Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s logic and there’s emotion.
Most people are unaware of their subtle emotional pulls, despite the fact that these emotional pulls are controlling their behavior and their beliefs as well.
sometimes it may be an emotional pull to acquire something. The job of logic here would be to find a reason to make it happen…
sometimes it may be an emotional pull towards something threatening, such as an accusation or belief that they don’t want to agree to, but deep down they know is true. The job of logic here would be to rationalize dismissing this belief or issue.
if you find someone making a logical argument, dig below that for a subtle emotional pull that’s driving that argument.
PMC1280342
Thimerosal consists of 49.6% mercury by weight and breaks down in the body to ethyl-mercury and thiosalicylate (Tan and Parkin 2000).
The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg.
DaasYochid,
Then there’s no such thing as evidence.
It depends. In meno’s example, we’re saying that the 90% is an accurate representation of the full group. In the jama case we’re saying that 8% is an accurate representation of the full group.
DaasYochid,
Perhaps? Why only perhaps?
Because I haven’t embraced this idea that you could make assumptions, then call it evidence. To me, evidence means I don’t need to make any assumptions. As rational as an assumption may seem, reality may still be different.
DaasYochid,
At what point do you admit that you have more than enough and randomly removing a few will not make the results inaccurate?
Here, over 86,000 Neuro-typicals were removed, leaving only 8,500.
This is not a “random few”.
To your point: we are studying 95,000, and I understand and accept that. The study even compares the ratio in the 95k to the ratio in the field and finds them within equal range to be considered accurate. So you don’t need the whole world here, because we both “get” that we’re studying 95k.
If it had been a “random few” as in Meno’s example, perhaps that would be a different story.
Meno,
The reason studies like this require large samples is to minimize the likelihood of coincidences such as the one you described. A major part of analyzing the results of any statistical study is calculating the probability that the results are in fact meaningful.
This is Statistical Analysis 101.
Possibly. So where does this lead you to?
DaasYochid,
In my view at this point in time, the only justification of removing anyone is if they weren’t subject to the initial risk.
Then in your view no study can ever be reliable unless every single human being on the planet is included.
This is more of a taunt than a legitimate objection.
So you can then go ahead and say, if we don’t need to look at 7 billion humans, then we don’t need to consider the 95k either.
sorry buddy, it doesn’t work like that.
Meno,
Ok keej, here’s a hypothetical study. Let’s see what you think:
The purpose of the study is to determine the risk factor in the general population for autism.
I take a random sample of 100,000 people.
I remove 10,000 people who are wearing red socks, because I hate red socks. (I’m justified in doing this, because we can all agree that the color of one’s socks has no effect on his risk for autism, so the autism ratio in the remaining group should be the same as in the original group.)
I’m now left with 90,000 people. I find that 900 have autism. I conclude that the risk factor for autism among the general population is 1:100.
Thoughts?
You said you’re justified in removing the 10,000 with red socks. I’m not so sure. What if coincidentally, there was a concentration of either Neuro-typical or Autistic children in that group. That would make a very big difference on the resulting ratio.
In my view at this point in time, the only justification of removing anyone is if they weren’t subject to the initial risk.
2cents,
We can discuss a study or piece of science, such as Keej123 attempted to do, However, once he realized that his assertions are statistically insignificant and actually show that statistically the study is very strong and proves that the MMR vaccine plays no role in autism he went silent.
i just took the weekend off, but I’m still here.
I personally don’t believe in beating dead horses, so you’ll only hear from me when I have something intelligent to add.
In your latest response to me you introduced a distinction between assessing genetic-autism to assessing MMR as a factor, which I’m still digesting.
2cents
“I would need to know exactly how many children in the full 95k, would get autism from genetics even without MMR”
No you dont, you will never know as the 95k are not all in the same group.
Why would you ask for something thats not possible tonmnow if your honestly looking at this from a statistical standpoint?Apparently this is our point of disagreement.
According to your perspective, creating a group out of non-MMR children, and making a ratio from that is an acceptable way to measure the level of risk for genetic-Autism.
In my view, creating a group out of non-MMR children, doesn’t do a justice at all to measure the risk for genetic-Autism, because there are more people who were initially subject to this risk but excluded from the group since they did receive the MMR.
So in effect, you excluded people (based on their vaccine-status) who really should reflect on the real ratio of genetic-Autism.
So what is the real ratio, I can never know, as you mentioned earlier as well.
