On the Low Energy Neurofeedback System (LENS)
by admin | February 6th, 2004Author: Len Ochs
All forms of central nervous system dysfunctions include problems
taking in, processing, organizing, and retrieving stimulation. And
all methods of treating such problems — from depression, to the
spectrum of brain injuries, many pain syndromes, movement disorders,
emotional hyper-reactivity (PTSD, etc), hyper-energetic states
(ADD/ADHD), etc., involve stimulation. When, in 1990, I conceived of
feeding back stimulation that was resonant with the EEG — which was
shortly thereafter entertained by Chuck Davis — an entire new field of
neuroscience was opened, one in which there was no experience to draw
upon. In the development of the LENS software, using J&J’s
equipment, there have been many false steps along the way. In
fact, the entire development of the LENS system is grounded in errors
that happened in many dimensions, but which has worked out rather
well — either because of them or in spite of them.
Each stimulation system has its own sets of physiological reactions.
I dropped sound and lights six year ago because all
microprocessor-based systems produce emissions, which, with the
lights, were too intense for patients. When these systems — using
J&J hardware — lessened symptoms with an average average (this is
not a doubling typo, because there are many averages, depending on
the problem treated) treatment duration of 11+ sessions without lights, I never looked
back, and could never see why I would be interested in the
traditional neurofeedback approaches — which I used since 1975.
While it seems true to me that all the neurofeedback clients and
patients I’ve talked with for nearly thirty years have all sounded
the same — receive the same essential benefits from no matter which
neurofeedback process they’ve used, the stimulation family of
procedures produced the same results in much less time. While
these are still neurofeedback processes in the strictest — if not in
the conventional — sense of the word, they are so different from
those processes in place in May, 1976, the date the FDA deems as
defining biofeedback — actually they all need to be headed for new
FDA certification — which requires expensive research. This means
Chuck’s system, and mine. It’s only a matter of time. As any
manufacturer will tell you, adhering to standards is expensive.
We’ve had one NIH block-grant study of TBI, and just received another
NIH study (to U. Oregon’s Health Sciences University) in
Fibromyalgia. This’ll be a double-blind, randomized controls study
— which we can do easily.
Now, in my opinion, if a manufacturer isn’t headed for FDA
certification — and if the system isn’t built to provide the data
for such certification as ours is — the manufacturer is doing the
customer a disservice — because that system will not head for the
mainstream, and will be far more expensive in the long run to both
the public and to the therapists.
The smallest part of the LENS software is the biofeedback software.
The most expensive part of the software is a statistics-rich report
generator, which generates a wide range of therapist reports helping
the clinician to empirically formulate treatment plans. But even
more, it gathers data that is usable in any scale research, from
single-subject designs to large double-blind studies. It allows
clinicians to sell home trainer systems to patients and monitor their
clinical progress or lack thereof, keeping the use of home trainers
supervised.
Then, there is the conceptual basis underneath the LENS system, which
integrates the use of the system with the best of clinical
neuropsychophysiology and behavioral biophysics, and ties the
evaluational process to the treatment process in an empirical way,
and allows the therapist to customize treatment for patients on a
day-by-day basis. In a way that no other neurofeedback system allows,
the empirical rationale for treatment decisions is always there — in
the best way that I can provide.
Please note that I consider our system primitive as such: extremely
fast for cases of simple to moderate difficulty, and really not any
better than anything else for the complex cases. And because it is
so fast, the more complex cases are accelerated through a set of what
Steve Rothman calls “unintended negative effects”, which has been shorthand
for our lack of knowledge about the normal course of recovery for
immensely complex problems in patients with profound hypersensitivity
and hyper-reactivity. These problems accrue to any neurofeedback
system. We have all treated cases from every system out there that
had such unintended negative consequences. It’s only a matter of time before
any manufacturer’s equipment is tested against patients with unknowably
complex problems, leading to results that frighten therapist,
patient, and parents, if the patient is the parent’s child. There
are no exceptions to this. To think otherwise, from my experience,
is quite naive.
