Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

[Guest guest]

So does

that mean we are part of the rebel army?

Cheers Tony

Re:

[neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really

useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data

and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of

Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to

sponsor such a paper for publication.

As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer

group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other " rebel generals " (as

Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of

neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual

" cash value " of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data.

Al

My reaction:

Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have

made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud

and humbled to be included in that company.

If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing " irreparable harm to the

reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world " , I am truly sorry. In

all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the

" scientific world " --however that might be defined--would likely turn

up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who

had heard of NF!.

I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much

less term me as a " rebel general " . I'm not sure how developing

and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually

to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost

of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to

have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people

buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a

" general " , perhaps they have confused me with someone else. I

don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to

NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to

professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of

producing results using pretty mainstream approaches.

As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I

must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago:

" Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback. "

Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the

past, written that I " toured like a rock star " , by which I guess he

meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't

think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or

that I was getting the money rockstars get.

Finally, as for the " show me the data " comment: I guess that's

an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large university and has/had grad

students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be

perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on

occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than

others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach.

I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and

especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take

into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.

In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I

do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And

thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.

Pete

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlcgmail

http://www.brain-trainer.com

305/433-3160

The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

So does

that mean we are part of the rebel army?

Cheers Tony

Re:

[neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really

useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data

and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of

Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to

sponsor such a paper for publication.

As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer

group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other " rebel generals " (as

Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of

neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual

" cash value " of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data.

Al

My reaction:

Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have

made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud

and humbled to be included in that company.

If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing " irreparable harm to the

reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world " , I am truly sorry. In

all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the

" scientific world " --however that might be defined--would likely turn

up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who

had heard of NF!.

I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much

less term me as a " rebel general " . I'm not sure how developing

and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually

to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost

of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to

have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people

buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a

" general " , perhaps they have confused me with someone else. I

don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to

NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to

professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of

producing results using pretty mainstream approaches.

As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I

must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago:

" Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback. "

Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the

past, written that I " toured like a rock star " , by which I guess he

meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't

think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or

that I was getting the money rockstars get.

Finally, as for the " show me the data " comment: I guess that's

an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large university and has/had grad

students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be

perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on

occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than

others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach.

I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and

especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take

into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.

In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I

do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And

thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.

Pete

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlcgmail

http://www.brain-trainer.com

305/433-3160

The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Let's hear it for the rebels!!

St. Clair, BCIA-EEG

Using both TLC and LENS

Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company. If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Let's hear it for the rebels!!

St. Clair, BCIA-EEG

Using both TLC and LENS

Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company. If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Let's hear it for the rebels!!

St. Clair, BCIA-EEG

Using both TLC and LENS

Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company. If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

How odd of him to say. He uses Proshi!

Bruce

--------- Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company.&nb

sp; If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone

else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large

university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com

BR>305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

How odd of him to say. He uses Proshi!

Bruce

--------- Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company.&nb

sp; If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone

else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large

university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com

BR>305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

How odd of him to say. He uses Proshi!

Bruce

--------- Re: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

What would be really useful would be for some energetic young student to review all the Othmer data and write up an overall assessment, to be published in the Journal of Neurotherapy. As one of the Consulting Editors I would be happy to help and to sponsor such a paper for publication. As some may know, my opinion has been (still is, pending data) that the Othmer group, Pete van Deusen, Val Brown, and other "rebel generals" (as Barry Sterman termed them) have done irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world. But maybe I'm wrong about the actual "cash value" of what they have done. As Barry says, show me the data. Al My reaction:Any time someone groups me with the Othmers and Val Brown, both of whom have made huge contributions to the expansion and success of the field, I am proud and humbled to be included in that company.&nb

sp; If, indeed, I have been somehow involved in doing "irreparable harm to the reputation of neurofeedback in the scientific world", I am truly sorry. In all honesty, though, my guess is that a survey of 10,000 members of the "scientific world"--however that might be defined--would likely turn up around zero who had ever heard of me--and probably a pretty small group who had heard of NF!. I'm surprised a bit to learn that Barry Sterman might even know my name--much less term me as a "rebel general". I'm not sure how developing and making available a free assessment tool that allows more trainers actually to evaluate brain activity before making training decisions--without the cost of a QEEG--makes me a rebel. I would think the QEEG guys would be glad to have people using a brain-based approach...except I guess it means fewer people buying QEEG machines and leasing databases. As for being a "general", perhaps they have confused me with someone