Jay23,
Thanks for the feedback.
Apparently, you never saw it necessary to understand how ratios work, which is fine. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with you here. Best wishes.
2cents,
So the one fractional difference you found between that one group, is extremely insignificant.
The point was, regardless of which way you slice the data, the numbers are the same…
I don’t care about the 1:113 vs. 1:108. As you said, this is unimportant.
My problem is that the 1:113 doesn’t qualify to be a legit ratio. So even if the numbers are the same, you’re looking at bad numbers. see 2 comments above explaining.
jay23,
1- in your understanding how would a study ever be done to prove mmr doesn’t cause autism
2-if the rate of autism is 1-500 then why does a group of 7500 non mmr kids have more than 15 autistic kids ? (68 no less)and what does that have to do with the other 7 billion people on this planet. Please explainRe. #1: I would need to know exactly how many children in the full 95k, would get autism from genetics even without MMR. Once i know this, I can calculate a legitimate ratio, measuring the level of risk for genetically-triggered Autism. Then I would compare that to the MMR ratio.
Re. #2: The ratio based on the 7,500 violated step #1 of calculating a risk ratio. You created a group based on something silly. So you got a silly ratio.
That ratio just shows the number of non-MMR children who developed Autism. You cannot take that further and say, “this is the ratio for Genetic Autism”. If you were measuring generic Autism, what business do you have looking at vaccine records?
You never tried truly measuring genetic-Autism. If you did, you would need to include all 95K. Because that’s the process for calculating a ratio. You need to include EVERYONE who was initially subject to the risk.
If you want to measure genetic-Autism, do that. But don’t measure non-MMR, then tell me this is the number you measured for genetic Autism.
If you divided those 95,000 children based on their sock color, i guarantee you that the ratios would be different too. Because that’s the ratio for sock colors, not the ratio for genetic-Autism.
Even though they happen to be inflicted with genetic-Autism. Doesn’t change the fact that the ratio is a ratio for sock colors or non-MMR, not a true ratio for genetic-Autism.
Those 68 children don’t reflect on the power of genetic Autism, because you didn’t bother to check who in the entire 95k are susceptible to genetic Autism. You singled out 7500 who didn’t get MMR and calculated a false ratio. This is a ratio of people who are non-MMR, who happen to have genetic Autism.
Having genetic-Autism, doesn’t make it a ratio for genetic-Autism.
Re 2b: “what does that have to do with the other 7 billion people on this planet.”
If you want to calculate a legit ratio, you need to include all the people who were initially subject to the risk. Because only then, can you measure the true power of the risk.
Meno,
Non-MMR Group
1) Being human with genes.
2) 95,000
3) can’t know who would’ve been triggered by genetics anyways.
4) can’t calculate without #3.Regarding #3, that’s the whole point of the study. We’re starting with the asssumption that autism is caused by either MMR or genetics or both. If someone in the non-MMR group had autism, then we assume it was triggered by genetics (because that’s the only possibility, based on our asssumptions). So we do have all the numbers we need, and therefore we can calculate #4.
That number you’re looking for is 68 children.
If you do that math, then you would end up with a ratio higher than 1:1,300…
Very incriminating for the pro-vaxx agenda.
And it could be that some kids who received MMR would’ve gotten Autism anyways from genetics, and this is a number we don’t have.
So i would prefer to say the study is inconclusive instead of making false calculations with unknown numbers.
jay23,
Ratio Calculation Crash Course
Purpose: The single and only purpose of calculating a ratio here, is to measure the level of risk for a potential underlying cause.
Method:
Step 1) Determine the factor that exposes them to the risk.
Step 2) Count EVERYONE who has that factor.
Step 3) Count EVERYONE within step #2 who was actually affected.
Step 4) Divide step 2 by step 3.
For MMR group:
1) Recieving MMR
2) 86,063
3) 792
4) 1:108___
Non-MMR Group
1) Being human with genes.
2) 95,000
3) can’t know who would’ve been triggered by genetics anyways.
4) can’t calculate without #3.___
The study messed up at Step #1. It counts the Non-MMR group based on a criteria that doesn’t play any role whatsoever in their risk.
1) lacking MMR – bad – this doesn’t expose them to Autism
2) 7,735 – bad – see step 1
3) 68 – bad – see step 1
4) 1:113 – bad – see step 1So the number you see is a worthless number. It shows nothing about the level of risk those children are exposed to. When you take their real risk factor into account (as above) and make a legitimate ratio, it can indeed be 1:500.
