Your question is a challenge and not a question, and I'm not the one to answer it. We've been through this. NFB is not proven safe and effective itself, nor have sufficient studies been done of its effect and efficacy. There's no way that my practitioner's advice can currently meet those standards.
Neither psychodynamic therapeutic theory nor the "chemical imbalance" fudge from the pharma companies meets such standards either.
The "claim" that reducing meds is helpful comes from observation by one careful professional who has found that this gets a better result in patients who can tolerate it. No "anti drug" dogma is involved.
It's difficult for me to be put in the position of defending my practitioner's methods, especially when we've already established that nothing like longitudinal study, double blind tests, or correlation with imaging has been done.
Considering the amount of thought, analysis, worry, and plain fear I go through in this process, I would like to have more choices in the conversation than "mush brained New Age dupe" and "hard-minded, skeptical denier of all things not yet as proven as Newtonian Mechanics."
no subject
Neither psychodynamic therapeutic theory nor the "chemical imbalance" fudge from the pharma companies meets such standards either.
The "claim" that reducing meds is helpful comes from observation by one careful professional who has found that this gets a better result in patients who can tolerate it. No "anti drug" dogma is involved.
It's difficult for me to be put in the position of defending my practitioner's methods, especially when we've already established that nothing like longitudinal study, double blind tests, or correlation with imaging has been done.
Considering the amount of thought, analysis, worry, and plain fear I go through in this process, I would like to have more choices in the conversation than "mush brained New Age dupe" and "hard-minded, skeptical denier of all things not yet as proven as Newtonian Mechanics."