Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential/Archive 2

Too much criticism
In my opinion, there is too much criticism in this article. Is it really necessary to put nearly a paragraph from QUACKWATCH? I mean, seriously, is'nt it a little excessive to be putting a paragraph of criticism from a website? Just because it was written by an M.D. does not make it a very good source. Also, the other criticism is from indivuals (besides the AAP stuff). So can't we just shorten all of that unnecessary criticism into something like, "Many people from the medical community are skeptical of the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential's techniques and theories," and then add a few footnotes to those people's opinions?

I'm not gonna change anything, but if we can agree to this I think we should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman736 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 October 2006.


 * Please have a read of Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy on the Neutral point of view. There is also a FAQ. The NPOV does not, for example, require a 50:50 split between both sides of an argument. In this case, the overwhelming opinion of experts is negative (not just "skeptical" – the language is much stronger than that). We have a mainstream/minority division here and I think the current 2:1 ratio of words in Criticism/Support sections is pretty generous to the minority view.


 * The "individuals" are not just unqualified nobodies. They are doctors and educational consultants who are experts in autism and child development. Their books appear to be well reviewed and reputably published. The Quackwatch article was written by not just any MD but the Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine. The article cites its references and is written by an expert so I would say it is a good source. The views expressed in that paragraph nicely sum up mainstream opinion – so I don't think we are just quoting just one persons view, but a view shared by many.


 * Wikipedia will disappoint those who strongly believe that their view is not being heard far and wide. That their view may the be correct one is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This article gives a relatively obscure (from a global perspective) institution quite a lot of coverage, plus an external link from Wikipedia (which can't do the Google ratings any harm). I don't claim the article is perfect by any means. If you still think it is in need of some attention, then I suggest we find another neutral/expert editor (or editors) to have a look. See Resolving disputes for the options available. Colin°Talk 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Should Remove Quackery
I agree that the Quackwatch mention should be removed In my opinon the Quackwatch article is written by a Neurologist with an axe to grind. Many in the medical establishment are hostile to any new ideas that run contrary to their training. Naturally, most neurologists are going to dismiss the ideas of The Institutes. Not giving kids anti seizure drugs flies in the face of Neurologists pharmacologically-based practices.muncher 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you are (by your own admissions) impartial editors so I caution you against removing stuff you don't like without seeking wider consensus (see Resolving disputes for options). You really have to give a reason why this particular neurologist has an "axe to grind" rather than (as I believe) just expressing an expert opinion that is shared by virtually all other neurologists. Almost everyone in the developed world would regard a neurologist as the best person to listen to on the treatment of "brain injured" children. To say, effectively, "all neurologists are biased so don't listen to them", is a generalisation worthy only of conspiracy theorists. Neurologists are also human beings who are not all robots invented by big pharma. There are other non-drug treatments that have widespread acceptance: the ketogenic diet and the vagus nerve stimulator are two significant examples. Not all neurologists are opposed to alternative/complimentary therapies. For example, consultant neurologist Dr Tim Betts (former editor of the journal Seizure), has studied aromatherapy as a treatment for epilepsy, with some success. Colin°Talk 19:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

COLIN: We did not remove anything and are seeking wider consensus. IN ANY CASE Colin I suggest we reword the Quackery mention to make it clear that Dr Steven Novella is criticizing just one part of the IAHP program--specifically patterning. The way it reads now its unclear exactly what Dr Novella disagrees with...and seems to damn all of the programs offered at IAHP. I read Dr Novella's article and he very specifically criticises the patterning program. In other articles he goes after UFOs, Big Foot and all manner of things.... Also, Collin, Im curious about your mention of a 'good source'. Are you suggesting that if someone finds an Ivy-League educated Neurologist who disagrees with articles on Epilepsy or Anticonvulsant, (articles to which you are a frequent contributor)..and purports to have reviewed the literature... you'll deem them to be a 'good source' and will publish his/her views on that page?

muncher 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with just posting a "request for comment" on this talk page is that it relies on someone having it in their watch-list or else stumbling upon it. That is why I mentioned the other ways to resolve disagreements – there are other places on Wikipedia where editors can ask for a third opinion, several opinions, expert opinions, peer review, etc. Going there doesn't indicate that we have fallen out (though that is often a reason for going there), just that we both have our differing views and would appreciate extra help in establishing a consensus or guidance on how best to edit the article. Would you like me to do this?

I appreciate your comments on establishing the specifics of Dr Novella's criticism. I'll have another read later and see if it could be focused better. It would be good if you could find a reliable source for an independent expert that recommends IAHP. I had another look but only found people on the fringes of medicine. Being recommended by a someone who may themselves be regarded as a quack isn't perhaps what you want.

Have a look at Neutral point of view to answer your question on the hypothetical neurologist. If his views placed him in a tiny minority, then they might not warrant mention no matter how well educated or highly positioned the person was. Perhaps if those views stirred up a lot of press coverage and so the controversy itself was notable. Colin°Talk 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion of alternate ways to resolve content disagreements. Maybe we'll move to that in the near future--for some things. For now it seems reasonable to appeal to the folks who have this page on their watchlist---they are the ones who are most interestedmuncher 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable supporters of The Institutes
I took your suggestion to look for an expert who supports IAHP. My first search turned up the following list and I supplied links to the information sources. However, some of these people became associated with the IAHP later in their careers...not sure is that nulifies their independent status. All the people mentioned except Raymond Dart and Linus Pauling worked with the Institutes to some degree. Adele Davis worked with IAHP at arms length as far as I can assertain.