Meno,
“Ok then, let’s break this down further.
(Autism Ratio of Group X) = (Number of autistic children in Group X)/(Total number of children in Group X)
Correct or incorrect?”
Sometimes it’s correct, sometimes it’s wrong.
Example: If “Group x” is people wearing green socks, then that would be an incorrect ratio bec. genetically- triggered autism has no relation to green socks. so that ratio means nothing.
If “group x” is people without MMR, then that would be an incorrect ratio bec. genetically- triggered autism has no relation to lacking MMR. so that ratio means nothing. it doesn’t show the power of a potential cause.
If “group x” would be expectant moms who’ve had the flu, then that ratio WOULD mean something, bec. having the flu during a pregnancy HAS a relation to Autism. so that number shows the power of a potential cause.
so you then can compare risk to risk, because the 2 numbers have a significance when it comes to what the underlying cause.
Lacking-MMR is not something significant to the underlying cause, so anything calculated based on that number is also insignificant to the underlying cause.
Getting MMR is potentially significant to the underlying cause, and therefore that ratio is also significant
Meno,
So you’re saying when the counted the number of children in the group and the number of those children who had autism, they counted wrong?
Look at post #1646728, where you “nu’uh”ed me earlier…
That is the key here.
In order for this number to mean anything, you need to accept that ridiculous assertion.
Meno,
“[The autism ratio in Group A is not higher than that of Group B]”
This is where the problem is. This “plug-in” is incorrect.
As demonstrated above, it IS higher. The number calculate in the study is a false misleading number.
2cents,
If the MMR was a trigger, the rate of the No-MMR group should be 1:500, not 1:113, which is within range for the yes-MMR group.”
– Where in the study do you see this argument?Here are the numbers from the study, please tell me where it is off.
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—2cents,
Let’s try a different angle.
Here’s the argument made by the study.
If the MMR was a trigger, the rate of the No-MMR group should be 1:500, not 1:113, which is within range for the yes-MMR group.
Meaning, why is the phantom 1:500 ratio not displaying itself inside the no-MMR group? Must be, it’s not true.
For this to be a valid argument, you need to accept the following assertion:
>> The powers to be, controlling genetically-triggered Autism, take your vaccine status into account. If you have No-MMR, they will inflict Autism on only 1:500 specifically within your No-MMR group.
Therefore, the argument can be made, that the rate for the no-MMR group should be 1:500, not 1:113.
If you reject the above assertion, then the argument falls apart.
Since the powers to be, controlling genetically-triggered Autism, ignore your vaccine status, it triggered Autism throughout the whole 95k group at a rate of 1:500. 68 of those children happened to be non-MMR.
If we see 1:108 in the yes-MMR group, that is an association between MMR and higher Autism – in this hypothetical 1:500 example.
Is it any clearer now?
2cents,
In short, why are the no-MMR group and Yes-MMR group producing Autism at an equal rate?
Because: while the rate of the yes-MMR group was calculated based on something that would reflect the factor that may have caused their Autism… which is getting the MMR, – which shows what the MMR could be causing inside that group…
The rate of the no-MMR group is based on a random criteria of not getting MMR, which doesn’t reflect how strong or weak their cause of Autism is operating.
So who cares?
Because you can’t claim that their Autism is operating at the same rate, unless you take their cause into consideration. If their cause is genetics, so at what rate is genetics operating in comparison to what MMR would be operating. So in essence, their cause IS operating at a much lower rate than MMR group. It just that this number was never calculated.
DaasYochid/2cents,
Something is causing Autism – I don’t know what. THAT is a risk for everyone. I labeled it “Regular Autism”. What would you like to call it?
2cents,
Here are the numbers I calculated according to the study.
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—
The rates of Autism are within range for both groups.
While this shows that the Autism rates for the Non-MMR group are equal, it does nothing to demonstrate the real risk ratio for the non-MMR group. If you’re to say that the autism rate is the same, I need to know what the real Autism rate is for Non-MMR.
In order to accurately calculate a risk ratio for the non-MMR group i need to calculate:
Everyone subject to the initial risk ÷ everyone who was diagnosed = risk ratio.
everyone subject to initial risk = everyone 95,000
everyone diagnosed = 68 from non-MMRRegular non-MMR Autism affects everyone in the group, and therefore must be included when calculating the real ratio.