So we have to understand more about the physiology of human suffering
and complexity. We all need to develop tools that will allow our
understanding to grow. The pricing of the LENS system includes the
funding of components that will help this process by both allowing
such research to continue, and allow the clinician as good an
understanding as we can derive at any point in time.
The problems that I personally work with are unspeakably complex and
difficult; and I always use the LENS software in a context of other
procedures when needed. It’s not good for anywhere near everything;
although, it has been far better than anything else I’ve used or seen
used for my own professional needs as a clinician.
In contrast, in relation to my own growth and development, after having ho-hum
results with other systems, the LENS system changed my life. I had a
mild head injury just after birth and had trouble sequencing, taking
in information, using abstraction, etc, until I actually treated the
head injuries of others. When I heard how they sounded, I realized
that I needed treatment. While I can still get pretty wifty when
stressed, I simply could not be functioning as I do now without
using the system — and I had used every system there had been prior
to 1993, without noticeable results.
I think the neurofeedback field severely needs to grow up. Working
in a marketplace where there are severely complex CNS problems, we
need to realize that if we want to operate efficiently, and justify
our existence with documentation, we can and will cause frightening
disruption at times. For as the brain drops its previous inefficient
and taxing compensations for problems, there will be
disorganization and disruption, not to mention pain — that are all
perfectly plausible and reasonable consequences of the reorganization
process.
We need to understand the physiology of such processes so
that we can predict them to the stalwart and desperate patients who
are willing to undertake such a journey. There are many who are too
anxious and fearful to either administer such procedures, or to go
through such processes. But for those that do, there have never been
anything other than success — so far. There will at some point be
exceptions because we know far from everything, and far from what we
need to know. This is why we use informed consents: to say that
while we are most careful, we do not know everything, and there can
be unpleasant surprises. But so far, they have all been easily
reversible — unlike what happens with medication.
And for the record, my practice now includes, or has included, such
problems as: autism, fetal alcoholism, tuberous sclerosis, several
people who have died and been resuscitated and who suffer anoxic
problems leading to a CP-like problems, coma, post-stroke, post
bleed, post shaken baby paralysis and light coma, several cases of
terrible epilepsy, Tourette’s, regional complex pain syndrome,
fibromyalgia, ADD/ADHD, dementia post surgery, and post mild and
severe acquired head injuries. I have worked with ages 18 months
through the 90s.
I need a system that operates simply so that I can look at the data
and think about what I’m doing, why I’m doing it, to leave a paper
trail to let others observe and share what I’m doing, and so that I
can do it better, hopefully, next time.
I’m open to all questions.
Dr. Ochs — I have experienced chronic pain since 1959, and am starting a course of acupuncture today to see if that might help somewhat. I’ve just finished reading Jim Robbins’ article “Weird Stuff” in the recent book Measuring the Immeasurable. At the end of the article, you are quoted as saying that you’re working on a new system based on LENS that will be “exponentially more efficient and precise.” Can you tell me how far along you are with this new system? Is it on the market yet, available for clinical use? Any information would be most welcome. Thank you for your trouble.
Please visit http://www.ochslabs.com to catch up with the latest from Len Ochs.
With regard to chronic pain, this has been a priority in the biofeedback field for some time, and it is increasingly a focus within the neurofeedback community as well. Great strides have been made in recent years, particularly on the neurofeedback side. Our most recent research publication was on neurofeedback for chronic pain.
It is definitely worthwhile for you to consider doing neurofeedback for your condition. There is at this point no way of predicting how well you will do with any of the available technology options. Given the urgency of the issue of chronic pain, you should probably plan to try out several of the available neurofeedback technologies. The benefit of training should be obvious after only a few sessions at most. If it is not, just move on.
[Lisa, would you forward this to the list? Thanks, Len]
Dr. Thompson,
Yes, they are all in process and are scheduled to be released this
spring. Since they are, in essence, new products, there will be a $200
charge for each of the two items. There are several components to the
high efficiency LENS: First, the optimized applications, available on
the J&J now, are expected to be available on the Atlantis this spring.