else. I don't make hardware or software, don't produce special new approaches to NF. I just try to make equipment and software and education available to professionals and lay users so they can have the best possible chance of producing results using pretty mainstream approaches. As always, it's nice to know that at least people know you are there, but if I must be categorized, I prefer Jay Gunkelman's reference from years ago: "Van Deusen is the ny Appleseed of neurofeedback."Al, who I don't think I ever met when I was training in Alaska, has, in the past, written that I "toured like a rock star", by which I guess he meant that I was on the road a lot doing workshops. I hope he didn't think that I was playing to tens of thousands of people in those workshops, or that I was getting the money rockstars get.Finally, as for the "show me the data" comment: I guess that's an easy thing for a guy who works/worked at a large

university and has/had grad students all around and gets paid to publish to say. It would also be perhaps more appropriate to request of the Othmers and Val, since they do on occasion claim that their approaches get faster/better results than others. My apologies to all if I have ever said that about the TLC approach. I simply believe that the more trainers know about how the brain works--and especially how the brain they are about to train works--and the more they take into account the system around the client--the better outcomes they will get.In any case, my apologies to Barry and Al and others who are offended by what I do. I'll keep doing it as long as there are people who find it useful. And thanks (you know who you are) for passing along the comment.Pete-- Van Deusenpvdtlcgmailhttp://www.brain-trainer.com

BR>305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

It's nice to know that in all parts of the world--not just in the US--there are people who otherwise appear intelligent who believe the best argument against a position or person who disagrees with your opinion is to attack the individual and call names. We see it now (again) in the presidential elections where one person presents a " point of view " , the other presents an opposing point of view--and the first responds to the person rather than the argument.

I've said a dozen times that I would be very happy to stand before any audience with Barry Sterman or Cory Hammond or anyone and argue whether individuals should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether teachers should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether coaches should be allowed to do neurofeedback, or whether there is any valid reason why only masters-level (or among some, Ph.D. level) (or among others, MD level) should be allowed to teach self-regulation. I'd be happy to argue purely on the merits or, even better, with case evidence. I think, for every case anyone could present showing a poorly-prepared " lay " trainer getting a bad result, I could present at least an equal number of poorly-prepared professionals getting bad results. And certainly I could present, just on the strength of this list, dozens or hundreds of cases of lay trainers who took the time to learn what they needed to know and worked carefully--with supervision from a local pro or over the internet or even just asking advice from time to time as issues arose--who got wonderful, life-changing results.

I find it ironic that Barry Sterman is still plumping for more " data " . If there is anyone in the field who should have seen the fallacy of that approach, it would be Barry, who produced some very well-done, high-quality research that was published 30 years ago showing the power of NF with seizure disorders. And yet today, if you were to poll neurologists--no, let's just say, specialists in working with seizures--I dare say you would not find 1% who had ever heard of neurofeedback or Dr. Sterman, and probably not that many who would ever consider using or referring for neurofeedback. Same with the Peniston work, multiply replicated, with addictions--great research, well-designed, difficult to refute on any grounds--and completely ignored in the field of professionals who specialize in working with that population.

So for those innocents of you on the list, be warned. You are hanging out with rebels--generals and popes albeit, but rebels just the same. You can always choose to leave us and go to the room where King and his ministers are muttering about that darned Washington guy and his rebels who are screwing up the world for everybody.

Pete.

Hi Pete,

Ain't that funny, you are being called a General. Here in Switzerland, I

got word that in certain groups, I am called the " Neurofeedback-Pope " of

which I am still not sure, if this is a compliment or not...;-)

So the army meets religion then....Be welcome!!!

Best

Stephan Odermatt, Switzerland-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com

305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Some folks have analyze until they paralyze. ____________________________________________________________

Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Pete for your interesting post... I have said that one should

not be able to mandate biofeedback because ALL of life and all

behavior is a biofeedback process: teachers do it; parents and peers

do it; we do it to ourselves; and the air/food/water/etc do it to us.

AND, the experience of BF is good and bad...or, high, medium and low

quality. How many people reading this post are sitting there drinking

aspartame laden diet soda... the feedback is a perk up from the

caffeine while the chronic use of such causes neuronal death so that

feedback loop takes a little longer but it will get to us.. just like

fluoridated water eventually robes us of our cartilege, bone density

and brain power ---another longer loop...