The study seems to be working as if the only ones who are subject to regular non-MMR autism are the Non-MMR group. The numbers used in Group B is not reflective of a real risk ratio, rendering them useless to calculate anything.
dividing non-MMR group by non-MMR autism = a rate not presenting the real risk at all.
so when taking the real risk ratio into consideration, this study is deceptive
Dellposs
At the end of 2 years and 2 rounds of immunization with measles, significant reductions were observed in 1–4 year old mortality due to diarrhea and malnutrition in the study area in contrast to control area.
diahrrea and malnutrition may be an issue in the congo… in 1987…
7) Measles and chicken pox are more deadly than that. So it’s still worth it.
bais hillel,
5) Public health and herd immunity take precedence over the health ans well-being of your own children
6) My Doctor is a Tzaddik and sees thousands of patients per week. If there was any substance to being Anti-vaxx, then he would be. If he isn’t that’s unbreakable proof that it’s all one big bluff. i don’t care what you show me.I can also group them by who was wearing green socks and who was wearing blue socks.
Neither socks, or MMR status is an indicator of the actual risk.
I can’t make a conclusion without knowing who was actually at risk to begin with.
How many are in group A?
How many in group A are Autistic?Meno,
That is the exact deception within this study.
We need to honest compare the risk ratio of MMR autism vs. risk of regular Autism.
In other words, how many doors does the Regular Autism need to knock on , before it gets allowed inside?
Now count all the doors that were knocked on by Regular Autism.
Regular Autism knocked on all the doors of the entire group, so that’s the risk ratio. You can’t exclude doors just because they got a vaccine.
dooms,
yes, this study seems to indicate that MMR increases the risk of autism from 1:1,367 to 1:108
Dooms,
<i>So are you saying that the ratio of children with autism who DID NOT get MMR is really 1:1,367</i>
No,
I’m saying that the ratio of children who are legitimately at risk for regular autism is 1:1,367 vs. the ratio for the risk of MMR autism is 1:108
We’re trying to calculate risk vs. risk, and therefore must include the full MMR group in order to accurately calculate the risk for regular autism.
You need to look past getting MMR vs. not getting MMR because the risk extends past that point. or else, you’d be excluding 86,000 children who were really part of that risk.
better, meno?
Dooms, see #1645113 above
Formula for calculating the ratio is:
Total kids at risk ÷ total diagnosed.
Who exactly in this group is at risk to develop autism from the unidentified cause?
Just the no-MMR group, or everyone?
Last I checked, MMR protect for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, not random Autism.
So the whole 95,000 kids are the total risk number for random Autism.
yet, the study acts as if only no-MMR kids are the total risk number for Random Autism.
Making sense?
DaasYochid,
“I’m saying you twisted the results by leaving out numbers.”
Here are all the numbers:
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—Group B’s ratio was calculated unfairly.
Formula: Total kids at risk / total diagnosed cases.
Total kids at risk is the entire group, not just the No-MMR kids.
If things are calculated unfairly, what does it show?
DaasYochid,
Who developed “Factor Z” Autism = 68 children
“From group B
+ 792 from Group A
= 860”You’re basically saying that this study proves nothing on either way…
That itself should sober you… as you all bashing dooms with this one way up above
I’m OK if you want to put this study in the junk pile instead of letting me have it.
2cents,
Correction noted for JAMA study.
Group A – No Sibling ASD, Yes MMR (5 yrs)
86,063 children
792 Autistic (860 × .92)
1:108 Autism diagnosis ratio
—-
Group B – No Sibling ASD, No MMR (5 yrs)7,735 children
68 Autistic (860 × .08)
1:113 Autism diagnosis ratio
—
Both groups seemingly within equal range – with or without MMR.Here’s where this all goes to pot…
What caused Autism in group B? “Unidentified Factor Z”
At what ratio does “Factor Z” cause Autism? Let’s think a sec…
Who is at risk for “Factor Z”? (Brace for impact…)
Everyone! 93,798 children (MMR shot doesn’t reduce risk for “Factor Z”)
Risk for “Factor Z” = 93,798 children
Who developed “Factor Z” Autism = 68 children
93,798 – 792 (MMR Autistic children) = 93006
93006 ÷ 68 = 1,367
“Factor Z” Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 1,367 children
vs.
MMR Autism Diagnosis ratio:
1 out of every 108 MMR vaccinated children
True?
