Talk:The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential/Archive 1

I wrote this article myself. Our daughter has been in the treatment program at The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential (IAHP)for 16 months so we know this organization and the program quite well. My wife and I have visited "The insitutes' a half dozen times for a week at a time to attend their lectures and to have our daughter reevaluated and her program updated. Additionally I have read all the books listed herein. I have not posted any images--instead I refer the reader to 'The Institutes' own web site. muncher 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring
You may have started this article, Jollygood or muncher or whoever you are, but that does not entitle you to exercise sovereign control over its contents. The established medical community believes that the IAHP engages in quackery. Your repeated removal of these referenced assertions, in particular the continued expungement from the introduction of the article, violates WP:NPOV and is rapidly turning into a revert war. I request that you attempt to build consensus on this page before any more reverts of my edits.

By the way, I was the one to link to the IAHP website in the bottom section, "External Links", which I added. I believe that this article needs to represent all points of view fairly.

Many editors who come to Wikipedia to write a one-sided article find themselves dismayed when other points of view are added. Sometimes they would prefer that they had not written the article at all, because the consensus-edited article expresses points of view with which they strongly disagree. I recommend the immediate perusal of WP:NPOV for a full treatment of this problem. Ikkyu2 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ikkyu2 that as the IAHP approach is not mainstream and has been criticised as unscientific, the article should clearly state this. The removal of critical material is what makes the article one-sided, and perhaps should have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:3RR.
 * At the same time, I would avoid the term "quackery", which is not completely neutral. Where terms such as "not scientifically proven", "not endorsed/accepted by mainstream medicine" etc will do, the term "quackery" simply polarises the issue. Still, if a critic literally referred to it as such, it can be retained in a direct quote. JFW | T@lk  08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the good faith efforts of User:Jollygood to show other points of view and apologize for my earlier vehemence. I also do not like the term quackery; I like the Wikipedia article that bears that title, but I too would prefer a less loaded term.  Perhaps "not endorsed by mainstream medicine" could be a long link that pointed to the article that is currently called quackery.


 * For what it's worth, I share many of the concerns of the IAHP, especially that mainstream medicine's ability to treat epilepsy and other brain damage is far from perfect. Some of its other claims and assertions I would disagree with. Ikkyu2 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In what can only be described as an excess of irony, I showed this article to my mother, and she pointed out that she recognized Glenn Doman's techniques, because she had used them in an attempt to teach me to read at a very early age. Apparently I was able to read or recite simple texts, such as The Cat in the Hat, before I could walk stably.   ikkyu2  ( talk ) 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A fresh start
OK. I've completely rewritten this article with references and some new material. I have tried to maintain a neutral point of view. I don't claim this is perfect (no Wikipedia article ever is) but frankly I've got to go to bed now. I have been hampered somewhat by the IAHP web site being down with database trouble for most of the day. Otherwise, I'd have tried to read more from their site. I must admit to finding their site very hard to read. The articles are extremely wordy. --Colin 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at this article now, I'm quite impressed at how well it reads. I'm also a bit embarrassed at my earlier vehemence.  This current article is much more pleasing to me; it reads like a lesson of how to apply the principles of NPOV at a very deep level - something that I suspect I'm not very talented at.  I will probably leave that sort of task to others in future.


 * Thanks so much for your efforts. -Ikkyu2 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is quite as perfectly NPOV as Ikkyu2's flattering remarks indicate. I found it really hard work. Looking through some of the Wikipedia guidance, I'm humbled that my attempts at using neutral vocabulary just aren't as good as they could be. However, if you are both satisfied then I'm relieved. --Colin 17:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Good Idea Colin--let's have a Fresh Start with the IAHP article
I read your rewrite Colin and I think you did a nice, even job of explaining the situation. Thanks also for adding many good references that i didn't know about. Thiois gives the reader ample information and yet remains fair and neutral. WELL DONE! I admit that I got defensive when I read Ikkyu2's edit with the many quack references which--to my mind-- nullified any sense of neutrality or balance in the article. I think Colin, Ikkyu2 and myself have arrive at a place where we can live with this article. Thanks! muncher 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC) PS (jollygood and muncher are both me--Im not using a sock puppet Though)muncher 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Plural Institutes?
A pedant writes: Are there actually more than one, or is it exaggeration? Midgley 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are more than one Institutes but they all reside together on the same campus in Philadelphia, with satelite offices in Italy, Brazil and Japan. Each Institute has its own Director, medical staff, and therapists.

