete banned me from posting ornot. :-oJW>> FWIW I have had a similar experience. My cognitive problems wereinduced by doing SMR > training at CZ and C3. My "sessions" were 3 minutes each, with a 1minute rest in > between. After 10 - 3 minute sessions of SMR (inhibit practiallyall below and above) with > me manipulating the "user" value manually (whatever that means) mycognitive function > and memory got totally whacked, it also made me totally emotionallyflat, unmotivated, > and disconnected. Its as if I was overdosed on an SSRI orsomething. The effects were > cumulative, with each succesive 3 minute run, the effects(spaciness, memory problems, > cognitive dysfunction) intensified and stayed persistent. Finally Iquit the training because > obviously it wasn't the right thing for me, and the pracitioner wasin over her head.> > This protocol (and another one which made me very anxious) waspicked after a > practitioner did a particularly bad job at listening to my symptomsand history and > qualifying me as a candidate for NF. I think this training is whatthis practioner does on > everyone, regardless of symptoms/history/other health problems... idunno.> > Unfortunately I haven't found a resolution to the problem. I haverun into many > practitioners who just wanted to "hook me up" and "try stuff" - Ihaven't taken them up, > heh... Perhaps in "normal" people they have enough resilience intheir brains to resist > innapropriate NF protocols so these practitioners don't run intotrouble with them. But, > because of my sensitivty to the training, I can't "try the protocolon for size" as a > diagnostic, and then "train repeatedly to get it to stick" like mostpeople seem to do. > Perhaps my brain is just really quick at "learning"? Or perhaps itsunstable enough that it > can't resist being "pushed" by the NF, I dunno..> > I am working with someone locally who is cautiously looking intooptions for me... and at > least he admits things like these can and do happen - but aren'toften acknowledged. I > know this won't help you objectively, but maybe it will give yousome solace that you > aren't the only one in the world who has had this experience? Itsure did piss me off when > I was told that I was the only person on earth to react to NF thisway, even though that > can't possibly be the case.> > >

[Guest guest]

JW-Who knows? However, you keep writing as if you know it's a SCP problem. What you know is your symtoms and the different things you have tried. You can't know for sure about what generates them and your understanding of how the brain works is not supported research. Please show some scientific evidence that supports that only one particular EEG variable(SCP) at the sites in question can influence anything and such influence is independent of other aspects of the brain. It's simply not how the brain work. Yes there are local networks. However, these networks don't work in isolation. You keep focussing on the "problem" vs the functions and there are many ways to go about improving those functions again. Did it ever occure to you that there is far more than EEG biofeedback training of SCL that can influenc SCL. Thoughts, activities, nutrition, sleep, etc all do. Look at what happened to you from another aspect. If SCL influences did this all to you that just goes to show how so much of the brain is interconnected. Yes, maybe in this case it was SCP that was the leverage point to move your brain in the wrong direction. Multiple other types of training have been shown to have the same impacts.

Another thing to consider, since as you say SCP was altered but not in a linear direction since there is no way to know in what ways the othmer method altered it. How would a linear way of training SCP even be similar to what say the Othmer method caused! What seems so simple in terms of SCP, may not be quite as clear cut as you thought. In the mean time there is a very inexpensive program that will most certainly help you cognitive abilities.

