NeurOptimal communication debunked

I get more and more e-mails, where people write in bulk: I would like to do Neurofeedback, but according to your site, NeurOptimal doesn't seem to be the best solution. Do you have the address of a serious practitioner? Honestly, it's nice to read this from strangers: it proves on the one hand, that you are looking for contradictory information, which is great, but on the other hand that the time I spend writing these articles, is not in vain. So, thank you all, that's the best reward.

I also realize that, along these lines, one could believe that I really have a grudge against NeurOptimal and, by extension, against NeurOptimal practitioners. Nothing could be further from the truth: I have a tooth against private companies that distort science and thus manipulate people (practitioners as patients). NeurOptimal is one, but there are others, mainly nowadays, all the "connected bands", which make a bunch of promises, using dry electrodes.

People who believe in pseudoscientific solutions often use standard arguments to discredit the scientific method:

• science can't explain everything;
• not everything can be explained by science;
• it would hurt Big Pharma, so science doesn't care;
• it's quantum.

....and other bullshit, proof that today, the traditional school can not transmit the minimum critical sense required to students.

But let us be honest: indeed, Science cannot explain everything (and cannot explain everything, because of chaos theory). What I often say is that a scientist is capable of saying I don't know, whereas someone who defends pseudoscientific solutions will always seek an explanation for how his technique works, without even verifying that the technique in question has an effect superior to placebo alone. The best known is "the memory of water", which tried to explain the effect of homeopathy.... forgetting that homeopathy has no effect.

This example is super interesting, because supporters of this water memory often cite that the person who published the study on water memory is a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine (HIV discovery). In Science, we do not attach ourselves to the ego or to a person: we attach ourselves to experiences. And no team has ever managed to replicate Montagnier's experience. Verdict? Beware of the argument of authority, a rhetorical figure aimed at putting a person's reputation before scientific evidence. In this case, Montagnier aged badly and clearly forgot his scientific training when he did his study on the memory of water.....

(The "it's quantum" move is also a great distortion of science, but it will probably be the subject of an article, because it's very interesting to understand how studies in particle physics have been disguised to serve as a basis for macroscopic pseudoscientific theories)

Pseudo-science (from the ancient Greek : ψευδἡς : "false, misleading, lying" and from Latin : scientia : "knowledge") is a knowledge or discipline which is presented under scientific appearances or "falsely attributed to science", but which does not have the gait, nor the recognition. It is in opposition to science.

The term "pseudo-science" is often used to denounce deception around certain knowledge, that is, those who present it, knowingly or unknowingly, use terms and approaches that seem scientific or logical in order to claim the credit that science has. They sometimes use scientific language and axioms, but do not respect the criteria of the scientific method, such as the intangible principles of refutability, non-contradiction and reproducibility.

And it's often there, where sometimes I'm misunderstood. When I say "it has no effect", "it is unlikely", it is because there are scientific studies demonstrating this. For some things, I would simply say "it hasn't been studied".

One of the foundations of Science is very silly: in Science, one does not prove any hypothesis, one fails to find a counter-example to the hypothesis. And this is very important: it is the accumulation of studies that will fail to find counterexamples to a hypothesis, which will lead the scientific community to believe that the hypothesis is valid. Studies being made by taking a statistical error of 5% (see nowadays, 1%), there will always be some studies that will be false positives, or false negatives: that pseudoscientific sites will highlight. Finding a counter-example (and replicating it) is enough to say "it's false", but to say "it's true" requires tens, hundreds, even thousands of studies.

Since 1953, DNA has been observed in every lab in the world, using a wide variety of techniques. This multitude of approaches that has allowed DNA observation and the number of researchers who have replicated these experiments, suggest that DNA exists. But in reality, it's just that for over 60 years, we've failed to find an experiment showing that DNA doesn't exist. So, well, we say to ourselves that this DNA exists.....

Anyway, back to NeurOptimal. For example, one of you sent me by e-mail, the link to this "neurofeedback" office in Lyon. I don't know him, I'll just sift through the website.