If there are any lawsuits to be had about doing biofeedback perhpas

the food additive companies should be first at the guillotine...

aaahhhhhaaaaaaa... and we will NEVER get to the pharmaceutical corps

who poison people in pain clinics with oxycontin or the less

expensive, methadone...with the long term BF loop those create.

The world is full of the BF loops. Pete, your problem is that we

havent been able to clone you yet so that the quality of feedback

could be improved and that some of the poisonous kind of BF could be

eliminated.

Keep up the good work... If it has taken Sterman and Peniston this

long, imagine how long it will take for a PETE to be the Pope!!

Hugs,

MGreen

[Guest guest]

I should like to inquire of those who seek to regulate, " What are you

going to do about the new video games employing neurofeedback type

inputs? How is that not biofeedback? " //Peder

____________________________________________________________

Take a break - you deserve it. Click here to find a great vacation.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nJgyjmdj6wLJWmwkuiEeVGgkuyAUK\

ywphCjDZpoTketcUWI/

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Pete! Well said and totally true...not just in the field of neurofeedback either.

Jan

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

It's nice to know that in all parts of the world--not just in the US--there are people who otherwise appear intelligent who believe the best argument against a position or person who disagrees with your opinion is to attack the individual and call names. We see it now (again) in the presidential elections where one person presents a "point of view", the other presents an opposing point of view--and the first responds to the person rather than the argument.I've said a dozen times that I would be very happy to stand before any audience with Barry Sterman or Cory Hammond or anyone and argue whether individuals should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether teachers should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether coaches should be allowed to do neurofeedback, or whether there is any valid reason why only masters-level (or among some, Ph.D. level) (or among others, MD level) should be allowed to teach self-regulation. I'd be happy to argue purely on the merits or, even better, with case evidence. I think, for every case anyone could present showing a poorly-prepared "lay" trainer getting a bad result, I could present at least an equal number of poorly-prepared professionals getting bad results. And certainly I could present, just on the strength of this list, dozens or hundreds of cases of lay trainers who took the time to learn what they needed to know and worked carefully--with supervision from a local pro or over the internet or even just asking advice from time to time as issues arose--who got wonderful, life-changing results.I find it ironic that Barry Sterman is still plumping for more "data". If there is anyone in the field who should have seen the fallacy of that approach, it would be Barry, who produced some very well-done, high-quality research that was published 30 years ago showing the power of NF with seizure disorders. And yet today, if you were to poll neurologists--no, let's just say, specialists in working with seizures--I dare say you would not find 1% who had ever heard of neurofeedback or Dr. Sterman, and probably not that many who would ever consider using or referring for neurofeedback. Same with the Peniston work, multiply replicated, with addictions--great research, well-designed, difficult to refute on any grounds--and completely ignored in the field of professionals who specialize in working with that population.So for those innocents of you on the list, be warned. You are hanging out with rebels--generals and popes albeit, but rebels just the same. You can always choose to leave us and go to the room where King and his ministers are muttering about that darned Washington guy and his rebels who are screwing up the world for everybody.Pete.

Hi Pete,Ain't that funny, you are being called a General. Here in Switzerland, Igot word that in certain groups, I am called the "Neurofeedback-Pope" ofwhich I am still not sure, if this is a compliment or not...;-)So the army meets religion then....Be welcome!!!BestStephan Odermatt, Switzerland-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Pete! Well said and totally true...not just in the field of neurofeedback either.

Jan

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

It's nice to know that in all parts of the world--not just in the US--there are people who otherwise appear intelligent who believe the best argument against a position or person who disagrees with your opinion is to attack the individual and call names. We see it now (again) in the presidential elections where one person presents a "point of view", the other presents an opposing point of view--and the first responds to the person rather than the argument.I've said a dozen times that I would be very happy to stand before any audience with Barry Sterman or Cory Hammond or anyone and argue whether individuals should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether teachers should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether coaches should be allowed to do neurofeedback, or whether there is any valid reason why only masters-level (or among some, Ph.D. level) (or among others, MD level) should be allowed to teach self-regulation. I'd be happy to argue purely on the merits or, even better, with case evidence. I think, for every case anyone could present showing a poorly-prepared "lay" trainer getting a bad result, I could present at least an equal number of poorly-prepared professionals getting bad results. And certainly I could present, just on the strength of this list, dozens or hundreds of cases of lay trainers who took the time to learn what they needed to know and worked carefully--with supervision from a local pro or over the internet or even just asking advice from time to time as issues arose--who got wonderful, life-changing results.I find it ironic that Barry Sterman is still plumping for more "data". If there is anyone in the field who should have seen the fallacy of that approach, it would be Barry, who produced some very well-done, high-quality research that was published 30 years ago showing the power of NF with seizure disorders. And yet today, if you were to poll neurologists--no, let's just say, specialists in working with seizures--I dare say you would not find 1% who had ever heard of neurofeedback or Dr. Sterman, and probably not that many who would ever consider using or referring for neurofeedback. Same with the Peniston work, multiply replicated, with addictions--great research, well-designed, difficult to refute on any grounds--and completely ignored in the field of professionals who specialize in working with that population.So for those innocents of you on the list, be warned. You are hanging out with rebels--generals and popes albeit, but rebels just the same. You can always choose to leave us and go to the room where King and his ministers are muttering about that darned Washington guy and his rebels who are screwing up the world for everybody.Pete.

