Has anyone here tried neurofeedback? I think the research looks promising. My son has ADHD. He is 16 and has been on Straterra and Concerta. The straterra doesn't do much and the Concerta makes him anxious. Thanks,

I use brain entrainment software with adderall. Neuro programmer 2 is what I use. I use it to kick my my brain waves up. I also use it to help me get to sleep. Works very well.

Because I refuse to medicate my 10-year old daughter that has ADD (focus and attention), I really researched alternatives to the drugs. So, she's been doing biofeedback for 5 months (twice a week for 1/2 hour sessions) and taking Omega-3 supplements. She's doing really great and the biofeedback is not just a "band-aid" approach like the drugs, it's teaching her to really focus and concentrate - she is training her brain for the rest of her life.

She's doing really great and the biofeedback is not just a "band-aid" approach like the drugsHow did you come to the conclusion that medication is just a band-aid?

"Note: There are only two treatments that are scientifically proven to be effective in the management of ADHD: (1) stimulant medication and (2) parent training/behavioral therapy.

THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS
SANDRA F. RIEF

How did you come to the conclusion that medication is just a band-aid?

"Note: There are only two treatments that are scientifically proven to be effective in the management of ADHD: (1) stimulant medication and (2) parent training/behavioral therapy.

THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS
SANDRA F. RIEF


Being of the scientific world, I have to disagree here. Scientific proof is out there but limited. Other alternatives (diet and biofeedback, etc) takes longer for results and scientific research is expensive for those eager to prove its benefits. Those who would like the research are small groups without the financial means to conduct and finance a long term study.

However, Medication scientific proof is readily available because the pharmaceutical companies fund this research! There results are fast and the studies are fully funded.

There is no doubt that medication work! I also believe that diet, exercise, bio feedback and more alternatives work too, more than anyone cares to research. The results aren't immediate like meds that’s a fact.

My only point here is this, studies are not the end all of solutions and the lack of is not the proof that something doesn’t work.

You will be hard pressed to find a medication study that is not funded by a Pharmaceutical Company. Did you know there are more study “disproving” alternatives for medication? And did you know they were funded by Pharmaceutical Companies?

OP.

I will be following this thread thanks for starting it!! I am very interested in biofeedback for my in-attentive, focus challenged son.

Being of the scientific world, I have to disagree here. Scientific proof is out there but limited.How is this disagreeing? There is either enough proof or their isn't.

How is this disagreeing? There is either enough proof or their isn't.
[/font][/color]

There are certiantly more than two proven effective treatments! Just not a catalog of studies as there is with medication theropy. I was simply stating that I disagree with there only being two, as you stated - that's all.

If your insurance will pay for it, give neurofeedback a try. The bottom line is that there is credible research that says neurofeedback is not an effective treatment and there is no credible research that says it is benificial.

Let's put it like this: Neurofeedback is cognitive therapy. They teach you a skill and that skill is supposed to cure adhd ??? I wonder if learning to tap-dance will cure gout ? Any takers on that one ?

Me :D

Any takers on that one ?ouch!

If your insurance will pay for it, give neurofeedback a try. The bottom line is that there is credible research that says neurofeedback is not an effective treatment and there is no credible research that says it is benificial.

Let's put it like this: Neurofeedback is cognitive therapy. They teach you a skill and that skill is supposed to cure adhd ??? I wonder if learning to tap-dance will cure gout ? Any takers on that one ?

Me :D

Hum.. as far as I know there is no "cure" for ADHA, is there??
<O:p
Stimulant medication appears to work by altering the availability of particular brain chemicals or neurotransmitters (dopamine and norepinephrine) in regions of the brain involved with behavior inhibition, impulse control, attention and working memory.
<O:p
<O:p
Neurofeedback, diet, omegas, etc are believed to do the same things as stimulant medication in some cases. Anything that can help "stimulate" brain chemicals and neurotransmitters (dopamine and norepinephrine) can help relieve the effects of ADHA.<O:p

</O:p
None of which will cure ADHD, if I am wrong show me your resources I would like to know what that is.

<O:p
Cognitive therapy or stimulant therapy, both do the same things. Stimulant therapy is proven to work immediately but not always - there are plenty of people who cannot gain relief from stimulant therapy. Cognitive and nutritional therapy takes longer to see results and too, not everyone gains relief. That is why it is important in any therapy to do work BEST for you.

<O:p
And by the way my insurance does recognize Neuofeedback as an approved approached to ADHA treatment and will subsidize the treatment. Personally, I like to introduce none medication therapy’s in pieces, first this and then that to be sure I see if they are helpful then improve on them or drop them.

<o></o>
And by the way my insurance does recognize Neuofeedback as an approved approached to ADHA treatment and will subsidize the treatment. Personally, I like to introduce none medication therapy’s in pieces, first this and then that to be sure I see if they are helpful then improve on them or drop them.If your insurance covers it, what are you waiting for?

Since ADHD is new to me and my son who was only diagnosed in November at 6 years old. I am researching all alternatives, including medication. I research, I read, I join forums and I learn, learn, learn. /><O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
You see, you can't just act on positive and suggested methods - if I did he would be on stimulant meds today - problem solved?<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
I have decided to learn all the alternatives to medication and work at finding the ones that make sense to me and what I believe might help my son. I will do that gradually and methodically while I keep my sons spirits and self esteem at its highest. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p> </O:p>
I first have had him evaluated at his school and now can offer to him extra support. I believe that diet can help (and his diet is crappy) so I “hired” naturopathic doctor to help me carry out and test and try diets that can improve his cognitive abilities. I don’t just do things wily nily that I know nothing about. That would for sure make me a failure.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p> </O:p>
I am now looking at more concentrated cognitive training. The Dore program and other like it. Neurofeedback and we have a OT (occupational therapist) in our area that works with ADHD children, much like the Dore alternative – my insurance will pay for her too. But until I decide which is best for us, our time, our situation and my son I will not just jump on the bandwagon. Not because I believe it doesn’t have merit, because I think it does. But because I need to determine which path I maybe take and commit to it. <O:p></O:p>

http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/

Build your own system. The thing that convinces me neurofeedback has little benefits is there are not $20 USB adapters with an isolated connector for low cost commercially available electrodes. You can't hide something that works or charge $50-$100 week for a year without someone mass marketing the concept. Dont give me the bull that the technicians have training either. They are non-medical doctors that took a weekend course and some hotel in Las Vegas at best.

From THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS by Sandra F. Rief:

'Among the unproven treatments, a few (such as biofeedback) may have some benefit for ADHD children. However, though it has been used for a number of years, biofeedback is limited in its scientific support. Biofeedback is intended to train the child with ADHD to increase and decrease various types of brainwave activity associated with ADHD (such as sustained attention). It generally involves about 40 to 80 sessions and is an intensive, expensive treatment.'

From THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS by Sandra F. Rief:

'Among the unproven treatments, a few (such as biofeedback) may have some benefit for ADHD children. However, though it has been used for a number of years, biofeedback is limited in its scientific support. Biofeedback is intended to train the child with ADHD to increase and decrease various types of brainwave activity associated with ADHD (such as sustained attention). It generally involves about 40 to 80 sessions and is an intensive, expensive treatment.'