These applications use a narrower radio frequency carrier wave, which
appears to accelerate increases in function. This is good news. We are
also implementing as a separate product a new kind of topographic
mapping. Our maps give a point-by-point direction as to which sensor
sites to go to, and in what sequence. The new mapping gives access to
EEG suppression, a much more efficient way to return function when the
cases are difficult. However the cautions I raise about these
improvements is that we are now pushing the limit of how fast some
people can change to improve function. In some cases when change is too
fast, it can be disorienting and even anxiety producing. I think it is
unwise to have as a goal to push these people beyond their comfort
limits in the name of efficiency. This is where clinical wisdom and
technology meet. At times is is wiser to choose the slower, less
efficient method. The LENS offers a great deal more choices than it did
in the past.
For peripheral pain, our photonic stimulator has frequently brought
pleasant surprises. It’s a pretty innocuous-looking, infra-red light
that speeds healing of wounds, reduces inflammation and swelling, and
vascular reactivity. I don’t find it pretty: but it’s simple to
operate, and right up there with the most expensive and powerful lights
at a reasonably lower cost.
Since I am not a part of this list, I can be reached directly at
lochs@earthlink.net.
Good luck with your acupuncture!
What double blind studies have been published in respected medical scientific journals on the effectiveness of LENS Biofeedback or is it just testimonials and if so why? For example someon did search on Pubmed.gov with a Biopharmaceutical Ph.D. backgroun and did research at top medical institutinos could not find a single reference yet to such a completed study. whichi is amazing. I guess it is a best kept secret?
Dear Steven,
I like Seigfried’s comments to your post, and will add one of my own. The LENS is not a medical procedure. It is not embraced by physicians, and it does not apparantly achieve its effects in a manner that is consistent with the traditional medical model of disease and symptom resolution. That is, it is a global treatment, and not symptom specific. Among the LENS practitoners we have a few nurses and a handful of MDs, many of them in foreign countries; probably most of the practitioners are psychologists and mental health practitioners. I think that this is pretty consisitent with practitioner mix for other forms of neurofeedback.
You mention “respected medical journals,” and while these may be fine publications (or not), they are not going to be interested in publishing information that is perceived to fall outside the domain of medicine. A medical professional would need to read outside his or her area of expertise and primary training in order to come across articles about LENS. Probably someday the disciplinary boundaries will soften in a way that will permit the medical establishment to embrace LENS and other neurofeedback techniques, but I’m not content to grow old waiting for them to sign my permission slip.
Our field has quite a few marvelous techniques that probably do come across to outsiders as “secrets.” Whether the LENS is the “best secret” or the “best kept secret” depends on who you ask. I’m no purist. I use a variety of techniques with my clients, including the Othmers’ approaches (the hosts of this website) and LENS, and find that I am glad to have a range of tools at my disposal.
The LENS, in its present incarnation, is among the newer neurotherapy techniques. As a result, the LENS clinician base is small compared to more traditional approaches, but it is growing. Whether you are a clinician or layperson, you might enjoy Dr. Stephen Larsen’s book, THE HEALING POWER OF NEUROFEEDBACK, which is available from the EEGInfo store. Additionally, you might want to check out the website for Ochs Labs, which handles sales and training for the LENS (www.ochslabs.com).
Should you have other questions, I would be open to further discussion backchannel at psychologics@att.net.
Sincerely,
Lisa Merrifield, Ph.D.
Biofeedback and neurofeedback fall in the category of behavioral techniques. Many such techniques are accepted procedures in the world of health care, but you will not find any double-blind studies documenting their efficacy. It’s a false standard when it comes to behavioral methods. This is firstly because in feedback the therapist needs to be actively engaged, and hence knowledgeable about what is going on from moment to moment. And secondly, if the method is at all effective then the subject is likely to aware of changes that are happening. So blindness cannot be maintained in the subject.