Hi Pete,Ain't that funny, you are being called a General. Here in Switzerland, Igot word that in certain groups, I am called the "Neurofeedback-Pope" ofwhich I am still not sure, if this is a compliment or not...;-)So the army meets religion then....Be welcome!!!BestStephan Odermatt, Switzerland-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Bravo, Pete! Well said and totally true...not just in the field of neurofeedback either.

Jan

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

It's nice to know that in all parts of the world--not just in the US--there are people who otherwise appear intelligent who believe the best argument against a position or person who disagrees with your opinion is to attack the individual and call names. We see it now (again) in the presidential elections where one person presents a "point of view", the other presents an opposing point of view--and the first responds to the person rather than the argument.I've said a dozen times that I would be very happy to stand before any audience with Barry Sterman or Cory Hammond or anyone and argue whether individuals should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether teachers should be allowed to do neurofeedback, whether coaches should be allowed to do neurofeedback, or whether there is any valid reason why only masters-level (or among some, Ph.D. level) (or among others, MD level) should be allowed to teach self-regulation. I'd be happy to argue purely on the merits or, even better, with case evidence. I think, for every case anyone could present showing a poorly-prepared "lay" trainer getting a bad result, I could present at least an equal number of poorly-prepared professionals getting bad results. And certainly I could present, just on the strength of this list, dozens or hundreds of cases of lay trainers who took the time to learn what they needed to know and worked carefully--with supervision from a local pro or over the internet or even just asking advice from time to time as issues arose--who got wonderful, life-changing results.I find it ironic that Barry Sterman is still plumping for more "data". If there is anyone in the field who should have seen the fallacy of that approach, it would be Barry, who produced some very well-done, high-quality research that was published 30 years ago showing the power of NF with seizure disorders. And yet today, if you were to poll neurologists--no, let's just say, specialists in working with seizures--I dare say you would not find 1% who had ever heard of neurofeedback or Dr. Sterman, and probably not that many who would ever consider using or referring for neurofeedback. Same with the Peniston work, multiply replicated, with addictions--great research, well-designed, difficult to refute on any grounds--and completely ignored in the field of professionals who specialize in working with that population.So for those innocents of you on the list, be warned. You are hanging out with rebels--generals and popes albeit, but rebels just the same. You can always choose to leave us and go to the room where King and his ministers are muttering about that darned Washington guy and his rebels who are screwing up the world for everybody.Pete.

Hi Pete,Ain't that funny, you are being called a General. Here in Switzerland, Igot word that in certain groups, I am called the "Neurofeedback-Pope" ofwhich I am still not sure, if this is a compliment or not...;-)So the army meets religion then....Be welcome!!!BestStephan Odermatt, Switzerland-- Van Deusenpvdtlc@...http://www.brain-trainer.com305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Maybe just a thought, but a very good thought, Gretchen.

Neurofeedback is its own thing. Each of us probably believes that we bring skills from our respective professions to what we do, and that is no doubt true. However, competence at practicing neurofeedback comes from learning what one needs to know to do neurofeedback, then learning how to apply it. It doesn't come from learning how to do talk therapy, acquiring the credentials needed to write prescriptions, getting licensed to lead a classroom, figuring out how to administer psychological tests, understanding how to resolve subluxation, knowing where to insert needles, having the longest string of letters after one's name, etc. Having the loudest voice, most strongly held opinion, or biggest agenda also does not equate to competence in the world of neurofeedback.

We who are constantly striving to become better practitioners are best served by doing what we know how to do, to the best of our ability. Quarrelling with or insulting those who frighten or threaten us in some way reveals individual insecurites but does nothing to bring our craft to a public that desperately needs to know we're here.

