You started by attacking detractors of this unproven Brain Balance system. That alone tends to show bias, to me. You later stated that Brain Balance is based on (or is) "accepted science", when it doesn't seem to be in reality. You then muddied the waters by writing of delineating left-brain/right-brain processing differences, which was correctly pointed out to be irrelevant.
Multiple people have explained problems with your approach (depending on self-reported or anecdotal evidence, claiming that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.), and yet you seem not to understand, over and over. It's quite simple: one runs the risk of falling prey to scams by believing in things without proof. As others have stated, the field is rife with crackpot science (I personally don't have experience but believe it).
That's why people have a "show me" attitude. Any reasonable person who's watched an infomercial or two knows not to depend on glowing end-user reports alone. When scientists in a field also discount those glowing reports, I listen. And when a self-described layperson making scientific claims resorts to ridiculing someone with in-depth knowledge, my opinion of the layperson goes down, not up-- no offense.
You seem to be an excessively trusting person, if everything you are saying is true. I personally would trust an expert. But I certainly understand how someone can grasp at any source of seeming help when one's child has a problem.
Last edited by Iucounu; 06/15/10 05:12 AM.