It's called BrainTwister. Read up on it

www.apn.psy.unibe.ch/lenya/apn/live/anwendung/braintwister-e.html

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Hi -I'm sorry to hear you've had bad effects too, but I can't thank youenough for posting your experience. I feel like I'm the only one who'sever had a bad result, and then when I go to the doctors for CFSsymptoms and problems, I get the same thing from them: "I've neverheard of that, you must be a head case." It's at least reassuring in aconfirming way to know other people have had similar experiences, thatit's not just me. In your case, however, I would have no reservations whatsoever inrecommending the TLC method. The frequencies you trained are all"covered" by the assessment and the methods that follow from that. Youdidn't directly mess up any of these low frequencies that aren't"seen" by the assessment or dealt with afterward. This system takes alot of the guesswork out of it. You just hook up electrodes at the Csites, T, F, P and front to back sites, and get the data for 3 minutesat each site. It's very easy. Then you develop a plan from that basedon your actual brain, and not guesswork. I confess to not having had great results with the plans that follow,but there are a lot of variables involved there, including I justmight not have done the training long enough. I didn't have anythingbad happen from it, though -- no bad effects. And who am I to giveadvice, right? In my condition. But I wish I had just stuck to the TLCdesigns even if they were very mild. Like I said, I got impatient fornoticeable results and just might not have stuck with them long enough. Just whatever you do, please don't let anyone talk you into doing this low frequency bipolar training (T3-T4). From what I'm learningfrom my bad experience, it's experimental, not really grounded in anydocumented results yet, very risky, and can really mess you up (andbtw, the same is true of just about any training where the person isbasically just guessing, or using a "one-size fits all" approach).What I didn't mention is that like you I also have severe anxiety fromraising the frequency to try to fix it, and I think it's even changedmy personality. So if you want my advice, fwiw, stay away from anyonepeddling that kind of snake oil. Hope this goes through - not sure if Pete banned me from posting ornot. :-oJW>> FWIW I have had a similar experience. My cognitive problems wereinduced by doing SMR > training at CZ and C3. My "sessions" were 3 minutes each, with a 1minute rest in > between. After 10 - 3 minute sessions of SMR (inhibit practiallyall below and above) with > me manipulating the "user" value manually (whatever that means) mycognitive function > and memory got totally whacked, it also made me totally emotionallyflat, unmotivated, > and disconnected. Its as if I was overdosed on an SSRI orsomething. The effects were > cumulative, with each succesive 3 minute run, the effects(spaciness, memory problems, > cognitive dysfunction) intensified and stayed persistent. Finally Iquit the training because > obviously it wasn't the right thing for me, and the pracitioner wasin over her head.> > This protocol (and another one which made me very anxious) waspicked after a > practitioner did a particularly bad job at listening to my symptomsand history and > qualifying me as a candidate for NF. I think this training is whatthis practioner does on > everyone, regardless of symptoms/history/other health problems... idunno.> > Unfortunately I haven't found a resolution to the problem. I haverun into many > practitioners who just wanted to "hook me up" and "try stuff" - Ihaven't taken them up, > heh... Perhaps in "normal" people they have enough resilience intheir brains to resist > innapropriate NF protocols so these practitioners don't run intotrouble with them. But, > because of my sensitivty to the training, I can't "try the protocolon for size" as a > diagnostic, and then "train repeatedly to get it to stick" like mostpeople seem to do. > Perhaps my brain is just really quick at "learning"? Or perhaps itsunstable enough that it > can't resist being "pushed" by the NF, I dunno..> > I am working with someone locally who is cautiously looking intooptions for me... and at > least he admits things like these can and do happen - but aren'toften acknowledged. I > know this won't help you objectively, but maybe it will give yousome solace that you > aren't the only one in the world who has had this experience? Itsure did piss me off when > I was told that I was the only person on earth to react to NF thisway, even though that > can't possibly be the case.> > >

[Guest guest]

JW-Who knows? However, you keep writing as if you know it's a SCP problem. What you know is your symtoms and the different things you have tried. You can't know for sure about what generates them and your understanding of how the brain works is not supported research. Please show some scientific evidence that supports that only one particular EEG variable(SCP) at the sites in question can influence anything and such influence is independent of other aspects of the brain. It's simply not how the brain work. Yes there are local networks. However, these networks don't work in isolation. You keep focussing on the "problem" vs the functions and there are many ways to go about improving those functions again. Did it ever occure to you that there is far more than EEG biofeedback training of SCL that can influenc SCL. Thoughts, activities, nutrition, sleep, etc all do. Look at what happened to you from another aspect. If SCL influences did this all to you that just goes to show how so much of the brain is interconnected. Yes, maybe in this case it was SCP that was the leverage point to move your brain in the wrong direction. Multiple other types of training have been shown to have the same impacts.