Now the LENS method could actually be subjected to such a design, since it involves stimulation that requires no participation or even awareness on the part of the subject. But even in this case blindness can last only until the clinical effects start mounting up. Since blindness cannot be maintained over a course of treatment, there is no point in setting up a research design that depends upon maintenance of blindness.
Historically, then, the method has matured by the same pathway by which other neurofeedback approaches have matured—through actual clinical practice and ongoing technical development and refinement.
I find no reason to assume that a well designed, double blind study using this treatment would in any way be problematic. The confusion regarding neurofeedback’s efficacy is contingent on the community’s reluctance to put forth specific, testable claims. To make the excuse that this is a behavioral technique, and therefore resistant to methodologies that would determine whether the LENS treatment is evidence based or not, is an attack on science and the scientific method.
The author even goes so far to mention the NIH funding a double blind study at U. of Oregon involving the treatment of fibromyalgia. The problem again is the lack of a testable hypothesis. Fibromyalgia is a set of widely varied symptoms which leaves the experiment, and the interpretation of it’s results, open to data mining for the few symptoms that happened to improve while ignoring the ones that stay the same or become worse.
I thought I had just given several reasons that a double-blind study of conventional neurofeedback (as distinct from LENS) would be problematic. Such a study has in fact been done with regard to seizures, by deLee Lantz and Sterman in the eighties. As is commonplace in such studies, the design involved a given number of training sessions. Over the course of that time, every control subject had figured out that he or she was in the control arm. Hence blindness was broken. This same issue plagues conventional medical studies as well, but is largely ignored. If blindness is important, then maintenance of blindness needs to be ascertained in each study. That is typically not the case. Blindness is formally tested for in only about 15% of studies. In the rest, blindness is often broken; the researchers often know it; and the matter does not get reported in the paper because then the paper would not be published. I consider that fraud, and I believe that the whole medical field is riven with such fraud. It is more appropriate to call attention to such fraud than to venture forth onto the same treacherous turf, particularly when I am convinced that blindness cannot be maintained when NF is under study. The problem is that neurofeedback has large effect size. We are not looking for a small effect here, for which such a big research project would be necessary. That is to say, the NNT (number needed to treat) to demonstrate an effect is close to unity. We have an effective research design with nearly every client. Once one experiences this in the clinical realm, the interest in a controlled study diminishes immensely.
Thank you for your response. However, I am still confused about a few points:
-Why would the results of a well designed double blind study be compromised if the subjects speculated on which group they are in? Typically, the participants are explicitly told at the beginning that there will be a control and treatment group and that they will not know which of these they are in until the conclusion of the study.
-How (other than guessing) would the subject or experimenter know that they are receiving a placebo or the actual treatment? If they are finding out which group they are in than this is a flaw in the experiment’s design and should be controlled for.
-It sounds like you are saying that because certain individuals experience the benefits of this treatment in a clinical facet, that the evidence demonstrated in an experimental realm would be superfluous. Is this your position? If so, it seems very dismissive of the benefits of an evidence based approach to treatment and relies more on anecdotal evidence instead.
-The reason that properly controlled, clearly defined, double blind procedures are the industry standard is because they follow the scientific method. They are published in peer reviewed journals so their effects can be replicated. This is the best method we have to back claims with evidence. It is not a loophole that researchers can use to defraud the public.
The results of a “well-designed double-blind study” are compromised “if the subjects speculated on which group they are in” simply because the placebo effect being tested for is not a constant, but rather is influenced by expectations as they evolve throughout the training process. A person who suspects that they are in the placebo group experiences a decline in expectancy factors that mobilize the placebo “effect.” By the same token, a person who suspects that they are getting the actual treatment finds their hopes rising and their expectancy factors will be enhanced.
Most studies of anti-depressants (for example) show only a modest effect, one which can be largely explained on the basis of such differential expectancy factors. The side effects experienced by the treatment group helps to persuade the participants that they are in the treatment group, and hence that they should expect to be helped. In consequence, the so-called placebo effect is not identical between the two groups. Researchers know this, of course, and since they don’t make an issue of it I see the whole thing as a monumental charade—and ultimately, of course, a fraud upon scientific colleagues and the public.
