Dore Talk

Thats really bizarre.....It must be different to where we went for our first and initial consultation in Sydney.

We went through all of the tests,consults and saw their GP and then we were shown the first set of exercises for our son.... And then asked if we would like to go ahead with the program....After obviously agreeing to go ahead with it we paid in full then had a run through of exercises and then were given our kit and returned to the clinic every 7 weeks.

Im not too sure why you would of had to pay upfront?

Cheers.

:) 

Hi Roosmum, I am so sorry that you have been left with nothing - that is so wrong and unfair.  Makes me realise that others have it so much worse than we do - my heart goes out to you and your family

Hi Louby

 Isn't it weird that our posts are not making it onto the site?  There have been a couple of pro-Dore posts there as well as an anon person who blames Dore for her daughters anorexia - I wonder if they will interview that person for more dirt.

Of course you can ask, no problems, but no, we aren't doing mydore yet, my kids are still on the June set, their next scheduled assessment was to be 23 June, so the exercises on the site are what we have in our books.

I will be going onto the website on the 23rd to see if new exercises have been provided to us - failing that, we will be doing the extra exercises from the website to tide us over until the new ones appear.

Yes funny that!......Once again nothing but the negatives going up on there!......Yes that post really annoyed me. Lets just blame the program for all that goes wronge with our childrens lives...I mean come on!!.... 

 

Yes we will be doing the same.....Ive been on and looked at it so hopefully it will be happening..... We should be almost finished i hope!

 

Lol

Kristy :)

Hey, wouldn't you know it?  They put my post on the 7.30 report finally!!!!

What's the link Fallenash?

dore.usersboard.com

Hey Kristy - your post is finally on 7.30 report too!!!

Sorry, I meant the link to the 7.30 report 

 

Hi

Just check with the finance company because it took them a month after our first initial visit for them to pay out the money.

Please let me know because it was wrong for them to take your money and give you nothing did you get a pid number?

Cheryl

Yes it is and  was a good program, but the media is giving it a hounding. No one worried about the program over in America under another name from a phycologist who has this on the internet for four hundred and ninty eight dollars Australian. This was were W Dore got his idea from, according to some people. The program did more for my son in 14 months then ritalin did in 10 years so that is saying something and these people who dont have children with this disorder need to wake up and mind their own bees wax.Mr Dore has been an inspiration to me and has made me think a lot more about the needs our research companies need  to be looking into.

Cheryl

LOL - sorry ,s illy me - you have to scroll down a bit to get to the posts on Dore. 

 http://www2b.abc.net.au/guestbookcentral/list.asp?guestbookID=156

 

also you can view stories here no 20 is the 4 corners story, no 1 - 4. 7 is the Dore story on the 7.30 report.  8,9 are on Dore as well - hope that helps, there may be more but I've only glanced at it.

 http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?form=simple&num_ranks=20&collection=tv&meta_v=tv&query=dore

HI Fallenash....

Cheers for that, I just had a look at them..... I just wish that they would interview both parties from either side.....

It's a bit like having a debate but only having  one side for the debate!

lol Kristy :)

You may like to look at the comments section regarding my response to Professor Coltheart's comments on the ABC Life Matters radio programme. He has been corrected on the issues you raise before after he was allowed the unchallenged platform to say things which are totally untrue in the Four Corners programme. The independent published study by Professors Reynolds and Nicolson (Dyslexia 2007 13 p 78-96 ) clears show that 80% of children who had symptom counts suggesting ADHD at the start of Dore did not show such symptoms at the end of the study. Also Colheart states that there is no evidence that the cerebellum is involved in ADHD. This is such nonsense and insulting to the many scientists who have spent many years showing just how important the cerebellum is ADHD and our neurodevelopmental disorders. The man is clearly out of his depth in this field but has gone unchallenged in his opinions which has so damaged Dore reputation.