Tamera

[Guest guest]

Tamera and others:

It is truly sad that Pete has been disparaged. I have taken some of Pete's training and believe he is pretty solid and knowledgeable. Having said that, there are some people in the neurotherapy world who have made wild claims with only occasional testimonies to back up the claims.

A little recognized player in the game is insurance companies. Most third party payers treat any form of biofeedback as not being acceptable for reimbursement. Companies say it has not been scientifically demonstrated to be effective in treating many disorders, ADD/ADHD being one of the main ones.

The professional organizations are hoping that by requiring degrees in helping fields, coupled with good scientific studies, that this will change. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

The other  side of this is the patient or client. When a person has a problem they often aren't too concerned with degrees. They want relief. If that comes from a tribal healer or a person with umteen letters following their name isn't too important.

In the forty plus years I have been in practice, I believe the best way of dealing with this matter in a new field, and neurotherapy is a new field, is for experienced trained people to be grandfathered in for a certain number of years. After that, other standards can be required of new workers coming into the field.

Pete has taken a lot of training from almost all of the pioneers in the field and has done quite a bit of client work, so he isn't a wild eyed lunatic that hides in the mountains and does mystical things.

Hopefully, this can be resolved by people staying calm and voicing their concerns to the professional organizations.

Don't give up the ship.

Hal Schaus 

 

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

Maybe just a thought, but a very good thought, Gretchen.

 

Neurofeedback is its own thing.  Each of us probably believes that we bring skills from our respective professions to what we do, and that is no doubt true.  However, competence a

t practicing neurofeedback comes from learning what one needs to know to do neurofeedback, then learning how to apply it.  It doesn't come from learning how to do talk therapy, acquiring the credentials needed to write prescriptions, getting licensed to lead a classroom, figuring out how to administer psychological tests, understanding how to resolve subluxation, knowing where to insert needles, having the longest string of letters after one's name, etc.  Having the loudest voice, most strongly held opinion, or biggest agenda also does not equate to competence in the world of neurofeedback.

 

We who are constantly striving to become better practitioners are best served by doing what we know how to do, to the best of our ability.  Quarrelling with or insulting those who frighten or threaten us in some way reveals individual insecurites but does nothing to bring our craft to a public that desperately needs to know we're here.

 

Tamera

 

 

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

Guys,I never meant for this thread to become a distraction. When I first got the e-mail, I didn't feel outraged or sad or frustrated or disparaged. Actually, being an (ex) child of the 60's, I got kind of a kick out of learning what a troublemaker I was (in the eyes of the " serious " ones). When you pass 60, you have to take your rebel chops where you can get them. Truly, I tell you, I don't depend on the opinion of any of those folks for my self-esteem or to keep me interested in the field. That comes from you and from the clients I work with.

At the time that BCIA was first being set up, I WAS offered an opportunity to be grandfathered in. I chose not to accept. Whether or not I was on the inside, the approach that stated that only people with certain types of backgrounds should be allowed to do NF still stuck in my throat. It was not then--nor is it now--a club of which I want to be a member, though I very much like and greatly respect many of those who are members.

As for convincing insurance companies with " scientific demonstration " that NF works with ADHD, come on, Hal! You've seen the bibliography and probably read as many or more of the articles than I have. There's PLENTY of published evidence that NF works with ADHD and a variety of other things. What about the next 20 studies will convince insurors that did not convince them in the past 20? Or, if we wanted to believe that insurance companies make these decisions based on " scientific demonstrations " , how could we explain the fact that they happily pay for 8 year olds being given stimulants, anti-depressants AND anti-convulsants (or anti-psychotics) when there is not one single published controlled study showing the effects--or measuring the risks--of such combinations?

For those who still want to believe that neurofeedback is competing on a level playing field, read this: " In

January 2003, the FDA approved Prozac for use in

pediatric depression, despite only weak data for efficacy. Less than a year later, in October,

the agency issued a 'Public Health Advisory' alerting physicians to reports of

suicidal thinking and suicide attempts. A regulatory authority usually requires

proof of efficacy, but in the face of an acknowledged lack of evidence, the FDA

reversed the usual burden of proof, stating: 'failure to show effectiveness in

any particular study . . . is not definitive evidence that the drug is NOT effective' (Food and Drug Administration, 2003). " For those NFers who long to be on the inside of the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex, I fear the world will be a frustrating place for many years to come. For those of us who just want to show people the power they have to change their own brains, all that is just a distraction.

