Brain Gym, relabeled & done from the Energy Medicine viewpoint, works.

[Guest guest]

<patricia999burke wrote:

>

> Hi Judith, I was doing a search for Brain Gym and if you check the wikipedia

listing at this moment, its pretty brutal. I talked to a practitioner and they

are trying to figure out how to get a rebuttal published but apparently the

Brain Gym organization is not allowed to post a rebuttal for themselves.

 

Well,

 

Brain Gym, relabeled & done from the Energy Medicine viewpoint, works.

 

When someone has an agenda, consciously or unconsciously, their unbiased attack

is very biased.

 

As stated in that article, " Many teachers responded by writing letters in

support of Brain Gym based on their first hand experience and its effectiveness

in classroom settings. Goldacre reiterated his point that exercises and breaks

were good for students, and that he was merely attacking " the stupid underlying

science of Brain Gym " .

 

So even when he was agreeing with some of the positives, he still focused on

what he asserts is 'stupidity of the pseudo-science'.

 

Notice the hypnotic focus that covers up " exercises and breaks were good for

students " ...and then ends up with " the stupid underlying science...blab, blab,

blab " .

 

If there is a stigma that you don't like towards something that you KNOW works,

you can either be a sheep, or you can be a wolf.

 

But if you are going to be a wolf, do it very intelligently.

 

I would go from the Donna Eden angle instead.

 

Why?

 

Because most of what is in Brain Gym Donna also has a variation of that works

real well.

 

And her variation is verifiable with Energy Testing. And Energy Testing (when

done by an expert) is valid and has been proven valid.

 

These scientific wackos have discounted every thing from hypnosis, to NLP, to

Energy Medicine, to penicillin.

 

Read their stuff, then do your own research, experimentation, and train with the

stuff and get your own knowledge BEFORE falling into their 'sheep' line and

swallowing their biases hook, line and sinker.

 

John La Tourrette, PhD