Another thing to consider, since as you say SCP was altered but not in a linear direction since there is no way to know in what ways the othmer method altered it. How would a linear way of training SCP even be similar to what say the Othmer method caused! What seems so simple in terms of SCP, may not be quite as clear cut as you thought. In the mean time there is a very inexpensive program that will most certainly help you cognitive abilities.

It's called BrainTwister. Read up on it

www.apn.psy.unibe.ch/lenya/apn/live/anwendung/braintwister-e.html

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Hi -I'm sorry to hear you've had bad effects too, but I can't thank youenough for posting your experience. I feel like I'm the only one who'sever had a bad result, and then when I go to the doctors for CFSsymptoms and problems, I get the same thing from them: "I've neverheard of that, you must be a head case." It's at least reassuring in aconfirming way to know other people have had similar experiences, thatit's not just me. In your case, however, I would have no reservations whatsoever inrecommending the TLC method. The frequencies you trained are all"covered" by the assessment and the methods that follow from that. Youdidn't directly mess up any of these low frequencies that aren't"seen" by the assessment or dealt with afterward. This system takes alot of the guesswork out of it. You just hook up electrodes at the Csites, T, F, P and front to back sites, and get the data for 3 minutesat each site. It's very easy. Then you develop a plan from that basedon your actual brain, and not guesswork. I confess to not having had great results with the plans that follow,but there are a lot of variables involved there, including I justmight not have done the training long enough. I didn't have anythingbad happen from it, though -- no bad effects. And who am I to giveadvice, right? In my condition. But I wish I had just stuck to the TLCdesigns even if they were very mild. Like I said, I got impatient fornoticeable results and just might not have stuck with them long enough. Just whatever you do, please don't let anyone talk you into doing this low frequency bipolar training (T3-T4). From what I'm learningfrom my bad experience, it's experimental, not really grounded in anydocumented results yet, very risky, and can really mess you up (andbtw, the same is true of just about any training where the person isbasically just guessing, or using a "one-size fits all" approach).What I didn't mention is that like you I also have severe anxiety fromraising the frequency to try to fix it, and I think it's even changedmy personality. So if you want my advice, fwiw, stay away from anyonepeddling that kind of snake oil. Hope this goes through - not sure if Pete banned me from posting ornot. :-oJW>> FWIW I have had a similar experience. My cognitive problems wereinduced by doing SMR > training at CZ and C3. My "sessions" were 3 minutes each, with a 1minute rest in > between. After 10 - 3 minute sessions of SMR (inhibit practiallyall below and above) with > me manipulating the "user" value manually (whatever that means) mycognitive function > and memory got totally whacked, it also made me totally emotionallyflat, unmotivated, > and disconnected. Its as if I was overdosed on an SSRI orsomething. The effects were > cumulative, with each succesive 3 minute run, the effects(spaciness, memory problems, > cognitive dysfunction) intensified and stayed persistent. Finally Iquit the training because > obviously it wasn't the right thing for me, and the pracitioner wasin over her head.> > This protocol (and another one which made me very anxious) waspicked after a > practitioner did a particularly bad job at listening to my symptomsand history and > qualifying me as a candidate for NF. I think this training is whatthis practioner does on > everyone, regardless of symptoms/history/other health problems... idunno.> > Unfortunately I haven't found a resolution to the problem. I haverun into many > practitioners who just wanted to "hook me up" and "try stuff" - Ihaven't taken them up, > heh... Perhaps in "normal" people they have enough resilience intheir brains to resist > innapropriate NF protocols so these practitioners don't run intotrouble with them. But, > because of my sensitivty to the training, I can't "try the protocolon for size" as a > diagnostic, and then "train repeatedly to get it to stick" like mostpeople seem to do. > Perhaps my brain is just really quick at "learning"? Or perhaps itsunstable enough that it > can't resist being "pushed" by the NF, I dunno..> > I am working with someone locally who is cautiously looking intooptions for me... and at > least he admits things like these can and do happen - but aren'toften acknowledged. I > know this won't help you objectively, but maybe it will give yousome solace that you > aren't the only one in the world who has had this experience? Itsure did piss me off when > I was told that I was the only person on earth to react to NF thisway, even though that > can't possibly be the case.> > >

