First they denied neurofeedback because they did not believe in brain plasticity.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for seizures, as they are neurochemically mediated.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for ADHD because that’s what stimulants are for.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for migraines because it is a vascular condition.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback to improve IQ scores because IQ cannot change.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for PMS because they couldn’t take it seriously.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for developmental delay because such brains cannot learn.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for the autism spectrum because that was the parents’ fault.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for infants because that idea is just too ridiculous for words.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for Parkinson’s because there is no way to compensate for the neuronal loss.
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for dementia because if we don’t even understand it, how could we fix it?
But they were wrong.

Then they denied neurofeedback for concussions and minor head injury because those people are known to self-recover.

Yes! That’s what we are talking about: Self-recovery!
And we know how to help. That’s all.
We know how to help the brain do its self-recovery thing.
And we’ve known that for thirty years.

Yet somehow the failure to persuade is entirely our fault…
After all those blunders, they still feel entitled to stand in judgment.

The figure below shows the cumulative distribution for impulsivity data on 12,100 neurofeedback clients who had infra-low frequency neurofeedback training. No exclusions. These data represent some quarter million sessions of Infra-Low Frequency neurofeedback. As Barry Sterman would say, “If you cannot tell the difference, then you need an optician more than you need a statistician.”

Cumulative distribution of commission errors observed with the QIK Continuous Performance Test before and after nominally twenty sessions of Infra-Low Frequency (ILF) neurofeedback training with Cygnet software and Othmer protocols, for some 12,100 clients. The post-training distribution matches the normative distribution for commission errors on the deficit side and exceeds normative performance at and above the mean. The data cover the age range of 6-70.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 21st, 2017 at 10:49 am and is filed under Neurofeedback. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.