I have no real opinion yet on this therapy but what I found in my limited research is promising. Neuro-feedback therapy is something I would like to know more about for possible consideration in the future. I hope to see some real life feedback someday and this is why I will follow threads like these.

Springerlink.com is my source for copies of studies; you may have your own library membership, if you do look up these. You would need to join to get the PDF's, but I can link you to the abstracts:

<O:pUniversity of Tennessee</ST1:p in 1995 performed a controlled study and there overview is this; "Our findings corroborate and extend previous research, indicating that neurofeedback training can be an appropriate and efficacious treatment for children with ADHD." Abstract: htttp://www.springerlink.com/content/l2213885102n16w6/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2213885102n16w6/)

<O:pThe Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen, Germany collaborated a clinical study with the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Treto, Italy and the Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Science, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom. These findings suggest that neurofeedback was effecient in improving some of the behavioral concomitants of ADHD in children whose parents favored a non pharmacological treatment. Abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r431772151245355/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r431772151245355/)

<O:pFebruary (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r431772151245355/) 2006, David Rabiner, Ph.D., Duke University published a study addressing random assignment, and also provides direct evidence of changes in brain activity for children receiving neurofeedback (Levesque, J., Beauregard, M., & Mensour, B. 2006. Effect of neurofeedback training on the neural substrates of selective attention in children with AD/HD: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience Letters, 394, 216-221.) There is no abstract for this, you would have to look up the study.

When you do your research do not rely on studies that are conducted by the technology companies - for obvious reasons. Just like you shouldn't let a pharmaceutical study cloud your judgment on an alternative treatment.<O:p

When you do your research do not rely on studies that are conducted by the technology companies - for obvious reasons. Just like you shouldn't let a pharmaceutical study cloud your judgment on an alternative treatment.<o>:p</o>I prefer to judge a study based on the criteria used and the interpretation of results, not on the author of the study. In our school system, middle school children perform experiments using the scientific method; it doesn't require a PhD to interpret results.

I prefer to judge a study based on the criteria used and the interpretation of results, not on the author of the study. In our school system, middle school children perform experiments using the scientific method; it doesn't require a PhD to interpret results.


That is exactly my point! Pharmecutical Company's interpret their results to lean towards there goals. As I beleive would a technology company placing a study regarding neurofeedback.

... Let's put it like this: Neurofeedback is cognitive therapy. They teach you a skill and that skill is supposed to cure adhd ??? I wonder if learning to tap-dance will cure gout ? Any takers on that one ?

Me :D
Actually, No.

I think (once again), you are getting "Biofeedback" confused with "Neurofeedback".

They both are based on the principle that if you can track it, you can change it.

"Biofeedback" usually refers to the ability to monitor and try to control one's breathing, heart rate, skin response, etc. for the purpose of stress reduction. It usually involves insturments to measure vital signs and give real-time audio/visual feedback that allow you to learn to track and control those things, (never used it, so I don't know a lot about it).

"Neurofeedback" is a similar process, but rather then tracking your heart/lungs/skin, you track and change the electrical activation patterns of your brain.

It has been shown through various imaging studies of both function and structure that those who experience ADHD / attention symptoms show "abnormal" activation patterns.

Through a "brain scan" using EEG technology, they can scan a person's brain and see what activation patterns are different then those who don't have ADHD symptoms; this process is called a QEEG.

From the QEEG, a Neurofeedback Clinician tries to find the activation patterns that need to be altered, and a profile is setup using the specific sites of the brain and the frequencies are setup to be "rewarded".

The brain, thorugh it's usual function, eventually "stumbles" upon the conditions that will give it a reward, (visual and auditory stimulus), and will learn to seek those conditions out. After several sessions, the plasticity of the neural functional of the brain, (independent of cognative function), changes it's pattern in a way that will remove many of the "functional abnormalities" and will reduce/remove symptoms caused by them. The brain likes to "stick" to a pattern, and after training will continue to keep those patterns after training has stopped, (think Newton's 3rd law).

There have been plenty of studies showing how effective Neurofeedback is to reducing/removing symptoms caused by dysfunctional activiation patterns. Since it's hard to "fake" Neurofeedback, it's difficult to do "placebo" studies. Many of the studies either compare to people who don't do Neurofeedback, or they take the same person, train one way and note how symptoms improve, and then train back to the "dysfunctional" patterns and see the symptoms return.

I've written on several threads about this topic before. See the following threads, and feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my experience and the research I have found.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47081
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21861&page=2

Reseach Articles:
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47351
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47366
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47349
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47348
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47345

(If you still think this is a "Snake Oil" treatment after reading the research, then there's nothing I can do for you...)

That is exactly my point! Pharmecutical Company's interpret their results to lean towards there goals. As I beleive would a technology company placing a study regarding neurofeedback.
Actually, it was a scientist that discovered Neurofeedback in cats as a way to fight epilepsy from toxic exposure.

As far as I can tell, there is no "Neurofeedback Inc.", just a bunch of scientists, researchers, and clinicians trying to find answers and apply that they have already discovered to help those who's lives could be blessed by the technology.

From THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS by Sandra F. Rief:

'Among the unproven treatments, a few (such as biofeedback) may have some benefit for ADHD children. However, though it has been used for a number of years, biofeedback is limited in its scientific support. Biofeedback is intended to train the child with ADHD to increase and decrease various types of brainwave activity associated with ADHD (such as sustained attention). It generally involves about 40 to 80 sessions and is an intensive, expensive treatment.'

When was that published Imnapl?

I tried neurofeedback a few years ago but never stuck with it. The psychologist I worked with showed me a couple studies and admitted that it's still in its early stages. The studies he showed me looked good and I think neurofeedback if done properly has potential.

You really have to stick at it though. Decent improvements take at least 6 months if I remember right.

Just because it isn't scientifically proven 100% (if there is such a thing :)) it doesn't mean it can't help people. Still in early stages so we'll see what happens.

I think what cody is saying about the pharm. companies funding studies is logical. Pharm companies like to make money above all else (like most companies) and will manipulate results if they can get away with it, they wont do it blatantly mind you. This isn't someone shouting about evil pharm companies - what he's saying acually makes a lot of sense if you think about it. This doesn't have anything to do with stimulants being effective - we've all acknowledged they are.

Thank you for all that good info, I DO plain on reading it. See I beleive you can train the brain to do anything.

Actually, it was a scientist that discovered Neurofeedback in cats as a way to fight epilepsy from toxic exposure.

As far as I can tell, there is no "Neurofeedback Inc.", just a bunch of scientists, researchers, and clinicians trying to find answers and apply that they have already discovered to help those who's lives could be blessed by the technology.

I agree, I wasn't really pointing to NFB as much as just trying make a point.

...
You really have to stick at it though. Decent improvements take at least 6 months if I remember right.
From the research I have found, your brain starts to make changes after about 15-20 sessions. Problem is, because of the plasticity of the brain, it will revert back to the original patterns if you stop at that point. You have to overtrain the brain in order to get those changes to stick, so it is generally suggested to go for 30-40 sessions.

