James, such a thoughtful and well-written rebuttal. As someone who teaches the Bredesen Protocol I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and feel that Dr Bredesen should be revered for his pioneering work. If they understood systems biology, they would not be debating this. Makes me wonder why is the system that has been unable to offer anything successful for Alzheimer’s patients so threatened by these hopeful results? Thank you for writing this.
Thank YOU for defending Dr. Bredesen! The BIAS in the NY Times article is particularly obvious when they mention that he has chosen to not renew his medical license because he had lost faith in the conventional medical model...and thus, the NY Times chose to refer to him as "MR. Bredesen." Just because a person doesn't renew his or her medical license doesn't mean that they do not have an MD degree...they simply don't have a license to practice medicine.
And of course, all of this biases reporting becomes evidence in the latter part of the article where the writer choses to attack RFK and new efforts to Make America Healthy Again. Clearly, the NY Times does NOT want to make America healthy again! Sad, but true.
In the past, I had a lot of respect for the NY Times...but they have totally lost my respect over the past decade.
We in the neurofeedback field have been struggling with this issue for 50 years and are well aware of the criticisms from mainstream science. Too small a sample size, No proper control groups, not double blinded.
There are four stages of exposure to scientific study (AI generated)
1. Initial Resistance: When a new scientific idea is first proposed, it often faces skepticism and even outright rejection. This is due to several factors, including the established paradigms, the potential for challenging long-held beliefs, and the lack of compelling evidence at the initial stage.
2. Recognition of Potential: As more data and evidence accumulate, the initial skepticism may start to wane, and scientists begin to recognize the potential value of the new idea. This stage is characterized by a growing recognition that the new idea might be worth exploring further.
3. Cautious Acceptance: After a period of investigation and debate, a cautious acceptance of the new idea may begin. Scientists may acknowledge its plausibility and even include it in their work, but they may still approach it with a degree of caution, awaiting more conclusive evidence or refinement of the idea.
4. Widespread Adoption: Eventually, if the new idea continues to be supported by evidence and gains traction within the scientific community, it may become widely adopted as a standard part of scientific understanding. This stage may involve the development of new theories, methodologies, or paradigms that incorporate the new idea.
The answer to many of the issues facing us in improving the health of Americans is MONEY- for research.
We taxpayers have to recognize that only WE, not the corporations with their billions, can fund the studies needed to get the answers.
Neurofeedback was once studied at the NIH, no more. The equipment manufacturers and providers can't afford it.
Who will fund a large study on the effects of nutrition on health? Nabisco? General Foods? Nestles? I think not.
Who will pay for a study on the effects of fertilizers and pesticides on our health? Monsanto?
Who will test our water or our air to make sure it’s safe? We must.
How the supplements we consume? Who will test the contents and dosage? The FDA doesn't.
Let’s make sure that we rigorously study Dr. Bredesen’s approach (and others) on a large scale and move our knowledge forward. That's how science works.
I see conflicting messages from our current administration on some of these items.
I hope that with proper public demand and recognition that we are responsible for our own health, that wisdom will prevail.
James, such a thoughtful and well-written rebuttal. As someone who teaches the Bredesen Protocol I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and feel that Dr Bredesen should be revered for his pioneering work. If they understood systems biology, they would not be debating this. Makes me wonder why is the system that has been unable to offer anything successful for Alzheimer’s patients so threatened by these hopeful results? Thank you for writing this.
James, such a thoughtful and well-written rebuttal. As someone who teaches the Bredesen Protocol I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and feel that Dr Bredesen should be revered for his pioneering work. If they understood systems biology, they would not be debating this. Makes me wonder why is the system that has been unable to offer anything successful for Alzheimer’s patients so threatened by these hopeful results? Thank you for writing this.
So glad to hear you enjoyed it as I value your opinion and clinical insight!
Thank YOU for defending Dr. Bredesen! The BIAS in the NY Times article is particularly obvious when they mention that he has chosen to not renew his medical license because he had lost faith in the conventional medical model...and thus, the NY Times chose to refer to him as "MR. Bredesen." Just because a person doesn't renew his or her medical license doesn't mean that they do not have an MD degree...they simply don't have a license to practice medicine.
It is also interesting how this article chose to totally ignore the serious fraud that has recently taken place in Alzheimer's research, about which the NY Times has previously reported: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/opinion/alzheimers-fraud-cure.html
And of course, all of this biases reporting becomes evidence in the latter part of the article where the writer choses to attack RFK and new efforts to Make America Healthy Again. Clearly, the NY Times does NOT want to make America healthy again! Sad, but true.
In the past, I had a lot of respect for the NY Times...but they have totally lost my respect over the past decade.
Thanks Dana - appreciate your thought leadershop1
Great article! 🙌
Thanks Toby appreciate you pioneering work as ever.
Thanks for this James!
Dear fellow travelers,
We in the neurofeedback field have been struggling with this issue for 50 years and are well aware of the criticisms from mainstream science. Too small a sample size, No proper control groups, not double blinded.
There are four stages of exposure to scientific study (AI generated)
1. Initial Resistance: When a new scientific idea is first proposed, it often faces skepticism and even outright rejection. This is due to several factors, including the established paradigms, the potential for challenging long-held beliefs, and the lack of compelling evidence at the initial stage.
2. Recognition of Potential: As more data and evidence accumulate, the initial skepticism may start to wane, and scientists begin to recognize the potential value of the new idea. This stage is characterized by a growing recognition that the new idea might be worth exploring further.
3. Cautious Acceptance: After a period of investigation and debate, a cautious acceptance of the new idea may begin. Scientists may acknowledge its plausibility and even include it in their work, but they may still approach it with a degree of caution, awaiting more conclusive evidence or refinement of the idea.
4. Widespread Adoption: Eventually, if the new idea continues to be supported by evidence and gains traction within the scientific community, it may become widely adopted as a standard part of scientific understanding. This stage may involve the development of new theories, methodologies, or paradigms that incorporate the new idea.
The answer to many of the issues facing us in improving the health of Americans is MONEY- for research.
We taxpayers have to recognize that only WE, not the corporations with their billions, can fund the studies needed to get the answers.
Neurofeedback was once studied at the NIH, no more. The equipment manufacturers and providers can't afford it.
Who will fund a large study on the effects of nutrition on health? Nabisco? General Foods? Nestles? I think not.
Who will pay for a study on the effects of fertilizers and pesticides on our health? Monsanto?
Who will test our water or our air to make sure it’s safe? We must.
How the supplements we consume? Who will test the contents and dosage? The FDA doesn't.
Let’s make sure that we rigorously study Dr. Bredesen’s approach (and others) on a large scale and move our knowledge forward. That's how science works.
I see conflicting messages from our current administration on some of these items.
I hope that with proper public demand and recognition that we are responsible for our own health, that wisdom will prevail.
James, such a thoughtful and well-written rebuttal. As someone who teaches the Bredesen Protocol I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment and feel that Dr Bredesen should be revered for his pioneering work. If they understood systems biology, they would not be debating this. Makes me wonder why is the system that has been unable to offer anything successful for Alzheimer’s patients so threatened by these hopeful results? Thank you for writing this.