So, with full appreciation of all the support and positive thoughts that have come, on and off the list, as a result of my forwarding the original e-mail, let's just move ahead with what is important.Thanks,

pete

It is truly sad that Pete has been disparaged. I have taken some of Pete's training and believe he is pretty solid and knowledgeable. Having said that, there are some people in the neurotherapy world who have made wild claims with only occasional testimonies to back up the claims.

A little recognized player in the game is insurance companies. Most third party payers treat any form of biofeedback as not being acceptable for reimbursement. Companies say it has not been scientifically demonstrated to be effective in treating many disorders, ADD/ADHD being one of the main ones.

The professional organizations are hoping that by requiring degrees in helping fields, coupled with good scientific studies, that this will change. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

The other side of this is the patient or client. When a person has a problem they often aren't too concerned with degrees. They want relief. If that comes from a tribal healer or a person with umteen letters following their name isn't too important.

In the forty plus years I have been in practice, I believe the best way of dealing with this matter in a new field, and neurotherapy is a new field, is for experienced trained people to be grandfathered in for a certain number of years. After that, other standards can be required of new workers coming into the field.

Pete has taken a lot of training from almost all of the pioneers in the field and has done quite a bit of client work, so he isn't a wild eyed lunatic that hides in the mountains and does mystical things.

Hopefully, this can be resolved by people staying calm and voicing their concerns to the professional organizations.

Don't give up the ship.

Hal Schaus

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

305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Guys,I never meant for this thread to become a distraction. When I first got the e-mail, I didn't feel outraged or sad or frustrated or disparaged. Actually, being an (ex) child of the 60's, I got kind of a kick out of learning what a troublemaker I was (in the eyes of the " serious " ones). When you pass 60, you have to take your rebel chops where you can get them. Truly, I tell you, I don't depend on the opinion of any of those folks for my self-esteem or to keep me interested in the field. That comes from you and from the clients I work with.

At the time that BCIA was first being set up, I WAS offered an opportunity to be grandfathered in. I chose not to accept. Whether or not I was on the inside, the approach that stated that only people with certain types of backgrounds should be allowed to do NF still stuck in my throat. It was not then--nor is it now--a club of which I want to be a member, though I very much like and greatly respect many of those who are members.

As for convincing insurance companies with " scientific demonstration " that NF works with ADHD, come on, Hal! You've seen the bibliography and probably read as many or more of the articles than I have. There's PLENTY of published evidence that NF works with ADHD and a variety of other things. What about the next 20 studies will convince insurors that did not convince them in the past 20? Or, if we wanted to believe that insurance companies make these decisions based on " scientific demonstrations " , how could we explain the fact that they happily pay for 8 year olds being given stimulants, anti-depressants AND anti-convulsants (or anti-psychotics) when there is not one single published controlled study showing the effects--or measuring the risks--of such combinations?

For those who still want to believe that neurofeedback is competing on a level playing field, read this: " In

January 2003, the FDA approved Prozac for use in

pediatric depression, despite only weak data for efficacy. Less than a year later, in October,

the agency issued a 'Public Health Advisory' alerting physicians to reports of

suicidal thinking and suicide attempts. A regulatory authority usually requires

proof of efficacy, but in the face of an acknowledged lack of evidence, the FDA

reversed the usual burden of proof, stating: 'failure to show effectiveness in

any particular study . . . is not definitive evidence that the drug is NOT effective' (Food and Drug Administration, 2003). " For those NFers who long to be on the inside of the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex, I fear the world will be a frustrating place for many years to come. For those of us who just want to show people the power they have to change their own brains, all that is just a distraction.

So, with full appreciation of all the support and positive thoughts that have come, on and off the list, as a result of my forwarding the original e-mail, let's just move ahead with what is important.Thanks,

pete

It is truly sad that Pete has been disparaged. I have taken some of Pete's training and believe he is pretty solid and knowledgeable. Having said that, there are some people in the neurotherapy world who have made wild claims with only occasional testimonies to back up the claims.

A little recognized player in the game is insurance companies. Most third party payers treat any form of biofeedback as not being acceptable for reimbursement. Companies say it has not been scientifically demonstrated to be effective in treating many disorders, ADD/ADHD being one of the main ones.

The professional organizations are hoping that by requiring degrees in helping fields, coupled with good scientific studies, that this will change. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

The other side of this is the patient or client. When a person has a problem they often aren't too concerned with degrees. They want relief. If that comes from a tribal healer or a person with umteen letters following their name isn't too important.