[Guest guest]

>

> JW-Who knows? However, you keep writing as if you know it's a SCP

problem. What you know is your symtoms and the different things you

have tried. You can't know for sure about what generates them and your

understanding of how the brain works is not supported research.

Please show some scientific evidence that supports that only one

particular EEG variable(SCP) at the sites in question can influence

anything and such influence is independent of other aspects of the brain.

Hi Bruce - Pete said not to respond to this thread anymore -- although

I do think it is a productive discussion -- so in deference to his

wishes I'm going to try to keep it brief and just say that first I am

not claiming to know anything with any certainty. I am just stating

what happened and trying to find the most reasonable and accurate

explanation for that to hopefully fix it. Because what I do know

happened is that I trained 0.1Hz up at T3-T4 with wide band inhibits,

and this attentional deficit was the result.

I also know that I have disregulation in other parts of the brain. I

am therefore completely in agreement that whatever changed as a result

of the 0.1 training at T3-T4 might have changed because of a new and

different relation to (or even new and different state) in another

part of the brain.

However, from what I have read so far on SCPs, there are pyramidal

neuron firing patterns (or maybe glial cell functioning) that are

characteristic of disorders associated with these SCP frequencies,

including attentional disorders, which are sometimes amenable to being

trained, improving the symptoms, whether seizure, ADD, etc. So my only

thought was that IF what happened was related to SCP, then it MIGHT be

possible to reverse it quickly by correcting those pyramidal (or

glial) patterns back to what they were again and possibly improving

the symptoms. You have to admit that it is very *coincidental* that

training in an area that is KNOWN to have effects on certain symptoms

would then whack something out relating those very symptoms.

And maybe that approach would not work. I'm not disputing that in the

least. Maybe it's better to forget all about it and train to the

functioning, as you say. But from that perspective you have to take

into account that, because of what MIGHT have happened at the SCPs,

then other trainings MIGHT NOT be sufficient to fix it back, either.

The point is, there is no way to know with any certainty, so I have

merely been trying to get as much information as possible to hopefully

make an intelligent decision and not make things any worse. It's

really as simple as that. I'm not claiming to know definitively what

happened at the brain level regarding SCPs.

But I've already said more than I intended to, so I'll stop there.

I'll just say again that I completely agree with you that the way to

address this might be to train to the function, as you put it, by

training more traditionally or whatever. I was never trying to say

that isn't a strong option, and maybe even the best option.

regards,

JW

[Guest guest]

>

> JW-Who knows? However, you keep writing as if you know it's a SCP

problem. What you know is your symtoms and the different things you

have tried. You can't know for sure about what generates them and your

understanding of how the brain works is not supported research.

Please show some scientific evidence that supports that only one

particular EEG variable(SCP) at the sites in question can influence

anything and such influence is independent of other aspects of the brain.

Hi Bruce - Pete said not to respond to this thread anymore -- although

I do think it is a productive discussion -- so in deference to his

wishes I'm going to try to keep it brief and just say that first I am

not claiming to know anything with any certainty. I am just stating

what happened and trying to find the most reasonable and accurate

explanation for that to hopefully fix it. Because what I do know

happened is that I trained 0.1Hz up at T3-T4 with wide band inhibits,

and this attentional deficit was the result.

I also know that I have disregulation in other parts of the brain. I

am therefore completely in agreement that whatever changed as a result

of the 0.1 training at T3-T4 might have changed because of a new and

different relation to (or even new and different state) in another

part of the brain.