2cents
“This is where you err, it shows no association at all, your implying that there is an association yet just ‘not in itself” when in fact the study proves that there is no association at all. ”
The evidence is that the Neuro-typical children should’ve been autistic, had MMR been the cause for autism.
Laying out the options:
A. MMR causes autism without needing any other factorB. MMR causes autism, only when another variable is present.
C. Something else causes Autism.
How does the above evidence rule out optionB?
I started reviewing some studies and i have some questions…
Journal of pediatrics vol. 162 No. 2 (from CDC website)
Proposed conclusion: Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism
Evidence: Normal children, same age/gender as autistic children, not developing autism, despite receiving comparable amount of vaccine exposure – measured according to autistic children. Suggesting that vaccine exposure in those amounts, are not the cause of autism.
Proposed conclusion seemingly not supported by the evidence.
Fact: These children are autistic and the others are normal. So we know that there is an unknown variable here – “unknown variable x”. Question is: does this variable: a) cause autism by itself, b) cause autism in conjunction with a vaccine, or c) cause autism in conjunction with anything else not identified here.
Error: The normal children received that amount of exposure, showing that the exposure itself isn’t the determining cause of autism. But the normal children lack “unknown variable x”, which is why the vaccine exposure didn’t affect them. The autistic children, who have the unknown variable, are becoming autistic as a result of the vaccines.
Possible choices:
A. “Unknown variable x” is the full determining factor behind autism. No relation to vaccines.B. “Unknown variable x” + something else not identified causes autism. No relation to vaccines.
C. “Unknown variable x” + vaccines, together create autism. The normal children got the vaccines, but remained normal because they lack “unknown variable x”.
Provided evidence can support either option. Anything else would be a wild guess, not supported by the evidence.
D. Vaccine exposure is the full cause of autism – has been eliminated.
True conclusion: vaccines aren’t the only and full determining factor behind autism, something else must be at the least a primary determining factor causing autism either: a) alone, b) in conjunction with something else, c)or in conjunction with vaccines. Correlation between vaccines and autism not debunked by this study.
—–
JAMA. 2015;313(15):1534-1540. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3077
Proposed conclusion: No harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD
Evidence: Normal children received the MMR in similar exposure amounts to those who developed autism, and still remained normal. Suggesting those MMR exposure amounts don’t cause autism.
Error: The normal children received that amount of MMR exposure, showing that the exposure itself isn’t the determining cause of autism. But the normal children lack “unknown variable x”, which is why the MMR exposure didn’t affect them. The autistic children, who have the unknown variable, are becoming autistic as a result of the MMR.
Same flaw as above.
Possible choices:
A. “Unknown variable x” is the full determining factor behind autism. No relation to MMR.B. “Unknown variable x” + something else not identified causes autism. No relation to MMR.
C. “Unknown variable x” + MMR, together create autism. The normal children got the MMR, but remained normal because they lack “unknown variable x”.
Provided evidence can support either option. Anything else would be a wild guess, not supported by the evidence.
D. MMR exposure is the full cause of autism – has been eliminated.
True conclusion: MMR isn’t the only and full determining factor behind autism, something else must be at the least a primary determining factor causing autism either: a) alone, b) in conjunction with something else, c)or in conjunction with MMR. Correlation between MMR and autism not debunked by this study.
What am I missing here? I did simplify the details, but I don’t believe I omitted anything that will change the conclusion.
The other arising objection is: “process of elimination” by itself is not a valid means of identifying a potential suspect, until a basis for suspicion can be established first. So in your perspective, vaccines are an innocent little puppy getting blamed unfairly. This was expressed earlier as the “avocados” and “green jelly beans” issue. (Not ready yet for this one)
I want to thank the MD’s for jumping in, putting up with the “my daddy could beat up your daddy” cat fight, and clarifying their perspectives on this issue. It has been incredibly valuable to see the other side, although I still hold my ground.
Studies are one thing, reality is another…
Parents are coming in to our own Doctors immediately after vaccines, with issues that never occurred before.
They’re being told that those issues are normal occurrences and have no relation to vaccines, based on these studies that you so stubbornly cling to…
(If I can address my doctor here:)
Reality check: Do the experiences of your own patients match the picture painted by all these studies?
Reality check: If parents keep telling you that this child was perfectly normal a few days ago, and now he’s not the same…
Reality check: If babies keep dying of SIDS within days of getting their shots…
Does that match what the studies are suggesting?
