Talk:Brain Balance

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/about/the-ten-principles-of-brain-balance/, http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/blog/management_team/134963-2/ and http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/our-program/integrated-approach/sensory-motor/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hyping ongoing study
Per WP:MEDMOS, Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. which is exactly what the following sentence does:


 * Martin Teicher, who heads Harvard-affiliated McLean's Developmental Biopsychiatry Research Program is leading a research study of a medication-free approach based on Brain Balance to treat ADHD

Furthermore the study has not even completed so no conclusions about the study can be made. The above passage attempts to confer a degree of respectability to the method for which no persuasive evidence has yet been provided that it works. Per WP:MEDRS, what matters are the conclusions of studies that have been reviewed by independent third parties. Hence I propose to remove the above sentence. Boghog (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, Boghog, especially since the sourcing for that planned study is Teicher's blog. It should be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Happy to edit the sentence. Given that another user referenced an ongoing study, at the very least information about that study should be cited. Readers should have the ability to access information about anything mentioned in the article. On that end, the studies mentioned that have been criticized should be cited as well. Additionally, the discussion about the NPR article and its criticisms of the science behind Brain Balance pertains directly to both past studies and ongoing studies because it is a fundamental discussion of the scientific validity of the program. All scientific research relevant to the company is thus relevant to the discussion. In fact, even the NPR article references the study Teicher is conducting. I propose more information is added about all the studies being referenced, including past studies and a discussion of their conclusions and criticisms and ongoing studies. Sofiariv10 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Cited means reliably sourced. The primary sources  have already been cited.  The issue is how to interpret those sources. It is OK to state that a clinical trial has been completed or is ongoing. However unless the results of published clinical trial (primary source) have been reviewed (by a secondary source), no conclusions should be made about the efficacy or safety of the treatment. The NPR report interviewed experts who have stated that the completed clinical trials did not include appropriate controls and hence there is no way to tell if the treatment worked.  Furthermore, no independent experts have published an evaluation the clinical trial that is in progress, hence there is no way to tell if the study has been appropriately designed. Mentioning the credentials of an investigator of an ongoing unpublished study is pure hype that has no place in Wikipedia. Boghog (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Boghog So you are trying to claim that NPR is more reliable than the review process any study must go through to be published in a scholarly academic journal? The 2010 study referenced in the NPR article was reviewed by the International Journal of Adolescent Medical Health and as with any scholarly journal, a cohort of experts was required to verify the information in order for the results to be published in their journal. Of course, other experts, as with those in the NPR article, may have a different opinion, but I am confused as to why you are so convinced that a select group of experts hand picked by an NPR journalist to fit his story have more merit than experts reviewing articles submitted to a journal focused on Adolescent Medical Health, which is clearly highly relevant here. You clearly have some sort of bias and/or an agenda here... I have already agreed to edit the wording of the sentence I added about the Harvard study, but am unclear as to why you object to directly referencing studies (including those that the NPR article referenced) with enough information for readers to search for those articles themselves. Sofiariv10 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not ever hype primary sources the way you are advocating. There are many reasons why this is not OK to do here.  Please read WP:MEDRS and then please read WP:PSCI (which is policy) and then WP:FRINGE which is a guideline that helps us implement PSCI; please especially pay mind to the WP:PARITY part of FRINGE.  We do not use primary sources in the biomedical literature the way you are advocating.
 * MEDRS actually arose from conflicts in the community around the autism article. Between desperate parents grasping at straws and unethical people who came here shilling snake oil, the community came to very broad and deep agreement that we will almost never use primary sources the way you are advocating. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] Thank you so much for your help! Everything you said makes a lot of sense - I just didn't understand why we could reference studies but not include direct information. The article content as it stands makes more sense than prior versions which seemed to be biased for a variety of reasons. Sofiariv10 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As of today the company is selling snake oil. Until there are strong MEDRS sources that say the company's approach works, we will continue to say they are selling snake oil. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I went through previous edits. I am wondering why this article is now so biased against Brain Balance when there are plenty of sources that address the success thousands of children with learning disabilities have had? I understand that within academic research there is a grey area before more results are published, but I am not sure why the other side of the story is not represented. There are questions about the efficacy of Brain Balance in the scientific and medical community, and the article has acknowledged that. On the other hand, this article does not reflect what Wikipedia prides itself on and that is providing neutral information that adequately reflects all of the facts. One major fact that is being omitted is that there is a significant community that relies and trusts Brain Balance to help their children. The article is not representative of this. How can we make this article better in the sense that it reflects all sides of the argument just as the NPR article does? Additionally, the NPR article is not properly represented as it does acknowledge that the majority of the 18 parents NPR interviewed were happy with the program, which aligned with the reviews and ratings that NPR found. It is reflective of one family's story. There is significant data missing from this article which does not align with Wikipedia's values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okhauger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to support medical claims. A good discussion of the problem of using anecdotes may be found here. In the case of Brain Balance, confirmation bias and a placebo effect may be at work. Boghog (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)