In the forty plus years I have been in practice, I believe the best way of dealing with this matter in a new field, and neurotherapy is a new field, is for experienced trained people to be grandfathered in for a certain number of years. After that, other standards can be required of new workers coming into the field.

Pete has taken a lot of training from almost all of the pioneers in the field and has done quite a bit of client work, so he isn't a wild eyed lunatic that hides in the mountains and does mystical things.

Hopefully, this can be resolved by people staying calm and voicing their concerns to the professional organizations.

Don't give up the ship.

Hal Schaus

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

305/433-3160The Learning Curve, Inc.

[Guest guest]

Pete:

I'm not holding my breath thinking the insurance companies will come around. The politics of health care are pretty crummy.

Fortunately, that doesn't take away the gratification of seeing someone get relief and it pays off best to spend one's time being the best helper we can be.

Hal

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

Guys,

I never meant for this thread to become a distraction. When I first got the e-mail, I didn't feel outraged or sad or frustrated or disparaged. Actually, being an (ex) child of the 60's, I got kind of a kick out of learning what a troublemaker I was (in the eyes of the "serious" ones). When you pass 60, you have to take your rebel chops where you can get them. Truly, I tell you, I don't depend on the opinion of any of those folks for my self-esteem or to keep me interested in the field.  Th

at comes from you and from the clients I work with.

At the time that BCIA was first being set up, I WAS offered an opportunity to be grandfathered in.  I chose not to accept.  Whether or not I was on the inside, the approach that stated that only people with certain types of backgrounds should be allowed to do NF still stuck in my throat. It was not then--nor is it now--a club of which I want to be a member, though I very much like and greatly respect many of those who are members.

As for convincing insurance companies with "scientific demonstration" that NF works with ADHD, come on, Hal!  You've seen the bibliography and probably read as many or more of the articles than I have.  There's PLENTY of published evidence that NF works with ADHD and a variety of other things.  What about the next 20 studies will convince insurors that did not convince them in the past 20?  Or, if we wanted to believe that insurance companies make these decisions based on "scientific demonstrations", how could we explain the fact that they happily pay for 8 year olds being given stimulants, anti-depressants AND anti-convulsants (or anti-psychotics) when there is not one single published controlled study showing the effects--or measuring the risks--of such combinations? 

For those who still want to believe that neurofeedback is competing on a level playing field, read this:

"In

January 2003, the FDA approved Prozac for use in

p

ediatric depression, despite only weak data for efficacy. Less than a year later, in October,

the agency issued a 'Public Health Advisory' alerting physicians to reports of

suicidal thinking and suicide attempts. A regulatory authority usually requires

proof of efficacy, but in the face of an acknowledged lack of evidence, the FDA

reversed the usual burden of proof, stating: 'failure to show effectiveness in

any particular study . . . is not definitive evidence that the drug is NOT effective' (Food and Drug Administration, 2003)."

For those NFers who long to be on the inside of the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex, I fear the world will be a frustrating place for many years to come.  For those of us who just want to show people the power they have to change their own brains, all that is just a distraction. 

So, with full appreciation of all the support and positive thoughts that have come, on and off the list, as a result of my forwarding the original e-mail, let's just move ahead with what is important.

Thanks,

pete

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, <schaustenniscs> wrote:

It is truly sad that Pete has been disparaged. I have taken some of Pete's training and believe he is pretty solid and knowledgeable. Having said that, there are some people in the neurotherapy world who have made wild claims with only occasional testimonies to back up the claims.

A little recognized player in the game is insurance companies. Most third party payers treat any form of biofeedback as not being acceptable for reimbursement. Companies say it has not been scientifically demonstrated to be effective in treating many disorders, ADD/ADHD being one of the main ones.

The professional organizations are hoping that by requiring degrees in helping fields, coupled with good scientific studies, that this will change. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

The other  side of this is the patient or client. When a person has a problem they often aren't too concerned with degrees. They want relief. If that comes from a tribal healer or a person with umteen letters following their name isn't too important.

In the forty plus years I have been in practice, I believe the best way of dealing with this matter in a new field, and neurotherapy is a new field, is for experienced trained people to be grandfathered in for a certain number of years. After that, other standards can be required of new workers coming into the field.

Pete has taken a lot of tra

ining from almost all of the pioneers in the field and has done quite a bit of client work, so he isn't a wild eyed lunatic that hides in the mountains and does mystical things.