Belief is what underlies the placebo model, so whether one gets there by guessing or otherwise is a secondary issue. The question to be addressed in any truly blinded study is whether expectancy factors were in fact matched between the two groups, and it will be found almost universally that they were not.
To your second point, I am indeed saying that full confidence in the efficacy of neurofeedback can be achieved simply by witnessing clinical progress. We are able to get substantial resolution of some 95% of migraine cases. No placebo model can come close to that kind of efficacy. All of the cases I am talking about here are medically refractory. Similarly, we are typically able to make major improvements in the behavior of an autistic child within three sessions. There is no other known way of achieving such results. These results are far too compelling to be subjected to blinded designs. Besides, what placebo effect is operative in a young autistic child of limited functionality anyway? They have no idea what neurofeedback is about as they go through the process.
B.F. Skinner once challenged a colleague somewhat as follows: “You are doing statistics? You must be looking for a small effect.” We are not looking for a small effect. Nearly every client stands as testimony to the efficacy of neurofeedback. Controlled efficacy studies are either for the NIH to sponsor or for a graduate student to pursue for his dissertation. Such studies hold little interest for most clinicians because they won’t learn anything they don’t already know. If clinicians weren’t already persuaded that they were being helpful, then their work would have to be considered ethically questionable. A controlled efficacy study needs to be done by someone who is still a skeptic.
Controlled studies are indeed needed, but not for proof of efficacy. Rather, they are needed to discern differential efficacy for various methods of NF. Indeed we attempt that by implementing an A/B design (within the limited framework of our protocols) in every session. We are always in the hunt for something more optimal than what we are already doing. But formal studies are still needed to compare radically different approaches, such as, for example, comparing LENS to standard neurofeedback.
So LENS Biofeedback treatment could be done in a double blind setting. But you state the changes in the individuals receiving the proper frequencies would get improvements. So it sounds like it would not take a very long study to get results! And getting a large enough group of ADHD children should be much easier now with all the news about dangers of ADHD and Depression drugs to children with underlying physical or mental conditions. So it behooved you to plan and do such a study! So and so using XXX technique got XX children between X and Y ages to no longer need their ADDHD medications. Do you think it would get media attention if backed by a respected publication such as the JAMA, a Psychology Today, or a Pediatric journal? And grow from there benefiting then many more clinicians and clients? you apply to the Bill Gates Foundation etc. to help with its funding, maybe? (because it is a big issue that the drugs being prescribed for children did not have adequate study on kids and now are being done)
Dear Dr. Ochs:
What can you tell me regarding the use of the LENS for the treatment of significant memory loss due to a TBI?
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
Myer W.
I’m reading Larson’s “The Healing Power of Neurofeedback” and looked ahead in the contents table and index. There is no reference to anyone older than 20 with congenital brain damage being treated with Neurofeedback. This seems odd. What are we — chopped liver? My brother-in-law (67) and I (75) both have this condition. He has more severe impairments and needs intervention to lead a satisfying life. I know it would take more sessions with seniors, and the kids are cuter, but why not pay attention to folks with gray hair and DD
Hi Bob,
While we do not have the credentials of Siegfried or the experience I would say that there are neurofeedback practitioners who are more comfortable working with seniors. kids may be cuter but they aren’t always as charming! If you looking for attention give us a call!!
David
Neurofeedback has been used very effectively with issue of mental function among the elderly, and this includes the chronic effects of brain damage. There was originally a bias in the field against working with the elderly because it was assumed that the requisite brain plasticity was available only in the young, growing brain. That turns out not to be the case. Whatever plasticity is required to effect neurofeeback is available in the aging brain.
The argument that the elderly may be neglected currently can be readily countered by the observation that many of the early researchers in neurofeedback are now pushing into that age range, so this is becoming a personal as well as matter of formal scientific interest.
