• Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 25 subscribers
  • Views 5133 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

  • longman said:

    Wikipedia is trying to overcome this perception though, but not before time.

    The problem with wikipedia is that it is a popular public domain where people are asked to contribute - a bit like reality TV in a way - and even more reputable websites are now allowing popular voice and independent opinions to be added to their knowledge.

    I spent years telling students not to use it, but gave up on the warning and conceded use it to find a way in, then check their sources and find more reliable evidence, and don't use wikipedia directly in an assignment.

    Quite a few universities were engaged in trying to catch wikipedia out, despite their claims they checked public contributions. I know of at least one spoof scientific entry that lasted four or five years before wikipedia spotted the hoax.

    But they are now trying harder. I'd still be cautious about wikipedia but the wikipedia isn't reliable story is already entering mythology.

    I'd be cautious about practically anything on the Internet!  

    I do wonder whether people research on the Internet, very obscure medical papers that back up their own biased theories, rather than peer-reviewed, evidence based, clinical trail tested, etc, medical research.

Reply

  • longman said:

    Wikipedia is trying to overcome this perception though, but not before time.

    The problem with wikipedia is that it is a popular public domain where people are asked to contribute - a bit like reality TV in a way - and even more reputable websites are now allowing popular voice and independent opinions to be added to their knowledge.

    I spent years telling students not to use it, but gave up on the warning and conceded use it to find a way in, then check their sources and find more reliable evidence, and don't use wikipedia directly in an assignment.

    Quite a few universities were engaged in trying to catch wikipedia out, despite their claims they checked public contributions. I know of at least one spoof scientific entry that lasted four or five years before wikipedia spotted the hoax.

    But they are now trying harder. I'd still be cautious about wikipedia but the wikipedia isn't reliable story is already entering mythology.

    I'd be cautious about practically anything on the Internet!  

    I do wonder whether people research on the Internet, very obscure medical papers that back up their own biased theories, rather than peer-reviewed, evidence based, clinical trail tested, etc, medical research.

Children
No Data