...Just because it isn't scientifically proven 100% (if there is such a thing :)) it doesn't mean it can't help people. Still in early stages so we'll see what happens.
If any Pharm. company came out with a drug that had the kind of long-term success rate and lack of side-effects that Neurofeedback has, they would be selling it all over the place and be calling it a "Miracle" drug.

...I think what cody is saying about the pharm. companies funding studies is logical. Pharm companies like to make money above all else (like most companies) and will manipulate results if they can get away with it, they wont do it blatantly mind you.
Here's the best part - there are plenty of studies done showing a negative effect or no lasting effect from a drug, but the Drug Companies don't have to publish them, so they never see the light of day. They just keep trying until they get one where the numbers look good and publish that one.

I tried neurofeedback a few years ago but never stuck with it.Was it difficult to stick with?

If any Pharm. company came out with a drug that had the kind of long-term success rate and lack of side-effects that Neurofeedback has, they would be selling it all over the place and be calling it a "Miracle" drug.


Here's the best part - there are plenty of studies done showing a negative effect or no lasting effect from a drug, but the Drug Companies don't have to publish them, so they never see the light of day. They just keep trying until they get one where the numbers look good and publish that one.

I beleive that Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors. Most pharmacoeconomic studies are either done in-house by the drug companies or externally by consultants who are paid for by the company. I think there is even a study on these studies.:rolleyes:

Was it difficult to stick with?

I am interested in this as well. The reason I am not seriously looking to go that route right now is because of the commitment. I refuse to start something I can't finish and stress my child out in the process.

For us, it would require a 45 drive (to the doctors I found to be qualified) after a long day of school and work, three days a week at a minimum of a year! That's alot to commit to for our 6 year old right now and if the exercises are hard to stick with it would be unproductive. I am hopeful other alternatives will prove effective.

...For us, it would require a 45 drive (to the doctors I found to be qualified) after a long day of school and work, three days a week at a minimum of a year! That's alot to commit to for our 6 year old right now and if the exercises are hard to stick with it would be unproductive. I am hopeful other alternatives will prove effective.
Do they require a one year committment? Did they mention anything about number of sessions, or their treatment process?

Is this just for Neurofeedback, or are they doing other skills / cognative training as well?

What assessment procedure do they use? Do they do a QEEG, TLC Assessment (ala Pete Van Deusen), SPECT / imaging, intellect / aptitude / learning assessments, etc?

What "exercises" are you talking about? The Neurofeedback I'm aware of only is done in the Clinician's office, and there really isn't any "homework" since the training is only effective while plugged into the EEG device and running the software.

There are some Clinicians that will supervise you and allow you to do the training at home and will either rent / lease the hardware to you or will help you purchase your own equiptment, (I have my own 2 channel mono-polar EEG device that I'm going to use on my kids during the Summer break).

The thing that convinces me neurofeedback has little benefits is there are not $20 USB adapters with an isolated connector for low cost commercially available electrodes...
Honestly, have you looked at how small of an electrical signal we are dealing with?

They use the same sort of EEG technology that Neurologists and Hospitals use, only they run real-time calculation and feedback via software.

Have you ever seen a $20 USB EEG machine, let alone one that is sensative and shielded enough to differenciate an over-active Frontal Lobe @ 10 Hz from the cheap fan you bought at WalMart for $15?

Even the sensative ones have to be placed far enough away from devices that send out a lot of EMF or else it messes with the signal.

The problem is the cheap, sensitive technology just isn't there.

As far as Technicians that go to Vegas for a weekend and start training people, those are the ones you want to avoid. The ones you want are the ones that started maybe at Vegas, but then continued on, called the Othmers, visited with various Neurofeedback centers, interned with more experienced clinics, studied, practiced, studied so more, got some clients under their feet, consults with other Clinicians to go over treatment options for a client, and keeps up with current research and developments.

So, you do have to be careful where you go and who you are treated by, just like any other treatment or Medical practice.

Do they require a one year committment? Did they mention anything about number of sessions, or their treatment process?

Is this just for Neurofeedback, or are they doing other skills / cognative training as well?

What assessment procedure do they use? Do they do a QEEG, TLC Assessment (ala Pete Van Deusen), SPECT / imaging, intellect / aptitude / learning assessments, etc?

What "exercises" are you talking about? The Neurofeedback I'm aware of only is done in the Clinician's office, and there really isn't any "homework" since the training is only effective while plugged into the EEG device and running the software.

There are some Clinicians that will supervise you and allow you to do the training at home and will either rent / lease the hardware to you or will help you purchase your own equiptment, (I have my own 2 channel mono-polar EEG device that I'm going to use on my kids during the Summer break).

I couldn't answer most of these questions since I have not had a consultation with the doctor. I have only so far researched basics on the method. And inquired of the doctors who perform the treatments. with my son's neurodevelopmental pediatrician and regular pediatrician.

The three prospective doctors I found creditable were licensed psychologist with a doctorates in clinical psychology. I have not done much more than some basic inquiries, I can't find a suitable doctor in my immediate area so NYC and Mooristown NJ are my closest choices.

The time frame of 3 days a week and 1 year come from my son's doctor. As you stated, I am under the impression that for lasting effects a commitment of such should be make. Haven't confirmed that with the doctors who would be caring for him though. If I do move forward in that direction I now have more questions on my list to ask things I wouldn't have known to ask, thank you!

Here is another great article I recently found showing the efficacy of Neurofeedback:

http://www.addresources.org/article_adhd_neurofeedback_rabiner.php

Biofeedback is covered under my insurance (with co-pay) and has worked very well. My daughter has trained her brain to focus and she knows what it feels like to focus. She went from November until May.

How did you come to the conclusion that medication is just a band-aid?

"Note: There are only two treatments that are scientifically proven to be effective in the management of ADHD: (1) stimulant medication and (2) parent training/behavioral therapy.

THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS
SANDRA F. RIEF



Because when you put your children on medication you are only treating the symptoms, not the cause - you're only masking the problem. When you come off the medication, don't you have the same problems as when you went on?
<!-- / message -->

Has anyone here tried neurofeedback? I think the research looks promising. My son has ADHD. He is 16 and has been on Straterra and Concerta. The straterra doesn't do much and the Concerta makes him anxious. Thanks,

I wonder if neurofeedback combined with medication would be effective?? But there are other types of ADHD medication out there, isn't there... If the Straterra and Concerta are not helping and making your son anxious, you need to tell your doctor (or psychiatrist) so they can either try something else.:confused:

Biofeedback is covered under my insurance (with co-pay) and has worked very well. My daughter has trained her brain to focus and she knows what it feels like to focus. She went from November until May.

Was it straight Biofeedback, or EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback?

Because when you put your children on medication you are only treating the symptoms, not the cause - you're only masking the problem. When you come off the medication, don't you have the same problems as when you went on?
<!-- / message -->
I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but there have been several long-term landmark studies showing that once meds are stopped then the symptoms return, but once you've done enough Neurofeedback the brain has taught itself how to regulate it's own activities and actually changed the way it works without any outside force, and the changes are lasting, (barring any events that change it back such as head injury or physical changes to the brain).

I wonder if neurofeedback combined with medication would be effective?? But there are other types of ADHD medication out there, isn't there... If the Straterra and Concerta are not helping and making your son anxious, you need to tell your doctor (or psychiatrist) so they can either try something else.:confused:
There are cases where medications need to be continued past training, or even during training to keep things like nervous ticks or restlessness down so the electrical activity of muscle movement doesn't interfere with reading the brain's EEG patterns.