If something keeps occurring again and again, shouldn’t that set off an alarm?
Take a look at “Hear this well parents speak out” for a small sampling of testimony.
Why are studies more conclusive than the patients that are walking through your very own doors?
With all respects to your Royal Highness PhD: You claim to be pro-science, but seem to be a total block head when it comes to reality unfolding right in front of your nose…
As long as you keep giving multiple vaccines in a single visit (so you never know which vaccine caused an issue), and keep claiming that vaccine injuries are completely unheard of (so you can keep ignoring any connections)…
How can you ever claim to have the truth?
You’re just a parakeet for what you learned in med school, not a real scientist.
To get more specific…
From what I’ve read in the book authored by the one who created the program, Neuro Science has proven that the mind has the ability to strengthen itself when it is challenged, just as a muscle gets stronger when it is challenged by weight.
Let’s say there’s a child who has trouble knowing their time and place…
When trying to do a physical activity that requires proper judgement, for instance.
Throwing a ball from hand to hand means you need to judge how hard to throw, how high, etc.
Someone who struggles with proper judgement will not be able to perform this simple task as throwing a small ball from hand to hand.
By challenging the proper judgement process – on a physical level, the mind will strengthen that area, just as a muscle will get stronger when it challenged by heavy weight.
There are dozens and dozens of exercises of this nature in the program.
The child is assigned their exercises for that week and must master them before passing on to the next level of exercises. The child either passes the exercise and is giving the next set of activities, or must practice them again over the next week.
That’s why it’s a 6 – 8 month program.
There are 10 different areas that are worked on by Neurolinks, and there are physical and mental activities designed to challenge those weaknesses.
I make no apologies for providing a simplistic understanding of the program. I do appreciate however that you inquired for more detail.
In a nutshell — think of it like a car…
All we see is a gas pedal, brake, and steering wheel…
But if you open the hood, there are many other moving parts that make these 3 things work…
The brain is the same…
we take in the world around us through seeing, hearing etc.
But the brain has many moving parts that help us understand what we see and hear around us…
If any of those moving parts are weak, then the child will be unable to take in the world around them properly…
Same as if any parts under the hood are weak, it will affect how the car will respond to the gas, brake, and steering…
It’s not a broken gas pedal… it’s an underlying issue…
This is the underlying cause for learning issues, behavioral, and social issues.
These children are basically living a missing world around them, resulting in a wide buffet of different kinds of issues…
Neurolinks was developed based on Neuro-scientific-studies zooming into these weaknesses and figuring out how to make them stronger…
Which causes the issues you may see like reading issues, spelling, or behavior to fall into place the way they naturally should’ve…
At the evalution, the instructor will test your child and tell you exactly which points are weak…
The system will be adjusted accordingly to give your child what they need.
After seeing my first daughter’s transformation, I’ve taken on the role as their Business consultant…
This required me to do research to understand what was really behind the program – which allowed me to elaborate here.
By the way, this exact system is in many states and other countries as well, under different names.
Hello all,
I’ve know several children who went through the system.
Case #1: Nephew
Self-contained child, couldn’t follow simple direction such as get up and put on your pajamas…
He’s now fully mainstreamed doing very well in class. Very mature and self-confident.Case #2: Another Nephew
Having hard time in mesivta, on the verge of getting kicked out…
He’s now shteiging amazingly well , his rebbeim testify to the transformation.These children also had severe reading issues which was tremendously improved with Neurolinks.
Case #3: My own 10 year old daughter.
Was getting pulled out 8x per week for hebrew and english. Failing tests in school. Severe case of sensory (I have sensory as well…) leading to daily morning tantrums when having to put on tights and make ponies…At the end of the program, sensory issues are almost none, tantrums – never, getting great marks on tests, pulled out of class – none.
She’s matured a TON because of the program, became very sociable, helping alot around the house, and developed a special relationship with my wife as well…
We’re now putting our second daughter through it…
We worked with Mrs. Taub from the Lakewood branch who’s tremendously caring and an expert in the system. I cannot recommend it enough.
Note: Your success will depend on following what you were instructed to do. We and the successes we know of all followed the system exactly as instructed.
I would suggest that the previous commenter should keep up the excercises that are relevent to their child’s weakness… because that will help boost the child even higher…
I’ll bli neder keep an eye on this thread in case there are more specific questions…