Re: One more question on Bipolar

[Guest guest]

> The savant remark was not directed to Lenny per se and in no way have

>I tried to take the focus off of NFB.

>

> You are reading things into my response which are not there.

JD-I never wrote anywhere that the sevant remark was directed at Lenny

nor did I write any where that " you " were trying to take the focus off

of the NFB.

I simply mentioned the clinical case that Lenny presented as an example

illustrating that it can't always be explained in the ways you

mentioned. I'm not at all saying your didn't know that or that you

don't know that. I'm simply bouncing off of what you wrote to provide

some ballance.

Bruce

[Guest guest]

> What was the clinical picture that Lenny reported?

> I don't recall it being stated in all that detail.

> The savant remark was not directed to Lenny per se

> and in no way have I tried to take the focus off of

> NFB. If anything, that is where I placed the focus,

> and even gave some very clear examples in how to

> correct it.

Although I gave a summary of what the entire " clinical

picture " was, Bruce read it from the vantage point of

in-depth knowledge of the meaning of each detail, as

I've known him since I got into NF, myself, where my

wife's case was what got me into it.

Her bad experience came from a mere 6, (count 'em

_six_) sessions over the course of 3 weeks from an

EEG Spectrum person using NeuroCybernetics equipment.

After the discovery of the problem, I looked around

for _anybody_ who knew about such things in enough

depth to know that they could fix it. When I could

not find such a person, I started studying, myself,

and eventually bought equipment. The _fix_ was done

with NeuroCare by _me_ after much searching and study.

The details of the theory behind which the problem

was attacked was that a totally-visually-oriented

person might well store and retrieve information

via Delta and Slow Theta frequencies, and the 2-7Hz

inhibits which EEG Spectrum people were using at

the time might have interfered with such processing.

There was suspicion that the inhibits _created_

coherence effects, and that merely uptraining in

that band might just create _more_ coherence, led

to evaluating whether Val Brown's approach might

have merit.

The fact that the box-target stuff would allow

the 2-6Hz band to _increase_ if that was what it

" wanted " to do, was the deciding factor to try NCP

in its box-targeting mode.

The importance of the case to me is _not_ that I'm

so smart that I fixed her, but that the suppression

of the idea that " it _can_ be dangerous " is _EVIL_

with a capital E. I say " can " rather than " is " ,

since most often all goes according to standard

expectations, because most people _are_ " normal " .

> You are reading things into my response which are

> not there. I agree that there is the possibility

> that something like this could go to court that

> is why it so important that practitioners become

> well trained, have certification, work under a

> competent practitioner, have a well written

> consent form, have a written means of monitoring

> the client's progress, and have logical ways to

> address issues if they arise. The QA is a

> subjective assessment which could very well be

> used as a weekly progress note. Doing all

> of the above will protect you in court and

> demonstrate a responsible effort on your part to

> protect the safety and wellbeing of the client.

> They will legally protect the practitioner!

Your " go slow and watch out for signs " doesn't

handle the problem. As I said, her 6 sessions

_were_ all " normal " , and nobody thought to look

for cognitive issues, since by all measures she

_was_ " normal " , even as the problem was forming.

Speech, language, and mood were all fine. And,

again, as I said, even in the face of all the

wisdom of the field, that " such ill effects

will pass in time " , they did not!!!

Standard precautions and well-educated trainers

_might_ pass legal muster, especially if all you

practitioners keep insisting that the standard

precautions and well-educated trainers can never

cause such problems. The problem with that is

such a statement _IS_A_LIE_.

To the extent that all you guys care about is to

be able to make a living doing the same things

you've always been doing, you're motivated to

keep telling this lie. When someone reports

such a problem, and the answer comes back that

" well it's a standard risk, and you have to

break some eggs to make an omelette " , you've

got your lie rehearsed. When a case comes up

where the tradeoff is _not_ all well-and-good,

where the subject losing " trombone-virtuosity "

in exchange for having his chronic depression

lifted, is _not_ what we're talking about, then

DON'T ERASE THE REPORT NEXT TIME.

There's a " no possible harm " crowd in NF, and

they bring out their trumpets any time a hint

of such a problem comes up, and drown out

_EVERYTHING_. I've given up reiterating

my arguments on the subject.

In fact the only reason I decided to jump into

this thread was that the echo of the " you have

to break some eggs to make an omelette " made me

angry. Stop telling people " everybody loves

omelettes " . And who ordered an omelette in

the first place?

I had LASIK on one eye a few years ago, and a

release/disclaimer they had me sign came after

a video revealing all the _pre_-production

research, stating 99% success rates. Since my

vision (in that one eye) was made worse by the

procedure, including a re-LASIK and corneal

suturing (preventing further LASIK repair) I

found that the pre-production numbers, which

are all that are _allowed_ to be quoted these

days, are not the true clinical picture in

real life, and that something like 10% of the

procedures result in worsening, I'm very much

less than pleased with disclaimer/releases as

the solution to suits regarding malfeasance,

where malfeasance is institutionalized.

- Lenny Gray -