However, from what I have read so far on SCPs, there are pyramidal

neuron firing patterns (or maybe glial cell functioning) that are

characteristic of disorders associated with these SCP frequencies,

including attentional disorders, which are sometimes amenable to being

trained, improving the symptoms, whether seizure, ADD, etc. So my only

thought was that IF what happened was related to SCP, then it MIGHT be

possible to reverse it quickly by correcting those pyramidal (or

glial) patterns back to what they were again and possibly improving

the symptoms. You have to admit that it is very *coincidental* that

training in an area that is KNOWN to have effects on certain symptoms

would then whack something out relating those very symptoms.

And maybe that approach would not work. I'm not disputing that in the

least. Maybe it's better to forget all about it and train to the

functioning, as you say. But from that perspective you have to take

into account that, because of what MIGHT have happened at the SCPs,

then other trainings MIGHT NOT be sufficient to fix it back, either.

The point is, there is no way to know with any certainty, so I have

merely been trying to get as much information as possible to hopefully

make an intelligent decision and not make things any worse. It's

really as simple as that. I'm not claiming to know definitively what

happened at the brain level regarding SCPs.

But I've already said more than I intended to, so I'll stop there.

I'll just say again that I completely agree with you that the way to

address this might be to train to the function, as you put it, by

training more traditionally or whatever. I was never trying to say

that isn't a strong option, and maybe even the best option.

regards,

JW

[Guest guest]

et al, There is no moderation of messages on this list. Spammers get through one time (if they manage to slip onto the list in the first place, which most don't) before they are banned. And people who can't communicate in a respectful way have been removed as members (maybe 5 or 6 in the years we've been operating).

There certainly has been no inappropriate dialog in this thread, so there's no reason anyone would be removed.I was basically saying that, since the communication seemed to be going around and around in circles, I thought the thread had gone long enough. Most of the posters don't seem to think that there is any relationship between what training was done and SCP. In any case, SCP training is a lot more complicated than simply AC EEG training, so even if I had a lot more knowledge of how to do it (beyond what Mark shared), I wouldn't try to teach it to someone in an email.

I'm glad there are people on this list who have had less than good experiences with NF. It keeps us all humble. And I'm glad they can share those experiences and hopefully get at least support, if not actual help.

My main point has been that, during the time I was in Miami and traveling a lot, the great majority of cases I took on as a trainer were those who had gotten bad results that didn't go away following some form (in almost every case) of bipolar interhemispheric training. I never bought the logic that the way to fix that would be to do bipolar interhemispheric training of something else, I looked at the brain and trained what made sense based on a training plan, and in almost every case we got them not only out of the mess but actually moving toward the changes they had originally sought when starting NF in the first place.

I do remember Jeff, now that he has posted about my visit to his home. At least I remember his back yard. At that time it was the " multiple chemical sensitivities " that were the problem, so I didn't connect that experience from years ago with his posts here. I remember extreme coherences in all bands--like nothing I had ever seen before--in trying to gather his assessment data on (probably) an old BrainMaster.

There comes a time, though, when taking action is what you need to do. I've been trying to say to Jeff that I think, especially since he now appears to have some options, that this is the time for that.Pete

JW,

Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

et al, There is no moderation of messages on this list. Spammers get through one time (if they manage to slip onto the list in the first place, which most don't) before they are banned. And people who can't communicate in a respectful way have been removed as members (maybe 5 or 6 in the years we've been operating).

There certainly has been no inappropriate dialog in this thread, so there's no reason anyone would be removed.I was basically saying that, since the communication seemed to be going around and around in circles, I thought the thread had gone long enough. Most of the posters don't seem to think that there is any relationship between what training was done and SCP. In any case, SCP training is a lot more complicated than simply AC EEG training, so even if I had a lot more knowledge of how to do it (beyond what Mark shared), I wouldn't try to teach it to someone in an email.

