|
There are many strong indicators
that suggest good to breakthrough low-risk treatments are
available today (see Remarkable
Treatments & Results); however, they aren’t recognized as such due to
conflicts with theory A and the
newness of theory B. It will take many years before solid
scientific proof is available for treatments aligning with
theory B. − Following are some proposals for intermediate
solutions.
Proposal 1: Educate the public and professionals on
theory
B’s far-reaching implications
Criteria
-
Demonstrate
respect and objectivity for other views.
-
Bring
scientific proof demands in balance with strong
indicators/facts such as ancient background of a treatment,
money-back guarantees, mouth of word “advertising,” TV
documentaries, etc.
-
Respect today’s
client expectations: When risks are low, many
parents/patients don’t care whether a treatment is
scientifically proven. They want to be informed about all
options and then make their choices.
How?
-
Pursue media
coverage on the different theories.
-
Have
professionals supporting the different views discuss their
views in TV broadcasts and conferences. In Germany, an
increasing number of TV broadcasts have already made
remarkable steps in this direction. In the UK, this can been
seen in occasional broadcasts as well.
-
Provide courses
for the professionals regarding theory B, its far-reaching
implications and available alternative treatments that have
strong indicators for good results.
-
Educate the
professionals in alternative treatments. For example, from
German TV broadcasts, it appears more and more professionals
are educating themselves and practicing alternative
treatments along with traditional treatments.
Politicians and insurance
companies:
-
There is
enormous financial opportunity from lower-cost treatments
that deliver better results than today’s treatments.
-
There are
enormous financial and quality of life opportunities from
indirect consequences of better treatment. Consider the
potential cost reductions in areas such as special
education, sick days, and violence and crime through more
effective treatment results for learning difficulties,
dyslexia, ADHD, ODD, headaches/migraine, etc., than are seen
today.
Proposal 2:
Short-term research
Start independent, short-term
research relative to alternative treatment results. For example,
ask parents/patients who have undergone alternative treatment
these questions: How do you rate the treatment results for your
child (1 – no result; 10 – cured)? What is the medication prior
and after the treatment? In the case of ADHD: Would you say your
child has changed (worsened; no; to the better; I have a
different, normal child today)?
Proposal 3: Use a
self-organizing approach to identify the better treatment
Theory B assumes the brain
operates through self-organization. A self-organizing approach
to identifying the better treatment should be a valid approach.
It should dramatically shorten the time to identify more
effective treatments to something in the range of two to four
years. Here is how this can happen.
Part 1: Create a few pilot
assessment centers.
-
Those
offering accepted and alternative treatment are welcome. For
alternative treatment, indicators for good treatment
results are needed, and risks must be equal to or lower than
those for accepted treatment.
-
Everybody
with a strong suspicion for a mental condition within a
“condition spectrum” is welcome. One spectrum could be
learning difficulties and behavioral problems such as
dyslexia, ADHD, ODD, autism and PDD-NOS.
-
The clients
are tested for applicability for the offered treatments.
This is preferably done by those offering the treatment.
-
All
participants are treated with respect and objectivity.
-
There are
no marketing or sales activities within the assessment
centers.
Part 2: Measuring the results
-
From the parent/patient
perspective: The research per proposal 2 is done prior to the
start of work at the centres and then every six months.
-
From the perspective of
the assessment centres: Collect the simplest possible data
with the highest explanatory value (for example, standard
one-minute reading tests in the case of dyslexia).
Part 3: The treatment decision
-
Clients are
mentored by an independent advisor.
-
The advisor
presents the data from Part 2 and the Part 1 test results to
the client in an understandable way, including whether a
treatment is scientifically accepted or alternative.
-
Advantages and
disadvantages (such as losing a gift or a gift that may not
develop following the treatment: extraordinary abilities in
art, music, math, communication and so forth) of each
treatment option are provided.
-
The client
selects the treatment based on the information provided.
-
If the
treatment doesn’t deliver adequate results, the client can
choose another treatment.
Part 4: Fairness enablement
-
Create a
“watchdog” board.
-
It consists of
at least 60 percent of representatives who have been
proposed by those offering alternative treatment, preferably
prior or current clients of alternative treatment.
-
It ensures
conflicts of interest are taken out of the assessment center
as much as possible
-
It ensures
every participant demonstrates respect and
objectivity for other views and other treatments.
-
It ensures
every professional participant is treated fairly.
-
It ensures the
clients get the best possible information for their
treatment decision.
Part 5: Cost
To see from the
results which treatment is most effective and, hence, have
the best treatment roll out of the system automatically, it
is critical that there is no cost to the client. This
includes the chosen treatment for the length of the
treatment. (The actual treatment may take place outside the
assessment center.)
|