And, if after neurofeedback the meds still need to be taken long term, the dosage can usually be lowered because the symptoms are milder.

Has anyone here tried neurofeedback? I think the research looks promising. My son has ADHD. He is 16 and has been on Straterra and Concerta. The straterra doesn't do much and the Concerta makes him anxious. Thanks,


I am going to join in on this discussion as it is a subject of interest to me.

My impression of the current status is that there are some positive studies and case histories. On the other hand, there are not enough good controlled studies to demonstrate its effectiveness. As Russell Barkley stated: if this was a medicine, the FDA would not allow it to be released to the market yet.

I have a lot of hope for this therapy and it would be wonderful if it works out. So far I am not aware of any non-medical effective treatments for ADHD. It would be wonderful if Neurofeedback would be demonstrated to be effective. Generally my feeling is that if one has the money to spend on a possibly helpful but yet not supported therapy, I cannot see what it could hurt. It is your money.

Here are two good (in my opinion) recaps of the current state of this treatment. Enjoy.



http://www.help4adhd.org/documents/Neurofeedback_8_Study_Review.pdf

Summary
In summary, four of the eight controlled studies conducted to date were randomized, but two of these used a wait list as the control. Although wait list is often used in behavioral treatment studies, those studies often use other techniques, such as multiple baseline and reversal designs, to compensate somewhat. This leaves 2 small blinded randomized studies (Orlandi & Greco, 2004; deBeus et al., 2006) with a credible control condition. Neither of these have yet undergone peer-reviewed publication. The deBeus trial is reasonably impressive although details are not yet available, and taken together with the flawed published studies, suggests a moderate effect in at least some patients. Of public health importance, one of the studies (Carmody et al, 2001) suggests it may be feasible to administer treatments in schools. In fact, Foks (2005) reported that over the last decade several schools in the USA have begun to utilize neurofeedback for the special education of children with ADHD and learning disorders, with corresponding increases in regular class inclusion and significant financial savings.


http://www.help4adhd.org/en/treatment/complementary/WWK6A


Further Research Needed
Neurofeedback continues to be an intervention that generates much interest and attention from both researchers and consumers alike. While there is enough evidence to warrant its continued study as a possible intervention to reduce AD/HD symptoms, current research does not support conclusive claims about its efficacy. Based on the available evidence and the cost involved, parents and others should continue to exercise caution if considering neurofeedback as an intervention for themselves or their child.

Dizfriz

Re: Neurofeedback
<hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Imnapl http://www.addforums.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=588195#post588195)
How did you come to the conclusion that medication is just a band-aid?

"Note: There are only two treatments that are scientifically proven to be effective in the management of ADHD: (1) stimulant medication and (2) parent training/behavioral therapy.

THE ADHD BOOK OF LISTS
SANDRA F. RIEF
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
reynoldsjax replied:

Because when you put your children on medication you are only treating the symptoms, not the cause - you're only masking the problem. When you come off the medication, don't you have the same problems as when you went on?
<!-- / message -->
<!-- / message --> <!-- controls -->


There is currently no "cure" for adhd. It is (for the most part) a genetic disorder and we as yet have no way to treat the "cause". If you wear glasses to read, when you take them off, you can no longer read. Same for hearing aids. Neither of these treat the cause nor solve the problem but they do allow the individual to function despite the disability. They are in effect treating only the symptoms but that ain't bad. I guess they could be called band aids but I would hardly call them "just".

While there are some surgical treatments for both vision and hearing most continue to use glasses and hearing aids as they are effective. So far nothing like this for adhd so a treatment that will treat the symptoms is as good as we get right now.

I use a hearing aid and glasses and am glad to have both of them. "Good enough" is not bad is a complex and imperfect world.

Dizfriz

Because I refuse to medicate my 10-year old daughter that has ADD (focus and attention), I really researched alternatives to the drugs. So, she's been doing biofeedback for 5 months (twice a week for 1/2 hour sessions) and taking Omega-3 supplements. She's doing really great and the biofeedback is not just a "band-aid" approach like the drugs, it's teaching her to really focus and concentrate - she is training her brain for the rest of her life.

It has really helped her to train her brain to focus, since they are of the mindset that focus and attention are learned behaviors.Focus and attention are learned behaviors? True, we are born with the ability to focus and pay attention. Anyone who spends time with special needs people soon learns the extremes that nature endows: some of us are born with abundance of focus and attention, others are born with so little as to be hardly measurable.

Can we work to improve focus and attention? You betcha! Most school curriculum require that some time be spent on exercises to improve focus and attention. But to say that focus and attention are strictly learned behaviors shows a lack of even a basic understanding of biology, neurology and common sense. "He has the attention span of a fruit fly" is not considered baseline for multi-celled organisms.

Dizfriz -

The research is on it's way, but it's coming slowly.

As I've said before, there is no "Neurofeedback, Inc." to dump millions of dollars into clinical trials to get it past the FDA and onto the market.

Who do you think paid for all the clinical trials of ADHD meds? Drug companies spend a lot of money to do study after study to prove the effectiveness of a drug so it can be legally sold on the market. Since because of the pervasive political and financial situation we find ourselves in as a country, it is very difficult to get a treatment as simple as neurofeedback therapy passed by all the government agencies to get their "stamp of approval".

And the "Gold Standard" placebo / randomized / double-blind studies that all the "experts" say they have to have before they give it a thumbs up? Why in the world do you need someone to give you permission to run a computer program while your brain is being monitored in a non-inavsive way? I personally hope that the new meds coming out are scrutinized and tested so I know pretty well that they aren't going to kill me, but doing the same for a simple biofeedback technique on your brain doesn't make much sense.

The thing is, no matter what the studies say, there are people every day who are benefiting from neurofeedback and making big changes.

And if cost is a big issue, then just train at home, (like I have done and am going to start with my daughter, since we just got her QEEG back).

http://www.brain-trainer.com/home_trainers_network/

It's sad how we as a people are so weary of snake-oil salesmen and folks just trying to make a quick buck with the latest fad that when something really revolutionary comes along all we do is toss the mere thought of it into the trash with all the other junk-mail...

It's sad how we as a people are so weary of snake-oil salesmen and folks just trying to make a quick buck with the latest fad that when something really revolutionary comes along all we do is toss the mere thought of it into the trash with all the other junk-mail...


Yeah, it's distressing that many people automatically disregard any new sort of ADD treatment. They influence other people by what they say as well.

It's fine to be skeptical but you have to be open minded about it too.

I don't believe the medications we're using now will be used forever...they are effective for most people but they aren't very 'specific' in the areas they work on in the brain.

I hope that Neurofeedback gets the funding it deserves, I'm not sure who would pay for the research but there's got to be some money to be made with it.

Yeah, it's distressing that many people automatically disregard any new sort of ADD treatment. They influence other people by what they say as well.Neurofeedback has its origins back in the 1960's when two different researchers, Dr. Joe Kamiya and Dr. Barry Sterman, began to explore phenomena associated with brainwaves.