I'm glad there are people on this list who have had less than good experiences with NF. It keeps us all humble. And I'm glad they can share those experiences and hopefully get at least support, if not actual help.

My main point has been that, during the time I was in Miami and traveling a lot, the great majority of cases I took on as a trainer were those who had gotten bad results that didn't go away following some form (in almost every case) of bipolar interhemispheric training. I never bought the logic that the way to fix that would be to do bipolar interhemispheric training of something else, I looked at the brain and trained what made sense based on a training plan, and in almost every case we got them not only out of the mess but actually moving toward the changes they had originally sought when starting NF in the first place.

I do remember Jeff, now that he has posted about my visit to his home. At least I remember his back yard. At that time it was the " multiple chemical sensitivities " that were the problem, so I didn't connect that experience from years ago with his posts here. I remember extreme coherences in all bands--like nothing I had ever seen before--in trying to gather his assessment data on (probably) an old BrainMaster.

There comes a time, though, when taking action is what you need to do. I've been trying to say to Jeff that I think, especially since he now appears to have some options, that this is the time for that.Pete

JW,

Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Pete-I just wonder if given what you mentioned about extreme coherences, the Othmer method may have extra dangers.

Bruce

Re: Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

et al, There is no moderation of messages on this list. Spammers get through one time (if they manage to slip onto the list in the first place, which most don't) before they are banned. And people who can't communicate in a respectful way have been removed as members (maybe 5 or 6 in the years we've been operating).There certainly has been no inappropriate dialog in this thread, so there's no reason anyone would be removed.I was basically saying that, since the communication seemed to be going around and around in circles, I thought the thread had gone long enough. Most of the posters don't seem to think that there is any relationship between what training was done and SCP. In any case, SCP training is a lot more complicated than simply AC EEG training, so even if I had a lot more knowledge of how to do it (beyond what Mark shared), I wouldn't try to teach it to someone in an email.I'm glad there are people on this list who have had less than good experiences with NF. It keeps us all humble. And I'm glad they can share those experiences and hopefully get at least support, if not actual help.My main point has been that, during the time I was in Miami and traveling a lot, the great majority of cases I took on as a trainer were those who had gotten bad results that didn't go away following some form (in almost every case) of bipolar interhemispheric training. I never bought the logic that the way to fix that would be to do bipolar interhemispheric training of something else, I looked at the brain and trained what made sense based on a training plan, and in almost every case we got them not only out of the mess but actually moving toward the changes they had originally sought when starting NF in the first place.I do remember Jeff, now that he has posted about my visit to his home. At least I remember his back yard. At that time it was the "multiple chemical sensitivities" that were the problem, so I didn't connect that experience from years ago with his posts here. I remember extreme coherences in all bands--like nothing I had ever seen before--in trying to gather his assessment data on (probably) an old BrainMaster.There comes a time, though, when taking action is what you need to do. I've been trying to say to Jeff that I think, especially since he now appears to have some options, that this is the time for that.Pete

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Merrifield, Ph.D. <psychologicsatt (DOT) net> wrote:

JW,

Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Pete - I misunderstood what you were saying to mean not to post

to the list anymore. Not trying to be a troublemaker, it sometiems

just comes with the territory. ;-)

Point well taken on fixing this with other training. I also think I

did not understand before that 0.0-0.1 is not SCP, even though to my

mind you can't go lower than 0. So it seemed to me that between 0 and

0.1 (which is as low as BE can go) would necessarily have to include

the SCP frequencies. When I went back and tried to understand what you

were saying about BE being " limited, " I think I now understand

correctly that for it to actually be SCP frequencies, the training

would have had to be 0.0 to something like 0.05 or below, is that

correct? So IOW, whatever the hemispheric training did, it is unlikely

to have involved SCP frequencies? Sorry, I am a little dense, as I've

been saying.

thanks,

JW

>

> > JW,

> >

> > Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward

tolerance of

> > differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to

this list,

> > though certainly he retains the right to do that.

