Martijn:

I'm not talking about published data only or even mostly. I'm talking about
individuals
who have, over the years, tried to prove that NeuroCARE (for instance) was less
effective
than x,y, or z. Those folks who have said that have never actually sent me any
data.

I, however, have presented data over the years at virtually every major
neurofeedback
conference as well as at regional ones. So if you want to actually see some of
my data,
look at my presentations over the years. No nothing published beyond the
original Five
Phase Model article. My articles -- except for one -- were never published
despite having
been submitted. And the last contribution I made to JNT was criticized --
without chance
of comment -- by "experts" who said that they hadn't EVEN HEARD of the term
"time-
frequency" but none the less continued to criticize what I wrote in terms of
"time-
frequency analysis. Very interesting process of "scholarship" and "peer review"
wouldn't
you say?

I have even asked you to show me any data you had showing the relative
effectiveness/efficiency of what you do vs what we do; or even to show me the
published
support for each of the very different protocols that you use, and the basis for
using QEEG
to determine which of those to actually use. I've also asked you to correct
certain
inaccurate statements about NeuroCARE attributed to you by others -- and you
agreed to
do so.

I think that's an important part of this discussion as well.

The issue of the role of what is called "research" by some is a very
interesting, politically
motivated process in which, as you well know, NeuroCARE does not need to engage.
Our
users and the clients of those users know the effectiveness and value of what we
offer; and
they affirm that everyday by returning for services and referring those that
they care about
for services. If research were really all that important than one of the more
prominent
application of neurofeedback would be for seizure control as it has been, until
recently,
the more thoroughly researched application of neurofeedback. And yet somehow,
despite
its "research-based", "empirically supported" history, it is one of applications
that the field
generally recommends AGAINST for the use of neurofeedback. Why would that be if
research -- "peer-reviewed" research -- is so important?

Perhaps the real question here is: who are the peers of NeuroCARE users and who
are the
peers of those doing and promoting these stances re: "peer-reviewed" research?
They are
clearly NOT the same and yet, NeuroCARE gets very good outcomes and no side
effects
when done in the way we recommend, using defaults.

As you also know Ed O'Malley is in the process of collating data for publication
in non-
neurofeedback Journals as it appears that they are more receptive to the kinds
of ideas
that we use everyday.

So send ME any data you have or, if you know of someone who has such data, send
that to
me. I'd really like to see it.
val

--- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com, "Martijn Arns" <marns@...> wrote:
>
> Val,
>
>
>
> I would love to see data as well showing that NeuroCARE is more
> effective as well. Any published data on the efficacy of NeuroCARE?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Martijn Arns
> Director
> Brainclinics Diagnostics B.V.
> Brainclinics Treatment B.V.
> Toernooiveld 100
> 6525 EC Nijmegen
> The Netherlands
>
> Tel: +31(0)24-7503505
> GSM: +31(0)6-48177919
> Fax: +31(0)24-8901447
>
> E-mail: martijn@... <mailto:martijn@...>
> URL: www.brainclinics.com <http://www.brainclinics.com/>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Val Brown
> Sent: dinsdag 25 maart 2008 3:31
> To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] Re: my GSR (SCL) cannot be trained
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> I would love to see any actual data you have showing that using LENS
> and Wild Divine is as good as, let alone more useful, than using
> NeuroCARE in its recommended default way. My read of all of the data
> that I have seen shows that, at best, that combination is only as
> effective/efficient, but has a far higher side effect profile and
> requires far more assessment (in order to ascertain how, where and
> when to use LENS). That means, as far as I understand it, that even
> if the same number of sessions was used, the cost is actually higher
> to clients, when using LENS alone or in combination with Wild Divine.
>
> val
>
> --- In neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com> , Thomas Brod <tbrod@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Beyond the obvious comment on use of NeuroCare ZIN system to help
> > stabilize your reactivity (I've had moderate success with a
> patient,
> > now in her 70's, whose physiologic pattern was engrained from age
> 5
> > when she began performing for large audiences as a musical
> prodigy), I
> > add this thought:
> >
> > Wild Divine has a new version called Healing Rhythms. It is of
> course
> > all Biofeedback. Healing Rhythms is essentially a compilation of
> > some of the best exercises in the first two editions without the
> > Journey=game structure. Really superb. As in the original
> versions,
> > it feedsback SCL and Heart Rate Variability (HRV). In my office
> we
> > often use it at the end of a LENS session for kids and adults who
> are
> > anxious; also for siblings and friends (and parents) who come along-
> -
> > they recognize they are getting something special when we use it.
> > It's been a great success!
> >
> > Thomas M Brod MD
> > 12304 Santa Monica BLvd #210
> > Los Angeles CA 90025
> > 310.207-3337
> > http://tbrod.bol.ucla.edu <http://tbrod.bol.ucla.edu>
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: hooper_jw
> > > To: neurofeedcommunity@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:neurofeedcommunity%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:28 AM
> > > Subject: [neurofeedcommunity] my GSR (SCL) cannot be trained
> > >
> > > OK, so this isn't strictly a NF question, but apparently my posts
> > > will never be released from moderation on the biofeedback list.
> > >
> > > My first encounter with GSR training was using a little device
> from
> > > Radio Shack that gave audio feedback. As I relaxed, the tone would
> > > go down, down, down, and then suddenly it would just soar. It
> would
> > > go much higher than where I started, sometimes out of the range of
> > > human hearing.
> > >
> > > Here I am 15 years later, and I buy the Wild Divine game -- same
> > > story. Most of my anxiety problems were solved by eliminating all
> > > caffeine a few year back. I bought the Wisdom Quest game and
> > > although I'm a little better, my GSR, which they call SCL, still
> > > soars if I so much as sigh. It sometimes soars for no reason.
> > > Anytime I get near a goal in the game, it races away, hitting the
> > > highest levels.
> > >
> > > Only if I close my eyes and watch my breath very closely can I
> pass
> > > the tests that are dependent on being calm. Playing the game
> > > actually makes my anxiety much worse.
> > >
> > > I have never been able to understand why I can't control GSR, or
> > > meditate for that matter. Maybe someone here can make sense of
> this.
> > >
> > > Anyway, my son will be having some NF done with the NeuroCare
> > > system. He is completely unmotivated, doesn't do his schoolwork,
> and
> > > answers "I don't know" to almost any question you ask him. I'm
> > > pretty sure it isn't defiance.
> > >
> > > I have two Procomp+ units and Multitrace, but I don't really know
> how
> > > to use them unfortunately. Maybe I could sell one and get
> something
> > > I can use.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > John Hooper
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 23, 2008, at 6:05 AM, PENNYG wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would like to be copied on any responses to this
> question..Penny
> > >> Goldberg, LCSW, BCD
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> >
>