The Institute for Intellectual growth develops programs that, as the name implies, help kids to expannd their knowledhge. In a similar fashion their is The Institute for Physical Excellence, and the The Institute for Physiological Excellence. Last but not least is The Evan Thomas Institute which is private school for well kids and hurt kids that have graduated the other programs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jollygood (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 October 2006.

I had the treatments myself.
If anyone is curious, I went through Doman-Delcatto therapy as a child in the 1960's. I believe that overall they did me a great deal of good, although not perhaps in the manner intended. I was a terribly ill co-ordinated boy, I walked poorly & had terrible left-right coordination, movement control & other problems. After the treatment (patterning, creeping, crawling, walking) I improved greatly. I don't know if the treatments affected connections in the brain as D&D claim, but if you take a subject and rigorously train them in the proper way to move and walk, it's very probable that they'll develop good habits. From my viewpoint D-D therapy can't be dismissed as complete quackery. In addition it used no drugs & no expensive apparatus, only simple devices that my father easily fabricated at home. Perhaps I might have grown out of my awkwardness unaided over the course of time, perhaps not. D-D therapy certainly brought things about smoothly, improved my life, and (not uniportantly) made me a bit more socially acceptable.--Saxophobia 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that at the Institute I was briefly introduced to Raymond A. Dart "Probably the most famous man you will ever meet" said Dr. Doman. Dart was a very old, very bent, and very deaf man by that time, and had trouble following what little conversation a child could provide, but it was explained to him that in a few years I would be deciding which college to attend(I was only in elementary school!) Dart fixed his gaze on me, raised a forefinger and intoned "PRINCE - ton!" Saxophobia 00:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Opinion
I'm a young man who has been in contact with the institutes since I was very small. My mother always believed in the institutes' methods. I also grew up for 6 years across the street from the institutes, and have been to lectures there. I also followed a family through the "what to do with your brain injured child" course. In my opinion, the institutes are a jewel hidden in the world by criticism from all directions. How can those critics imply that Glenn Doman had some sort of 'marketing strategy'? The institutes are a non-profit organization! Really! Of course they will be criticized considering the methods used there are against drugs and pharmaceuticals. If any of those drugs actually worked they would use them! The institutes has improved so many childrens' health and they did so in ways not supported by many in the medical community. No wonder the brain injury they cure is often considered to be 'uncureable'! I also believe my mother's very light administration of Doman's techniques on multiplying intelligence helped me develop into a boy who was much more intelligent and capable compared to almost all others around me. The institutes has influenced me so much that I am now the only student at my college to complete a double major in both chemistry and neuroscience (and I do so easily, while others struggle with business classes). Finally, I just want to say that the love and care that is present at the institutes and directed towards the most misfortunate children on God's earth brings tears of happiness to my eyes to this day. I truelly believe that Glenn Doman is a gift from God and those brain injured children who are lucky enough to go to the institutes or atleast have their parents go can attribute their improvements to him, which are sometimes miraculous. Shame on those who criticize the institutes without having visited them and gone through their courses themselves! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman736 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 October 2006.

Medical Professionals Run to the Institutes When THEIR KID needs help
I smile when I read critisism directed toward the Institutes from the established medical community. It’s mostly half-hearted and half-baked criticism. How do I know? Because every time we take our kid to the Institutes I meet another Physician who is there with his or her brain-injured kid! Of course I take the opportunity to inquire how the found the place, Very often they were skeptical of IAHP until they saw how their kid's Pediatric Neurologist drugged up their kid on anti-seizure medication. After very poor results many of these Professionals cannot wait to get their kid to The Institutes. The ones I have met became believers when they started seeing results. Just goes to show that WHEN ITS YOUR KID YOU DAMN WELL DO WHAT WORKS –and to hell with what the medical establishment says. That’s even true for physicians, when it’s their kid that needs help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jollygood (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 October 2006.

MANY NEUROLOGICAL DRUGS NOT APPROVED FOR CHILD USE!
Did you know that many of those powerful and potent anti-seizure medications beloved by Pediatric Neurologist have NEVER been approved for use by children? That right folks! The medical community has a lot to answer for—giving wee kids powerful drugs that have not been approved by the (FDA) Food and Drug Administration in the United States! One would think that such a thing would be illegal, or at the very least, against the Hippocratic Oath which says “above all, do no harm.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jollygood (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 October 2006.