> >

>

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

Another danger that seems more likely given the questions about the

hardware actualy being able to train SCL, is slow delta and theta

activity at the temporals. That and coherence effects seem like more

likely candidates for cognitive slowing and decompensation. Didn't

Othmer once refere to his training as the poor man's coherence

training. So I have no difficulty imagining the outcomes described

through messing around with coherence at the frequencies in question

just based on client reponses to there questions throughout the

sessions.

Bruce

>

> JW,

>

> Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward

tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of

post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

>

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

Another danger that seems more likely given the questions about the

hardware actualy being able to train SCL, is slow delta and theta

activity at the temporals. That and coherence effects seem like more

likely candidates for cognitive slowing and decompensation. Didn't

Othmer once refere to his training as the poor man's coherence

training. So I have no difficulty imagining the outcomes described

through messing around with coherence at the frequencies in question

just based on client reponses to there questions throughout the

sessions.

Bruce

>

> JW,

>

> Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward

tolerance of differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of

post to this list, though certainly he retains the right to do that.

>

> --

> Van Deusen

> pvdtlc@...

> http://www.brain-trainer.com

> 305/433-3160

> The Learning Curve, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

JW-It might be useful to compare the TLC you got with Pete back than with the one you now have after the othmer training fiasco.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Thanks Pete - I misunderstood what you were saying to mean not to postto the list anymore. Not trying to be a troublemaker, it sometiemsjust comes with the territory. ;-)Point well taken on fixing this with other training. I also think Idid not understand before that 0.0-0.1 is not SCP, even though to mymind you can't go lower than 0. So it seemed to me that between 0 and0.1 (which is as low as BE can go) would necessarily have to includethe SCP frequencies. When I went back and tried to understand what youwere saying about BE being "limited," I think I now understandcorrectly that for it to actually be SCP frequencies, the trainingwould have had to be 0.0 to something like 0.05 or below, is thatcorrect? So IOW, whatever the hemispheric training did, it is unlikelyto have involved SCP frequencies? Sorry, I am a little dense, as I'vebeen saying. thanks,JW> > > JW,> >> > Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends towardtolerance of> > differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post tothis list,> > though certainly he retains the right to do that.> >> > -- > Van Deusen> pvdtlc@...> http://www.brain-trainer.com> 305/433-3160> The Learning Curve, Inc.>

[Guest guest]

JW-It might be useful to compare the TLC you got with Pete back than with the one you now have after the othmer training fiasco.

Bruce

Re: SCP Training and undoing problems

Thanks Pete - I misunderstood what you were saying to mean not to postto the list anymore. Not trying to be a troublemaker, it sometiemsjust comes with the territory. ;-)Point well taken on fixing this with other training. I also think Idid not understand before that 0.0-0.1 is not SCP, even though to mymind you can't go lower than 0. So it seemed to me that between 0 and0.1 (which is as low as BE can go) would necessarily have to includethe SCP frequencies. When I went back and tried to understand what youwere saying about BE being "limited," I think I now understandcorrectly that for it to actually be SCP frequencies, the trainingwould have had to be 0.0 to something like 0.05 or below, is thatcorrect? So IOW, whatever the hemispheric training did, it is unlikelyto have involved SCP frequencies? Sorry, I am a little dense, as I'vebeen saying. thanks,JW> > > JW,> >> > Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends towardtolerance of> > differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post tothis list,> > though certainly he retains the right to do that.> >> > -- > Van Deusen> pvdtlc@...> http://www.brain-trainer.com> 305/433-3160> The Learning Curve, Inc.>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > > JW,

> > >

> > > Justto let you know the post came through. Pete tends toward

> tolerance of

> > > differing opinions and I am unaware of any censoring of post to

> this list,

> > > though certainly he retains the right to do that.

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Van Deusen

> > pvdtlc@

> > http://www.brain-trainer.com

> > 305/433-3160

> > The Learning Curve, Inc.

> >

>