Many thanks for posting that MrsD.

The first link provides some of the information that I've been trying to figure out how to get across. Apparently biofeedback has not cured my cog-fog; although it does seem to help somewhat.

Prof. Nelson is indeed quite a controversial character in the world of biofeedback but we must also remember that it is often found that we tend to assign the activities of an individual to a whole group. We only need to look to the example where some perceive all Catholic priests as being potential sexual abusers, or where all Islamists are perceived as terrorists. In truth the majorities do not support or participate in the abhorrent activities of the few. I feel that is the case in the instance of Prof. Nelson, his claims, as well as his eccentricities. He impressed me as being a very intelligent individual when I met him at a conference a few years ago, but oddities with respect to his behaviour, demeanor and opinions did not go unnoticed.

One of the things that hasn't been mentioned with respect to biofeedback is that during the testing process in these devices, ALL of the items contained within the system are tested for patient resonance; and all of them come up in the matrix display within separate categories that are listed according to acute (strongly positive resonance) all the way to chronic very weak resonance). Thus it is entirely possible for a male patient who has a temporarily high estrogen level, which may have been due to ingestion of it in foods, might show an acute or high resonance to a typically female hormone condition such as pregnancy. Taking that sort of data at face value can obviously lead to misinterpretation, or in the case of the article in the link, dismissal of the whole system as hokum.

The more serious implications of a practitioner not interpreting the data base arrangement of matrix items correctly or in context is that a potentially serious condition might be overlooked or dismissed as not important because it appears in the chronic or weak resonance category. This can often be the case, as occurs in instances when people have adapted to conditions like diabetes, MS or even cancer. At the time of testing, these sorts of things might just not be in a highly reactive state.
The potential for an opposite misinterpretation is also possible, when for example an individual's data base matrix might temporarily test highly resonant. For example, diabetes might show up as highly reactive because the individual being tested consumed a food high in sugar just before testing (happens a lot).

Given these points, it is prudent for practitioners to look for repeating patterns of data within the different analytical programs of the data base and preferably to do so over more than one test if it is suspected that a data item or health condition is worth further investigation or focus.
This is where integration with other medical professionals is essential; for such suspected conditions need to be investigated and treated through more reliable means; even if the patient chooses to continue with biofeedback therapy.

Oh sure, there are a lot of measures taken by biofeedback practitioners to avoid responsibility with respect to missed or incorrect assessments as well as liability issues that may arise through the use of this type of therapy, but my concern has always been that patients themselves understand that it is their responsibility to remain in the care of their PCP and other health care practitioners; as well as to inform them of any health concerns whether those come from interpretation of biofeedback data or otherwise.

In summary I do believe that the use of electromagnetic biofeedback is a viable form of assessment and therapy when used intelligently as a part of overall health enhancement techniques. Like many other health care tools and therapies, it is but one in a whole host of potentially beneficial ones, and by no means should it be relied upon as the be-all or end-all.

With love, Erika