General presentation

On the home page of the site, we find the classic lie "NeurOptimal is Neurofeedback". I already explained in this article why this was false.

The dynamic neurofeedback method NeurOptimal™ was born in Canada from the experience of Sue Brown, clinical psychologist and neurofeedback technician and Valdeane Brown, her husband, mathematician and physicist.

This sentence is interesting because it plays on the argument of authority (S. Brown psychologist & V. Brown mathematician and physicist). Two scientists, they must have the skills to make clinical discoveries! Remember what I said at the beginning: in Science, we focus on the results of experiments, not on people. S. & V. Brown have so far published no scientific study (whereas NeurOptimal has existed for 17 years!) in a serious international journal that would demonstrate the supposed efficacy of NeurOptimal (Finally, a study that would show the impossibility of refuting the hypothesis that it does not work: one fails to demonstrate in Science, one demonstrates nothing, as said above).

From then on, you will understand that the sequel is wobbly:

During a session, the sensors placed on the head detect a sudden change in brain activity with thresholds being exceeded. The signal is transmitted by optical fibre to the software, which creates a micro-mute of the soundtrack being listened to.

You must blindly trust this statement here: it has never been subjected to a critical scientific analysis. (By the way, optical fiber is a 30€ deal, it just allows a very fast transfer of information, because in neurofeedback, feedback must be given as quickly as possible, to set up the conditioning. But with a copper cable, it would work too. So I think that here, it also plays on the idea that optical fibre costs a lot of money, given France's current events around the deployment of fibre, which costs billions to operators, but no, for neurofeedback, it's a few dozen euros)

Introduction to neurofeedback (well....)

We're plunging into neurofeedback/neuroptimal confusion here. A first paragraph that explains what neurofeedback is, then a second, its application by the NeurOptimal. As I said in my previous articles: to argue that NeurOptimal is Neurofeedback, one would have to compare the two techniques: what has never been done. So this comparison is false and misleading.

On the substance, I redirect you to my previous article, which details precisely the difference between the two approaches.

The page ends at : "Regulation of brain activity will always lead to improved health status." This sentence makes me cry tears of blood. In Science, "always" is a word to be banished. As I told you, we work with statistics, which take a margin of error of a few percent. One treatment will never cure 100% of patients. The human body is complex and there will always (okay, almost always) be cross interactions. And once again, here, they confuse "NeurOptimal" and "regulation of brain activity" : no study proves that NeurOptimal acts on brain regulation !

Sessions and fees

It is important to understand that placebo is a treatment that has a real effect. Minor (sometimes major) symptoms can be treated by placebo. A calm individual will manage pain better on a daily basis, for example. And if he finds his calm in a NeurOptimal session, he may associate the beneficial effect of his psychic calm to the NeurOptimal, which did no-one-knows-what-with-his-algorithm-magic to your brain.

And that's all the positive (in my opinion, honest, by the way) testimonies you see on the web: people unable to dissociate the effects of relaxation (imposed in the NeurOptimal protocol) with the supposed "NeurOptimal" effect.

You are comfortably seated in a relaxation chair, two sensors are placed on your head and three others on your ears. You listen to music quietly with headphones. You enjoy a moment of relaxation, well-being and letting go.

What bothers me a bit, with the NeurOptimal, is this: you will spend 60 € (or more) to relax 45min in a chair and a dark machine will supposedly cure you of everything. 60 €, this is for example what I can charge for a Neurofeedback session (and currently, I take my time, so I stay 1h30 with the person). During this time: we will do exercises, study your brain's response, change parameters, find strategies to make you aware of your learning. Eventually, this can be mixed with biofeedback. In short: I spend a lot of time personalizing each session according to the patient. And once the session is over, I analyze the results, compare each session and plan a plan of attack for the future.

Neurofeedback is a much richer and more exciting discipline, both for the practitioner and the patient, than what NeurOptimal wants you to believe.