As I am scheduled to undergo the LENS program, I am curious about the long term effects it has had on your early clients. Positive or negative. Thank you.
I have a B.S. in Psychology and a certificate in Neuroscience. I would like to go to graduate school, but I’m having trouble deciding what area to focus on. I found Larson’s “The Healing Power of Neurofeedback†very inspiring, and I wondered if you could offer any advice on what steps to take after undergraduate study in order to be qualified to practice LENS therapy. For starters, would you suggest more of a Cognitive Neuroscience approach, or Clinical Psychology?
I am wondering if you have had any results with people who have schizophrenia ?
I am wondering the same thing, Carol. I noticed nobody answered your question. I don’t have the answer about this system either, but a word of advice from my own hard earned experiences. My own son was first diagnosed as ADHD with specific learning disabilities; then changed to bipolar, then finally upgraded to schizophrenia ie schizoaffective disorder since he also had a mood disorder. We tried medication after medication; Risperdal actually made him significantly more psychotic, he had seizures from the Wellbutrin, it was a nightmare. One doctor insisted on trying prozac which actually made him more sane except for the obsessiveness and narcissism he began displaying….which was still an improvement. The next doctor (they kept leaving this county facility which has no other mental health care available) d’cd the Prozac and put him on Lamictal which crashed him into a semi-catatonic deep depressive state in which he was once again ‘hearing’ multiple voices. He was hospitalized; the NEXT doctor finally tried him on Abilify, which was a lifesaver. He is now sane; although if he misses taking it his cognitive function decreases and when he stays off of it the voices come back and he begins getting moody again.
My daughter has had Neurofeedback sessions (40) with excellent results. Some behaviors have not returned such as aggresiveness, and wandering, and others have been reduced to mild such as reclusion, paranoia, and inappropiate talking. She will have to continue having weekly sessions. It has been a big relief.
Dear Dr. Othmer:
Is the “dominant” frequency typically the “optimal” frequency for a given person? How do you find the “optimal” reward frequency, and apart from rewarding it, can you entrain it/ would you advise to do so?
In a word, no. The dominant frequency is not the optimal frequency for training a particular person. It turns out that the optimal frequency is not a unique frequency, but it is unique in each frequency band. There are are a number of optimal reward frequencies throughout the band. As we go to lower and lower frequencies in the EEG, there is increasing commonality in the optimum reward frequency, to the point that at the very lowest frequency that we train, nearly everyone has very nearly the same optimal frequency. That implies that as we move to lower frequencies our systems appear to be more similar, but that as we move to higher frequencies, we differentiate from each other and have our own uniqueness.
One finds the optimal frequency in each case by seeing the response of the person to the training. At the optimal frequency the trainee will move to a state in which he or she is maximally alert, calm, and “euthymic”, meaning in a state of positive emotionality and of emotional equilibrium. Over time, that capacity deepens. The frequency at which this occurs turns out to be the optimal frequency for training the brain.
Hello Dr. Siegfried.
I am an aspiring neurofeedback practitioner getting experienced with the Othmer protocol. I have tried it on myself for a while with some good results and have found my optimal reward to be around 4 Hz (it has moved somewhat with the training), or so I believed (it was the only frequency I could tolerate).
If I understand you correctly here there is not one but multiple optimal reward frequencies for each client? In the material I have only seen the “optimal” reward frequency referred to as one frequency, which can be anywhere in the EEG frequency band, never as multiple frequencies. Is this a new finding?
If there are not one but several optimal frequencies, then do each of the standard bands (Infra-Slow, Delta, Alpha, etc) have one? Do they each produce different effects or do they all produce the same “optimal” response with training?
Regards,
Stefan
Stefan:
In our lengthy journey to discover the infra-low frequency training, which has by now taken over ten years in total, we were always trying to optimize the training, first with small frequency shifts, and later with more latitude in frequency adjustment. Over nearly all of that time, we were constrained by software in terms of how far we could move the frequency. So we were working with what in retrospect would be seen as local optimal frequencies, and in this realm people differentiated from each other a great deal.