I hope that Neurofeedback gets the funding it deserves, I'm not sure who would pay for the research but there's got to be some money to be made with it.No one holds a patent on neurofeedback and several different enterprises are currently making money from it.

DominoPhreak

You bring up some interesting points and I will try to address them as best I can.


The research is on it's way, but it's coming slowly.

Diz: I agree. It takes time and money to the good studies

As I've said before, there is no "Neurofeedback, Inc." to dump millions of dollars into clinical trials to get it past the FDA and onto the market.

Who do you think paid for all the clinical trials of ADHD meds? Drug companies spend a lot of money to do study after study to prove the effectiveness of a drug so it can be legally sold on the market. Since because of the pervasive political and financial situation we find ourselves in as a country, it is very difficult to get a treatment as simple as neurofeedback therapy passed by all the government agencies to get their "stamp of approval".

Diz: No one has to have a "stamp of approval" to sell or use neurofeedback. However to have it treated as a validated therapy one has to do the studies.

And the "Gold Standard" placebo / randomized / double-blind studies that all the "experts" say they have to have before they give it a thumbs up? Why in the world do you need someone to give you permission to run a computer program while your brain is being monitored in a non-inavsive way? I personally hope that the new meds coming out are scrutinized and tested so I know pretty well that they aren't going to kill me, but doing the same for a simple biofeedback technique on your brain doesn't make much sense.

Diz: I really do not understand this. Currently you can buy the tools on the open market and use them to your heart's content. If the state licensure rules allow, you can sell the treatments to anyone who is willing to pay the fees. You cannot however expect insurance and other medical funding sources to pay for a therapy that is not scientifically validated. Some do but that is their choice.

The thing is, no matter what the studies say, there are people every day who are benefiting from neurofeedback and making big changes.

Diz: If you read my note and the summaries, you might note that all seem to agree with this but case histories, while important, are not considered scientific studies.

And if cost is a big issue, then just train at home, (like I have done and am going to start with my daughter, since we just got her QEEG back).

http://www.brain-trainer.com/home_trainers_network/

Diz: This is what has me confused. Above you were asking why someone had to give permission to use this therapy and here you state that you are going to do it at home.

It's sad how we as a people are so weary of snake-oil salesmen and folks just trying to make a quick buck with the latest fad that when something really revolutionary comes along all we do is toss the mere thought of it into the trash with all the other junk-mail...

Diz: No one is throwing the "mere thought" in the trash. If you will read the summaries I quoted you might notice that both seem fairly positive. What they say to me is that while there is some promise in neurofeedback, more work needs to be done. I suspect that most feel as I do in that I hope it proves effective. Over the years, I have seen this type of thing come and go. Hopefully neurofeedback will be different. Time will tell.


Interesting comments.

Some notes:

Again be aware that while case histories are a part of science they are not considered scientific studies. It is hard to design a good controlled study but they are the gold standard for a reason.

I researched the neurofeedback several years ago and noticed that the time, most of the studies were done by the companies selling the equipment. While this does not invalidate the studies, it does mean that one has to examine them with a little more care. If you notice, researchers now have to disclose funding from sources that may have a vested interested in the results. Also done for a reason. The situation is improving but more work yet needs to be done. Again I repeat: the work on neurofeedback while promising, has not be validated though good controlled scientific studies. Hopefully this will change.

One may be passionately convinced that a particular therapy will work as you seem to feel about neurofeedback. Please understand that you may be right but science must be cautious. If I tell someone that a therapy works then I had better be able to back it up. If I tell someone that I have seen good results with a therapy I do not have to meet the more stringent standards of science. You believe in neurofeedback but please do not consider all who are more cautious as enemies, most are not. If neurofeedback works, it will be validated in the future. All are working to find good ways of treating adhd and non medical therapies are a "holy grail".

I appreciate your response to my post. Always question any data and opinion including mine.

Dizfriz

Neurofeedback has its origins back in the 1960's when two different researchers, Dr. Joe Kamiya and Dr. Barry Sterman, began to explore phenomena associated with brainwaves.

No one holds a patent on neurofeedback and several different enterprises are currently making money from it.


Yeah, it's distressing that many people automatically disregard any ADD treatment other than medication. They influence other people by what they say as well.


switch any new treatment to :any other treatment that is not medication then :)

Was it straight Biofeedback, or EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback?


EEG Biofeedback. We've been very pleased with the results.

Focus and attention are learned behaviors? True, we are born with the ability to focus and pay attention. Anyone who spends time with special needs people soon learns the extremes that nature endows: some of us are born with abundance of focus and attention, others are born with so little as to be hardly measurable.

Can we work to improve focus and attention? You betcha! Most school curriculum require that some time be spent on exercises to improve focus and attention. But to say that focus and attention are strictly learned behaviors shows a lack of even a basic understanding of biology, neurology and common sense. "He has the attention span of a fruit fly" is not considered baseline for multi-celled organisms.


Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? I have helped my daughter without medicating her, so what exactly do you have a problem with? I am merely stating my daughter's experience with biofeedback. Honestly, I would try ANYTHING before I would put my daughter on the ADHD drugs. Not only do they have nasty side effects, but they are dangerous stimulants that are a life-long committment. We are in an over-medicated society and I know there is a scrip out there for just about anything that could be wrong with you. I just happen to refuse to accept the fact that the only way I can help my daughter is by turning her into a zombie to satisfy her over-worked teachers.

Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? I have helped my daughter without medicating her, so what exactly do you have a problem with?
...
We are in an over-medicated society and I know there is a scrip out there for just about anything that could be wrong with you. I just happen to refuse to accept the fact that the only way I can help my daughter is by turning her into a zombie to satisfy her over-worked teachers.

Hold on there, reynoldsjax - I know where you're coming from, and I can tell you that you don't have to be defensive around here. I felt the same way about a year ago feeling like I was about to get jumped on by posting about my personal experiences with Neurofeedback and knowing there were a lot of folks who thought that meds were the only answer.

I think what "The Apple" was saying was that they didn't quite understand about what has been discovered about the brain, and they might mis-interpreted something you said.

----------------------------------

Imnapl - I believe recent research into the brain has found that there are different kinds of "learning", specifically "cognative" vs "neurological". When most people talk about learning a behavior, they are usually talking about the cognative version where you are aware of what you are trying to do and are able to make a choice about how you will behave. The Neuorological version of learning is more on an automatic / unconscience level and has to do with electrical and chemical paths that the brain uses to complete a task, adapt to repeated stimulus, and compensate when there is a physical or environmental change that forces it find a new path.

Focus and attention are more neurologically learned behaviors, so although cognative therapy can go a long way to help you compensate for the way your brain works, it's very difficult to change your neurological behavior just by thinking about how you are going to act.

Changing a behavior between the two is very similar, but on different planes.

In cognative therapy, you have to first be aware of a negative behavior and how it impacts you and those around you. Once you are aware of it you can recognize when you are engaging in the behavior and can choose to change the way you act.

The same is true when changing a neurological "bad behavior", but unfortunately most people are not physically able to be aware of the electrical and chemical patterns in their brains in real-time. This is where Neurotherapy comes into play. By using EEG equiptment and a computer, it helps the brain to recognize when it is engaging in behavior it needs to change, and give it the capability to actually adjust the way it functions.

