• Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 25 subscribers
  • Views 5370 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Neurofeedback and autism

IntenseWorld

Just wondered why the NHS is advising against Neurofeedback when there are research articles saying it is very beneficial to autistic people?

http://publications.nice.org.uk/autism-cg170?utm_source=Linx+295+-+12+September&utm_campaign=linx295&utm_medium=email

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/72/94/PDF/Kouijzer_et_al_2008_Auth.pdf (for instance).

I would have thought if it was a question of cost it wouldn't mention it at all as not many people have heard of neurofeedback and to my knowledge it's not even available on the NHS.  It appears to be listed along with potentially harmful therapies such as chelation.  Just wondered why.

Parents

  • IntenseWorld said:

    The scientific research is out there on neurofeedback already, as you will see if you do a search.  Therefore you are mistaken if you label it quackery without reading further.

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it can be edited by all and sundry and is prone to bias.

    I was asking only about neurofeedback not chelation or vaccination, as I think my post clearly illustrates.

    And neither is the Internet per se a reliable source either!  Just because there are so called research papers out there means very little!  A lot may be self published.  A lot may have involved so little test subjects (under 10, for instance) as to be unreliable.  And the more scientific ones will often say that more research is needed.  

    It takes years of scientific research and licensed ethical clinical trials, published evidence based peer-reviewed research in industry standard medical journals, agreement amongst leading medically qualified experts, etc, before any new treatment can be given the green light.  

    (By the way, you have previously posted inaccurate information on childhood vaccines, which I countered previously.  For instance, you posted links about Thiomersal from the CDC website, despite the fact that Thiomersal is NOT in any routine childhood vaccinations in the UK and has NEVER been included in the MMR vaccination!  So my posting about vaccination is relevant, in my opinion.)

Reply

  • IntenseWorld said:

    The scientific research is out there on neurofeedback already, as you will see if you do a search.  Therefore you are mistaken if you label it quackery without reading further.

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it can be edited by all and sundry and is prone to bias.

    I was asking only about neurofeedback not chelation or vaccination, as I think my post clearly illustrates.

    And neither is the Internet per se a reliable source either!  Just because there are so called research papers out there means very little!  A lot may be self published.  A lot may have involved so little test subjects (under 10, for instance) as to be unreliable.  And the more scientific ones will often say that more research is needed.  

    It takes years of scientific research and licensed ethical clinical trials, published evidence based peer-reviewed research in industry standard medical journals, agreement amongst leading medically qualified experts, etc, before any new treatment can be given the green light.  

    (By the way, you have previously posted inaccurate information on childhood vaccines, which I countered previously.  For instance, you posted links about Thiomersal from the CDC website, despite the fact that Thiomersal is NOT in any routine childhood vaccinations in the UK and has NEVER been included in the MMR vaccination!  So my posting about vaccination is relevant, in my opinion.)

Children
No Data