Hopefully, this can be resolved by people staying calm and voicing their concerns to the professional organizations.

Don't give up the ship.

Hal Schaus

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlcgmail

http://www.brain-trainer.com

305/433-3160

The Learning Curve, Inc.

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

Pete:

I'm not holding my breath thinking the insurance companies will come around. The politics of health care are pretty crummy.

Fortunately, that doesn't take away the gratification of seeing someone get relief and it pays off best to spend one's time being the best helper we can be.

Hal

Re: Re: Fw: [neuroguide] ADHD Questions

Guys,

I never meant for this thread to become a distraction. When I first got the e-mail, I didn't feel outraged or sad or frustrated or disparaged. Actually, being an (ex) child of the 60's, I got kind of a kick out of learning what a troublemaker I was (in the eyes of the "serious" ones). When you pass 60, you have to take your rebel chops where you can get them. Truly, I tell you, I don't depend on the opinion of any of those folks for my self-esteem or to keep me interested in the field.  Th

at comes from you and from the clients I work with.

At the time that BCIA was first being set up, I WAS offered an opportunity to be grandfathered in.  I chose not to accept.  Whether or not I was on the inside, the approach that stated that only people with certain types of backgrounds should be allowed to do NF still stuck in my throat. It was not then--nor is it now--a club of which I want to be a member, though I very much like and greatly respect many of those who are members.

As for convincing insurance companies with "scientific demonstration" that NF works with ADHD, come on, Hal!  You've seen the bibliography and probably read as many or more of the articles than I have.  There's PLENTY of published evidence that NF works with ADHD and a variety of other things.  What about the next 20 studies will convince insurors that did not convince them in the past 20?  Or, if we wanted to believe that insurance companies make these decisions based on "scientific demonstrations", how could we explain the fact that they happily pay for 8 year olds being given stimulants, anti-depressants AND anti-convulsants (or anti-psychotics) when there is not one single published controlled study showing the effects--or measuring the risks--of such combinations? 

For those who still want to believe that neurofeedback is competing on a level playing field, read this:

"In

January 2003, the FDA approved Prozac for use in

p

ediatric depression, despite only weak data for efficacy. Less than a year later, in October,

the agency issued a 'Public Health Advisory' alerting physicians to reports of

suicidal thinking and suicide attempts. A regulatory authority usually requires

proof of efficacy, but in the face of an acknowledged lack of evidence, the FDA

reversed the usual burden of proof, stating: 'failure to show effectiveness in

any particular study . . . is not definitive evidence that the drug is NOT effective' (Food and Drug Administration, 2003)."

For those NFers who long to be on the inside of the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex, I fear the world will be a frustrating place for many years to come.  For those of us who just want to show people the power they have to change their own brains, all that is just a distraction. 

So, with full appreciation of all the support and positive thoughts that have come, on and off the list, as a result of my forwarding the original e-mail, let's just move ahead with what is important.

Thanks,

pete

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM, <schaustenniscs> wrote:

It is truly sad that Pete has been disparaged. I have taken some of Pete's training and believe he is pretty solid and knowledgeable. Having said that, there are some people in the neurotherapy world who have made wild claims with only occasional testimonies to back up the claims.

A little recognized player in the game is insurance companies. Most third party payers treat any form of biofeedback as not being acceptable for reimbursement. Companies say it has not been scientifically demonstrated to be effective in treating many disorders, ADD/ADHD being one of the main ones.

The professional organizations are hoping that by requiring degrees in helping fields, coupled with good scientific studies, that this will change. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

The other  side of this is the patient or client. When a person has a problem they often aren't too concerned with degrees. They want relief. If that comes from a tribal healer or a person with umteen letters following their name isn't too important.

In the forty plus years I have been in practice, I believe the best way of dealing with this matter in a new field, and neurotherapy is a new field, is for experienced trained people to be grandfathered in for a certain number of years. After that, other standards can be required of new workers coming into the field.

Pete has taken a lot of tra

ining from almost all of the pioneers in the field and has done quite a bit of client work, so he isn't a wild eyed lunatic that hides in the mountains and does mystical things.

Hopefully, this can be resolved by people staying calm and voicing their concerns to the professional organizations.

Don't give up the ship.

Hal Schaus

--

Van Deusen

pvdtlcgmail

http://www.brain-trainer.com

305/433-3160

The Learning Curve, Inc.

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com