This is a very revolutionary concept, and one that sounds a little too "latest-snake-oil-fad-on-the-internet" for a lot of folks. Combine that with the fact that is usually isn't covered by insurance and can be quite costly, and it sounds like a recipe for skepticism.

But it works, and works long-term.

The science is still in it's infancy, but they've learned enough to make big changes in the lives of many people, and do it without drugs or the need for constant treatment or dependancy on an outside source to function. This is really some exciting stuff.

----------------------------------

All I can say to you, reynoldsjax, is to tell your story, loud and clear. Post a history about your experience with it, and how it helped your daughter. Answer questions that people might have, and be a witness that is does work. Talk about it with your friends, people at Church / work / random folks on the street, people you know who's children might be able to benefit from it, etc. It's a slow and simple process, and like most new disruptive technologies, it will take a good bit of time to catch on, but take your time and be patient, and expect the resistance and gently give guidance instead of expecting a fight.

Please share with us your experience in greater detail.

...Diz: If you read my note and the summaries, you might note that all seem to agree with this but case histories, while important, are not considered scientific studies.
...
Diz -

Do you think the fact that reynoldsjax daughter's "case study" isn't considered a "valid scientific study" matters to her? Do you think that she cares that there is no irrefutable proof that Neurofeedback caused the "significant improvement" (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=585721&postcount=86) in her daughter?

If you want to just sit around and discuss the studies, or the pros/cons, or the price, or just say it isn't proven or effective, fine. It's your time, and you can spend it however you want to.

If you or anyone else wants to wait around for years while the political battles wage on until some big government body is reluctantly forced to put their "stamp of approval" on NFB, go right ahead. But, in the time you all wait around, my kids will have probably spent years without the nuisence of excess Theta and low Beta waves, and with any luck be leading much more normal and productive lives.

... No one holds a patent on neurofeedback and several different enterprises are currently making money from it ...

True, there places selling equiptment, and other professionals making money teaching others the art/science of Neurofeedback, but I doubt you could say they have anywhere near the resources, R&D budgets, advertising, army of drug reps, or income of the major pharmacutical companies...

True, there places selling equiptment, and other professionals making money teaching others the art/science of Neurofeedback, but I doubt you could say they have anywhere near the resources, R&D budgets, advertising, army of drug reps, or income of the major pharmacutical companies...Sorry, I should have worded that more carefully. I don't expect anyone to run a business without earning a living or not recoup funds spent on research. I'm alive today because of research. What I meant to say is that the technology of neurofeedback is not being marketed by a monopoly. It's not important, just a fact. From what I've read, it wouldn't cost much to do a controlled study of neurofeedback. Some people think it would be exciting to do a study with all participants doing neurofeedback with only half of them taking medication.

All I can say to you, reynoldsjax, is to tell your story, loud and clear. Post a history about your experience with it, and how it helped your daughter. Answer questions that people might have, and be a witness that is does work. Talk about it with your friends, people at Church / work / random folks on the street, people you know who's children might be able to benefit from it, etc. It's a slow and simple process, and like most new disruptive technologies, it will take a good bit of time to catch on, but take your time and be patient, and expect the resistance and gently give guidance instead of expecting a fight.DominoPhreak, I appreciate your cool head. :cool:
I'm trying to analyze why the above statement makes me uncomfortable. Would you give the same directions to someone who is using medication? You have made me question why I am reluctant to even tell people I take medication. Where I work, I could be fired for recommending treatment to a parent.

Diz -

Do you think the fact that reynoldsjax daughter's "case study" isn't considered a "valid scientific study" matters to her? Do you think that she cares that there is no irrefutable proof that Neurofeedback caused the "significant improvement" (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=585721&postcount=86) in her daughter?

If you want to just sit around and discuss the studies, or the pros/cons, or the price, or just say it isn't proven or effective, fine. It's your time, and you can spend it however you want to.

If you or anyone else wants to wait around for years while the political battles wage on until some big government body is reluctantly forced to put their "stamp of approval" on NFB, go right ahead. But, in the time you all wait around, my kids will have probably spent years without the nuisence of excess Theta and low Beta waves, and with any luck be leading much more normal and productive lives.


I am not quite sure how to respond to this. I will try my best. Perhaps I did not communicate well before, my writing is not always as clear as I would like

I think I can understand your frustration, I often feel it myself. The issue of the effectiveness of a given therapy often goes on for years with resolution still somewhere in the future. In the meantime, a possible successful therapy may not be readily available except to those with sufficient resources to pay for it. That is the nature of the system. It may be considered harsh reality but it is the reality we have to live with.

There are a number of "case studies", people reporting success from neurofeedback. That is what got the current research going. No one is disputing that there are some good reports of successful cases, there are indeed quite a few.

If it can be shown that it results in positive results for a significant number of those using NFB in careful studies then the insurance companies can likely be convinced to pay for it and we would be able to suggest this to parents as something we know to work. Also, if validated, you would see practitioners jumping at the chance to offer it.

You are very enthusiastic in your support for neurofeedback. That is very good. Again however, please, do not confuse those who are cautious as enemies, we are not. Those doing the studies for the most part really want the research to support neurofeedback. Hopefully NFB will work for almost all but this *must* be tested before the therapy can be seen as accepted. Like it or not, the job must be done right.

My personal opinion is that I hope it will be successful in the studies. While I have seen these type of things come and go, this one I have some real hopes for. I cannot, however, ethically recommend that parents go out and spend thousands of dollars they may not be able to afford on something that has not been scientifically shown to be effective. For many, spending the money for NFB would mean that the other children in the family do without.

Ethically, the most I can do now is to say there have been some good reports of success and suggest that if one has the money, it might be worthwhile to look into. It may help and I cannot see where it could hurt.

For the family doctor, psychiatrist, therapist, psychologist to ethically say "This works, try it" there must be more than good reports, they need good scientific studies.

Three things I feel the need to address:

First on the overall message. This is where I am getting confused. Perhaps you can help me understand. There is nothing stopping anyone from using neurofeedback. It is freely offered in the marketplace and the only holdback is the cost. No one has banned it, no one says don't use it. The only thing I see is people
suggesting caution. It might help me if you present your goals. Do you want NFB to be exempt from scientific scrutiny? Please clarify.

Second:
"Do you think the fact that reynoldsjax daughter's "case study" isn't considered a "valid scientific study" matters to her? Do you think that she cares that there is no irrefutable proof that Neurofeedback caused the "significant improvement" in her daughter?"

Science does not do "proof", much less irrefutable. All science can do is support or disprove. What we are after here is to show measurable improvements for a statistically significant number of people in a carefully controlled study.

"If you want to just sit around and discuss the studies, or the pros/cons, or the price, or just say it isn't proven or effective, fine. It's your time, and you can spend it however you want to. "

DominoPhreak, again I am not your enemy. I admire your enthusiasm. It is people like you who push society into considering things the turn out to be valuable. Without advocates like yourself they might be passed by and never become what they can be. However, attacking those who are generally on your side but not totally is not helpful to your cause. Be persistent, convincing, and patient with those who do not understand as you understand.