But this is the NeurOptimal business model: selling machines at a golden price (the Association Un sourire pour l'Espoir paid its own 3 k€, and some time later, the price quadrupled.... without knowing why), sell trainings at gold price (you just learn to use the software, whereas Neurosens training will for example, bring you solid bases in Neurophysiology), and finally, sell sessions at gold price to the patient, because 60€ for 5min to place electrodes, I call that, a profitable business.....

In the NeurOptimal guide, we find for example, this kind of thing :

• NeurOptimal® is proud to have a multitude of solutions allowing practitioners to generate income.
• Renting NeurOptimal® personal systems to your customers can be very interesting, and allow you to generate passive income. Many of our practitioners have several rental systems in their practice (...). Others only offer rentals. The packages are generally fixed at 675 to 850€ per month, for a maximum of 30 sessions. Imagine the possibilities if you create a park of systems for rent!
• We know that the practitioner took time and effort to get a client to buy NeurOptimal®, so to compensate for the financial impact of that client's loss, we decided to create the Ambassador Program as a thank you. This program allows PASS members to be rewarded for systems that have been placed through their efforts.
• When it comes to marketing, choosing a target group can help to increase revenues significantly. Here are some examples of market segmentations and target groups.

I might as well tell you that when I discovered this NeurOptimal brochure, I felt a little sick. Health is not and should not be a capitalist market. This is why, within the AFBN, we will do our best to ensure that Neurofeedback is recognized and eventually reimbursed, framing prices and allowing those who really need care, to have them without enriching a private company.

After, within the framework of Neurofeedback Lyon, the practitioner is a Psychoanalyst and having discredited psychoanalysis in my doctoral thesis, well, here... I suppose that Psychoanalysis will deserve an article explaining why, the scientific community considers that it is a pseudoscience. Moreover, it is "listed in the world directory", while the link leads to the ADNF, which is a French association. So this is purely personal: but friends practitioners, don't take your patients for idiots, what. (A website is a showcase, I have spent time polishing mine and I remain open to any criticism to correct the content of this site if certain things prove false)

Links and documentation (link)

Very briefly, on this page.

He calls it an "investigative film". "Investigation" is a strong word, where the journalist will go to weigh the pros and cons. Trying to disentangle the truth from a subject. This is clearly an ad page for NeurOptimal. And between the music (of the opera), the editing, see the quality of the video really mediocre for its year of creation... This "film" really makes me uncomfortable. Moreover, I can never repeat it enough: testimony is not evidence.

Then is quoted books, written by so-called "expert" authors (I read some of them, I have to take the time to criticize... there is work). NeurOptimal in France is a well-oiled marketing without any scientific basis, with different gurus who will practice in different ways. This is the problem when there is no Science: it is testimony against testimony, "Experts" against "Experts". One of the NeurOptimal figures in France, whom I know, recently decided to leave Zengar (NeurOptimal's parent company) and start neurofeedback. This is very nice, because it proves that NeurOptimal practitioners really want to help: we just lied to them about the merchandise. And that's all I wish to all those who do NeurOptimal: don't judge them, give them the links to my articles and invite them to train in Neurofeedback. They will help their patients much more, and will realize that the profession of Neurofeedback practitioner is not just about placing electrodes, but that it is much richer.

Testimonials

Here too, very briefly because you know my love of testimonies.

On Neurofeedback Lyon, I am on the website of a defined practitioner, so I expect to have testimonials related to his practice. With a brief search on a search engine, you will see that all sites share the same testimonials. This is a sign of a set of sites that operate in a closed circle and it is very dangerous (see this great Horizon Gull video on closed circle sites).

If one day I have to publish my patients' testimonies, what I have told them is never to say that the technique works (on the other hand, the opposite is possible). Instead, they should explain what they did, how they did it, what it did for them. In short, to testify to their path of care, not to advertise the technique (it does not need it, scientific studies are there, unlike NeurOptimal).

Conclusion

Again, this article is not charged to Neurofeedback Lyon, all NeurOptimal sites (like this one) are built the same way (this is what they learned at their training). It only serves as an illustration.

All this is simply the sad finding of a company, which with a so-called "miracle machine" has managed to swindle many people (practitioners as well as patients).

There you go....