1.Dr. Ralph Peligra (Chief Medical Officer NASA Ames Research Center) was a Board Member of IAHP

2.Dr. Linus Pauling – In his paper “Orthomolecular Enhancement of Human Development  Linus Pauling” voices support for IAHP. Link below: a.	http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Linus+Pauling+The+Institutes+for+the+Achievement+of+Human+Potential&btnG=Google+Search

3. Adelle Davis, initiated the first nutritional programs at IAHP. SHE IS described in an ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. According to her article: a.“Daisie Adelle Davis (1904-1974), popularly known as Adelle Davis, was an American pioneer in the fledgling field of nutrition during the mid-20th century. She was an outspoken advocate of the superior value of whole unprocessed foods” b. the site www..iahp.org discusses Adelle’s contribution to their program

4]Dr. Raymond Dart, Well known Anthropologist. As described in the book Dart: Scientist and Man of Grit  by  Frances Wheelhouse and Kathaleen S. Smithford,  he was a great supporter of IAHP programs. a.Link: http://www.mouritz.co.uk/8.33.22.Wheelhouse.Dart.html

5.Dr. Edward B. LeWinn, former chief of medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Philadelphia and later Medical Director of Clinical Research at the Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential

6.Mihai D. Dimancescu, M.D. Former Chairman of the Board, Coma Recovery Association, Inc.is a consulting physician with IAHP

7.Dr. Harvey Neil Perlish, PhD in Early Childhood education and pediatric neurophysiology from the University of Penn,, a broadcaster who combined the fields of radio and television announcing with early childhood education; Nov. 14. He began his career in broadcasting at age six, when he appeared on a local children’s radio program. Beginning in the 1940s, using the name “Neil Harvey,” he worked as an announcer and on-camera pitchman for Philadelphia’s radio and television station WFIL. Along with doing station identifications and commercials, he hosted his own television news show and created educational programming for WFIL-TV (now WPVI-TV) until the 1960s. “He believed that the medium of television could do much good,” said Lew Klein, former program director for the station. His children’s reading program, Wordland Workshop, was a precursor to Sesame Street. During the late 1950s, Dr. Perlish became associated with the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Wyndmoor, leading to his He served on the board of the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. And he was president of the World Organization for Human Potential. He had served in the U.S. Air Force and was a broadcaster for the American armed services during the Second World War.


 * Thanks for the above info. I started reading Linus Pauling's paper, got distracted by other things... I'll try to integrate some of this over the next week or so, when I get some time. Colin°Talk 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggest We mention Lack of Medication Approval
A key part of IAHP's physiology program is to remove kids slowly from anti-seizure medications. I think its worth mentioning that MANY anti-seizure DRUGS have never been APPROVED FOR CHILD USE by the (FDA) Food and Drug Administration in the United States.muncher 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Anticonvulsant. Such a claim needs to be supported by a reliable source and be up-to-date. Whether it is pertinent to this article (or just mudslinging) is also an issue.Colin°Talk 18:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin The information you give on the Anticonvulsant disussion page is very good ---and worth knowing. It gives provides an indication that approval for infant and child usage is not cut and dried. I believe readers would be served by some mention in this regard. Thanks muncher 23:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding controls for research
The following text was added 2 April 2007.


 * In the past IAHP has approached many universities to create research projects with controls. However, none have agreed to provide controls. Glen Doman stated in a class for parents that IAHP cannot provide the controls because parents come to them specifically to learn their methods. He asked the parents which of them would volunteer to give up the next few years of working with their child? One would ask how IAHP would ever be able to prove anything if no one will cooperate with their research? One would also ask what the true reason their work has not been peer reviewed; is it because they do not want it peer reviewed, or because no one is willing to do so?
 * What IAHP does have is a unique and detailed measuring instrument for identifying neurological functioning and levels through observation. This tool is called the "Developmental Profile." Using this tool, they do careful data collection at each child's evaulation visit. Data is collated yearly and published in their own publication "The In Report." A portion of this profile can be found here: www.iahp.org/The_Institutes_Development.209.0.html
 * What IAHP does have is a unique and detailed measuring instrument for identifying neurological functioning and levels through observation. This tool is called the "Developmental Profile." Using this tool, they do careful data collection at each child's evaulation visit. Data is collated yearly and published in their own publication "The In Report." A portion of this profile can be found here: www.iahp.org/The_Institutes_Development.209.0.html

I've removed it but added a little text about the "Development Profile" earlier in the article. The explanation for why IAHP don't do research needs to be sourced to text that a reader can examine. A page on the IAHP site or a text from a book, for example. A comment made "in a class" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability.

The excuses seem rather weak IMO. It is quite possible to create a randomized controlled trial for such a treatment. Participants could be allocated 50% randomly into treatment/no-treatment groups for 12 months. This is not uncommon in medical studies and is quite ethical where there are alternative standard treatments to compare with the research treatment. Colin°Talk 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who received treatment in this organization previously? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallam (talk • contribs).
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing this organisation. Discussion on this talk page should be reserved for making improvements to the article. Colin°Talk 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)