Yours,
Dizfriz

Hold on there, reynoldsjax - I know where you're coming from, and I can tell you that you don't have to be defensive around here. I felt the same way about a year ago feeling like I was about to get jumped on by posting about my personal experiences with Neurofeedback and knowing there were a lot of folks who thought that meds were the only answer.

I think what "The Apple" was saying was that they didn't quite understand about what has been discovered about the brain, and they might mis-interpreted something you said.

----------------------------------

All I can say to you, reynoldsjax, is to tell your story, loud and clear. Post a history about your experience with it, and how it helped your daughter. Answer questions that people might have, and be a witness that is does work. Talk about it with your friends, people at Church / work / random folks on the street, people you know who's children might be able to benefit from it, etc. It's a slow and simple process, and like most new disruptive technologies, it will take a good bit of time to catch on, but take your time and be patient, and expect the resistance and gently give guidance instead of expecting a fight.

Please share with us your experience in greater detail.

Thanks DominoPhreak. I'm sorry, I know I sounded defensive. My only motivation here was to post our positive and successful experience with biofeedback, so that others wouldn't be afraid to try it. I guess I never expected to be confronted with negative and "****y" opposition, especially since I'm here posting about our PERSONAL experience only. I want to let people know that it really does help. My daughter now knows what it feels like to focus and concentrate, in biofeedback they call it "in the zone". Before biofeedback, she wasn't even aware that she wasn't paying attention and focusing - she thought she was. My daughter attended roughly 50 sessions of biofeedback from November through May at Biofeedback Associates of Northeast Florida. I understand that I'm lucky that there is a biofeedback clinic near me, but there are also home machines, one of which being PlayAttention. None of this is cheap, but I consider it an investment in my daughter's future.

As for my rant about medication....I guess I'm touchy because I was really pressured by the teachers and school administration last year regarding meds and I'm really tired of it. Her teachers made comments throughout the school year that biofeedback was a waste of my time and money. They wanted her on medication because they wanted immediate results.

For anyone that's interested, there is a segment of Dr. Phil called "Parenting with Pills" and it highlights biofeedback as well as other non-medication therapies that you can try with your ADHD child. The link is http://drphil.com/shows/show/371/

reynoldsjax, what do you hope to gain by coming to ADDForums?

reynoldsjax, what do you hope to gain by coming to ADDForums?

Isn't this a thread regarding neurofeedback? Wasn't the first post in this thread by someone who wanted to know more about it? I have personal experience with it, which is why I have posted here.

fyi,

Neurofeedback is currently not been shown to be a valid treatment for ADHD.

However, it is a very promising research tool.

It also doesn't mean that individual experiences are invalid; as I have a friend and colleague who's son reportedly benefitted.

My reference source is Chapter 9 of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis & Treatment ( Third Edition) , Guilford Press, (2006).


That also doesn't mean that it won't possibly change at some point in the future.

However, for the present, it is not.

There is a prolific amount of research on this and it will be interesting to see where it goes.


It's an excellent area of discussion though.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

As for my rant about medication....I guess I'm touchy because I was really pressured by the teachers and school administration last year regarding meds and I'm really tired of it. Her teachers made comments throughout the school year that biofeedback was a waste of my time and money. They wanted her on medication because they wanted immediate results.


I hope this quotes correctly.

What the teachers did was highly unethical and in many states illegal. In Texas, the schools, by law, cannot suggest a diagnosis nor suggest medication. They can only suggest an evaluation. You have the right to be angry about this. Check on the laws in your state

Do consider though that when you make statements on medication being a "band aid" and making kids "zombies" then you are insulting many caring people who after much internal struggle finally decide to give their child or themselves medication for ADHD. I do not feel that you meant this but be aware that you may well get reactions from parents and individuals who have gone though this struggle. I went through it with my child and at that time I probably would (and sometimes did) react in a somewhat forceful manner.

Working with adhd children is a struggle and each has to decide on the best for their children and themselves. There really no "right answer" only a number of individual ones one hopes are good enough.

Keep working with the feedback. My rule is that if it works, keep on doing it.

Dizfriz

Ps. DominoPhreak (http://www.addforums.com/forums/member.php?u=16774) Please note mctavish23's post above. we are both saying the same thing. He just does it a tad more succinctly than I. Do not take it as a criticism of neurofeedback as it is not. It is simply the current state of the research.
Diz

I hope this quotes correctly.

What the teachers did was highly unethical and in many states illegal. In Texas, the schools, by law, cannot suggest a diagnosis nor suggest medication. They can only suggest an evaluation. You have the right to be angry about this. Check on the laws in your state

Do consider though that when you make statements on medication being a "band aid" and making kids "zombies" then you are insulting many caring people who after much internal struggle finally decide to give their child or themselves medication for ADHD. I do not feel that you meant this but be aware that you may well get reactions from parents and individuals who have gone though this struggle. I went through it with my child and at that time I probably would (and sometimes did) react in a somewhat forceful manner.

Working with adhd children is a struggle and each has to decide on the best for their children and themselves. There really no "right answer" only a number of individual ones one hopes are good enough.

Keep working with the feedback. My rule is that if it works, keep on doing it.

Dizfriz

Ps. DominoPhreak (http://www.addforums.com/forums/member.php?u=16774) Please note mctavish23's post above. we are both saying the same thing. He just does it a tad more succinctly than I. Do not take it as a criticism of neurofeedback as it is not. It is simply the current state of the research.
Diz


Thanks for the kind post. I was not meaning to be critical of others...call it diarrhea of the mouth.

Isn't this a thread regarding neurofeedback? Wasn't the first post in this thread by someone who wanted to know more about it? I have personal experience with it, which is why I have posted here.People come to ADDForums for different reasons. Some people come here for advice, education, the chance to vent in a safe place, to validate their experience, to heal, and to socialize with an ADHDer peer group.

ADDForums isn't just for people who have ADHD or a loved one with ADHD. There are people who come here who share with others what it's like living with Bipolar Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, Depression, Learning Disabilities, and anything life has thrown at them.

Sometimes people come to ADDForums because they have an agenda and wish to reach as many people as possible on websites with heavy traffic. They aren't interested in learning anything or connecting with other ADHDers; they just want a place to preach the gospel according to Wynnie the Poo and will go to great lengths to make converts.

I used to think that people who approach ADHD therapy with religious fervor were just passionate, misguided souls with good intentions, but then I learned that some therapy programs offer lucarative referral bonuses to motivate customers to recruit new business. I've been using Ritalin for more than twelve years and Ciba-Geigy has never once contacted me, offered me a discount or a finder's fee to encourage other people to buy their product.

Reynoldsjax, your user statistics show that you have made ten posts on ADDForums. This was your first post in an Omega3 discussion thread (bold highlighting is yours):

When my 10-years old daughter was diagnosed with ADD, i researched all alternatives to medications, which I knew I would NEVER giver her. She has been doing biofeedback twice a week for the past 5 months and is now taking Omega-3 EFA twice a day. She has made a significant improvement. I would suggest this combination for all children with ADD so that parents would not have to drug their children.

Since your first post, you have posted nine more posts all about neurofeedback - some of them very hostile to members who use other treatments. Am I correct in thinking that your daughter's diagnosis is very new for you?

Reynoldsjax, what do you hope to gain by coming to ADDForums?