Now as soon as we got to the infra-low frequency range, that pattern changed. No longer were people distributed all over the map; rather, the vast majority came to optimize at whatever the lowest frequency was that we had available in software. This implied that we needed to go even lower, and when we did so, we found an even higher percentage of folks who optimized at the new lower frequency. This pattern continued until we reached the current low frequency of 0.1mHz, where something like 85% of clients optimize within the first several sessions.
So we are obviously engaging with a mechanism here that is common to us all. But what we had found in our long journey to these low frequencies has not ceased to be true. If one trains at higher frequencies, one will find optimal frequencies (with respect to near neighbor frequencies) all across the band.
Given what we have found, though, the natural progression should be to do the infra-low frequency training first, and then do whatever remains to be done at higher frequencies. In each case, we would suggest that an optimization procedure would be in order to find each person’s optimum reward frequency.
Dr Ochs
My Mother is in a Comatose state for the last 3+ months. She had a liver augment surgery for cancer and post recovery she had a cardiac arrest and was revived in 10 minutes. With lack of oxygen for 10 minutes, she entered a coma state and is slowly making some signs of progress. She shows signs of pain, blinks her eyes, she jerks her body a lot (but confirmed through EEG, that these body movements are due to ceasures). Do you believe the LENS theraphy could help her condition.
Thank you
Correction to my earlier post. My Mom’s constant body movements are confirmed “not” ceasures. Thanks!
Do you know where a young adult could go for treatment with the LENS system for addiction, ADD and mood issues. She is receiving results from a QEEG from Dr. Jack Johnstone in Burbank California, tomorrow. She would like to go to treatment as soon as possible due to a recent relapse.
I am considering LENS treatment for my 13 year-old daughter who has extensive learning disabilities. Is there a blog or other source of information about LENS and LD? I’m particularly interested in comments by parents of LD students or people who have experienced the LENS treatment.
Hi. My girlfriend received lens treatments from Dr. Smith in Orinda. The result was an absolute miracle. Every 2-3 weeks for the last five years my girlfriend has been experiencing the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Her symptoms of PTSD included becoming hyper vigilant and hyper sensitive to everything about our relationship. As a result we had regular loud arguments about the same issues over and over. It became impossible to ever resolve an issue. Everything would seem fine until I said something that would set her off.
After several months of treatment all of that has gone away. Now we argue about this and that and we get back to normal right away. No out of control arguments about the same issues over and over. We talk over our feelings, get to the resolve and we are done with it.
Before Dr. Smith my girlfriend had been in therapy for many years. She also tried just about everything else you can try to improve her health and emotional wellbeing. LENS did the trick. I will always be grateful to Dr. Smith.
I had a dream the other night where I was crying because I was so grateful for how much better our relationship has become. It turns out my girlfriend had a similar dream the night before.
Have you done any studies with Parkinson’s Disease?
We have been able to help with cases of Parkinson’s with our infra-low frequency neurofeedback, but these are just anecdotal reports at this point. The earlier one intervenes with neurofeedback, of course, the better, but our results are often comparable with what can be done with Deep Brain Stimulation.
A formal study has been done with a device called the Enermed. This device subjects the brain to a subtle magnetic stimulation at a repetition rate individualized to the client. This repetition rate falls in the range of the low-frequency EEG, i.e. below alpha. The device is worn all day. The results of the study were not only statistically significant but clinically robust as well. At the end of the research program the devices had to be collected from the participants, and some of them didn’t want to give it up!
There is in practice no competition or conflict between neurofeedback and Deep Brain Stimulation. There is a natural progression here from starting out with neurofeedback and the Enermed when symptoms are first observed. At this point DBS would not be considered in any event. That option then always remains for consideration later in the course of this degenerative condition.
I am wondering how the LENS differs from Brainstate, which again does not require participation by the client. Can anyone elaborate please. Thank you.