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit of a zealot.

This is just something that I personally am very compassionate about, because it has blessed my life personally. This is something that I wish I would have known about a long time ago, and so I'm doing what I can to spread the word to others who this may help.

I feel that there are a lot of messages out there about the treatment of problems with brain function that exhibit attention inconsistency, memory issues, excessive reliance on the immediate environment, emotional outbursts, etc, and most of them deal with using a host of prescription stimulants that carry "Black Box" warnings (aka - have been linked to death and other serious health conditions).

If you look around at the sheer volume of discussion on these forums and other places, you see that an overwhemling amout of traffic is devoted to the selection, dosage, side-effects, success, failure, and other aspects of stimulant medications. There is a small dark corner of "alternative treatments", but very few of these are known to, accepted by, or condoned by the average "Family Doctor". You can count the number of treads here about Neurofeedback on one page.

It rips my heart out to see my Daughter and Son going through many of the same painful experiences that I remember going through as a child. I also remember the painful "crashes" that I went through when trying various meds in my teenage/college years. I am just rejoicing that there is an option we have to help them early on to not remove this burden from them all together, but give them a better chance of not missing as many milestones or opportunities because of the way our culture and society percieves those who don't "play by their rules".

I'm just greatful that we have an alternative to the "kool-aide" that is being served everywhere now. I don't care if I have to train until the device falls apart and I have to scour the internet for a suitable replacement, I will do everything I can to at least reduce the neurological "noise" they have to deal with on a daily basis and give them a chance to be able to persue their own lives without having to drag this heavy burden whereever they go.

I know the research isn't "perfect" yet, but it's showing that people are actually able to improve on standard tests such as the TOVA, and can actually change the EEG patterns of the brain AFTER neurotherapy has finished, (unlike drugs that only have an effect while they are in your system). People can poke holes at the way the research was done, or how it doesn't meet their standards, or how it's not 100% perfect, but what else can explain how people are improving on these tests that aren't supposed to vary from test-to-test.

It goes against everything that people are taught about brain function and AD(H)D treatment, and is either challenging to people's paradigms of the way things are supposed to work, or the blessing they have been praying for for so long.

It is very interesting to read about, think about, discuss, and intellectualize, but all that misses the point. It is making big changes today, and you can either poo-poo the research, or you can try it.

Read some of the research articles first hand, become educated about it, make your own informed decision, and give it a try if you have the resources and are so inclined.

It may not work for everyone, but wouldn't you like to be one of those people in the "unofficial" studies where it makes a big change long-term without being dependent on meds?

--------------------------------------------

Imanapl - just a few studies and research you might want to look into...

Article: Follow-up of children treated for LD w/ Neurofeedback after 2 years (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47351)

Article: Neurofeedback with anxiery and affective disorders (Depression, OCD, PTSD) (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47366)

Article: Chinese study on efficacy of Neurotherapy for treating children w/ AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47349)

Article: Study of Neurofeedback vs Ritalin in treatment of AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47348)

Article: Study on efficacy of Neurofeedback for treatment of AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47345)

http://www.eeginfo.com/research/adhd_main.html (http://www.eeginfo.com/research/adhd_main.html)


http://www.isnr.org/CBCog.cfm (http://www.isnr.org/CBCog.cfm)

--------------------------------------------

(P.S. - I'll be monitoring the thread if anyone has any real questions about Neurofeedback, but until them I'm going to lay low for a while because I think I'm talking around in circles a bit too much. If you are curious about any point of interest, then I'll do what I can to help; if you just want to say that so-and-so said it doesn't work or isn't proven, you can have a blast and I won't say a word.)

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit of a zealot.

This is just something that I personally am very compassionate about, because it has blessed my life personally. This is something that I wish I would have known about a long time ago, and so I'm doing what I can to spread the word to others who this may help.That's great. What symptoms of ADHD has neurofeedback helped you with?

If you look around at the sheer volume of discussion on these forums and other places, you see that an overwhemling amout of traffic is devoted to the selection, dosage, side-effects, success, failure, and other aspects of stimulant medicationsI, too, am curious about people who come here solely to discuss medication.



There is a small dark corner of "alternative treatments", but very few of these are known to, accepted by, or condoned by the average "Family Doctor". You can count the number of treads here about Neurofeedback on one page.Why is that? Neurofeedback is not new and it's even accessible in Canada - some alternate therapies are not.

It rips my heart out to see my Daughter and Son going through many of the same painful experiences that I remember going through as a child. I also remember the painful "crashes" that I went through when trying various meds in my teenage/college years.Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also dealing with another disorder besides ADHD, one that doesn't respond as well to medication?

I'm just greatful that we have an alternative to the "kool-aide" that is being served everywhere now.Rather a dramatic reference - shades of Jonestown?

I will check out the links, thanks.

[quote=DominoPhreak;616989]

Article: Follow-up of children treated for LD w/ Neurofeedback after 2 years (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47351) (This is only an abstract. No mention of ADHD.)

Article: Neurofeedback with anxiery and affective disorders (Depression, OCD, PTSD) (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47366) (No mention of ADHD)

Article: Chinese study on efficacy of Neurotherapy for treating children w/ AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47349) (only an abstract - does mention ADHD - do you have access to the journal?)

Article: Study of Neurofeedback vs Ritalin in treatment of AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47348) (an actual study, although very small test group - looks promising)

Article: Study on efficacy of Neurofeedback for treatment of AD(H)D (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47345) (very interesting)

"Review of the scientific literature revealed both controlled case and group studies on
the effects of EEG biofeedback in treating the core symptoms of ADHD. These studies
examined the efficacy of well-defined treatment protocols in the treatment of patients diagnosed
with hyperkinesis, as well as, those diagnosed with each of the primary subtypes of
ADHD (Inattentive, Hyperactive-Impulsive, or Combined). The results of these studies indicated
improvement on standardized tests of intelligence, attention, and behavioral control
following EEG biofeedback. Increased level of cortical arousal was also reported during
QEEG examination of patients treated with EEG biofeedback. Comparisons with a bona
fide treatment for ADHD (stimulant medication) indicated that EEG biofeedback yielded
equivalent or superior results. The results of randomized, controlled group studies using
a waiting list control also indicated the superiority of EEG biofeedback. Such findings
suggest the efficacy of EEG biofeedback in the treatment for ADHD.

However, because of the small sample size in the two, randomized group studies
reported, and the absence of control for patient and therapist characteristics that could
influence outcome in any of the five, controlled-group studies, our determination (based
on AAPB/ISNR Guidelines) is that EEG biofeedback is probably efficacious for the treatment
of ADHD. Although it is clear from the outcomes of each of the published case
and controlled studies of EEG biofeedback for ADHD, that significant, beneficial effects
have consistently been reported in patients/families who volunteered to receive this type
of treatment, additional controlled, group studies (with random assignment to treatment
condition) are needed in order to promote a clearer understanding of the number of patients
and degree of improvement that can be anticipated in clinical practice."


http://www.eeginfo.com/research/adhd_main.html (http://www.eeginfo.com/research/adhd_main.html) (more of the same)


http://www.isnr.org/CBCog.cfm (more of the same)
(http://www.isnr.org/CBCog.cfm)