In terms of selling treatments which require evidence, the evidence is that such teaching programmes he refers to have little or no long term impact at all. In 2001 a major examination of reading programmes was made by the USA National Reading Panel. This panel of eminent experts looked at the best studies (around 1000 of them). The panel clearly shows that the benefits of such interventions is very limited in children who have reading disabilities and have virtually no impact beyond grade 2 (7 yrs of age). The plain fact is that unless the problem is identified before learning to read starts and long term intensive support is provided then most children will fail to learn to read whatever method is used. Unless the underlying brain systems which are poorly functioning in such children can be corrected, teaching by itself will fail to change the disability but will only help to compensate for it. Because the cerebellum is fundamentally linked to these specific learning systems it is a prime candidate. Dore tests cerebellar function so can tell if the cerebellum is a causal factor and is able to correct underlying poor performance. Dore does not say anywhere in its website that it can cure these various disorders, that has become a myth much like teh story that astronauts becoem duyslexic in space! If Coltheart had bothered to read Wynford Dore's book he would see immediately that the book was not claiming to cure dyslexia but it refers to a title of a TV programme in the UK and challenges the notion of the word cure which would suggest that dyslexia was a disease which it quite clearly is not.

 

Thank you Dr Roy!! You have just validated my responding to Professor Max Coltheart telling him to pull his head in!  I sent him an email, a copy of which is on this thread telling him to stop putting out negative publicity when he doesn't have the research to back up his comments.  I was incensed listening to that radio program, he spouted off his opinion using his title to influence people against the program.

I think alot of the knockers are doing so because they are trying to plug their own programs which they have a vested financial interest in.  This man whilst he has received awards and the like should shut his mouth unless he can provide proof that Dore doesn't work.  He obviously needs to have attention and limelight on himself constantly and this is the way he achieves it.

Its people like him that has given children a grievous disadvantage in life, because he has the title of professor people listen to him and discard Dore as an option.  He and a few other professors here have so much to answer for in Dore's demise, it makes me so frustrated and angry, it is hard to express in words.

Dr Roy, you are a gem and I am glad that you are on the Dore team, to be courageous and stand up for the truth against these 'academics' who think only of their own status and self importance.

If anyone else would like to send their success stories to Professor Max Coltheart this is his email address

 max@maccs.mq.edu.au

 or this one

max.coltheart@maccs.mq.edu.au

 We need to give Dore a voice and its only our parental stories of success that is going to achieve that in any significant way

Just a quick question if I can. Now that Australia have officially gone into liquidation and the company no longer exists. Will Aust clients still be able to continue accessing "My Dore"?

They are continuing to update the sites Glenys. I see MyDiary is now available for both the US and Australia. I would view that as a positive. 

Hello Dr Rutherford, good of you to finally turn up & explain things, especially after what you said about me in the Guardian comments section. Always happy to learn something new, so if you'd like to correct anything else I've written, here or on my blog, I'd welcome the discussion and be happy to correct any inaccuracies you can find. I don't delete blog comments except obvious commercial spam or swearing (messes up my access), so feel free to suggest corrections to my 'ill informed, based on limited knowledge, biased ... extremely damaging' blog too if you'd like 

Please could you provide a link the your comments on the 'Life Matters' radio programme? I take it you mean this programme, but I'm not able to spot your comments.

To clarify, Reynolds & Nicholson (2007), as with all the 'Balsall Common' studies, included only ONE CHILD with a diagnosis of ADHD. On the basis of this one child, for whom individual results are not given in any of the papers (so we don't actually know what the programme did for this child's ADHD), Dore ran 'Google Adwords' advertisments:

'Proven Drug-Free, Exercise Based ADHD Remedy'

That sounds to me an awful lot like suggesting you can cure ADHD, and have proof to show you can. I've made a complaint to the ASA on this basis, last I heard it was still under investigation - don't know whether it will continue despite the financial crisis.

There were other Google adverts linking to Dore stating:

Proven Drug-Free, Exercise Based Dyslexia Remedy

Proven Long Term Drug-Free Solution Relieving the Symptoms of Aspergers

Proven Long Term Drug-Free Solution Relieving the Symptoms of Dyspraxia

Dore promotional material included such claims as:

'have developed a programme which can transform the lives of those suffering with specific learning difficulties like dyslexia, dyspraxia, or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder'

all based on similar levels of 'evidence'. It is simply not legitimate to claim 'proven' on the basis of literally a handful of children, or no published research whatsoever in the case of Asperger's syndrome. 

 

Reynolds and Nicholson (2007) did NOT consider their study to be proof that 'cerebellar treatment' underlay any changes observed in the 'Balsall Common' studies. The very paper you cite makes this abundantly clear in the abstract:

Further research is needed
to determine the underlying reasons for the benefits. Possible (and potentially synergistic) explanations include: improved cerebellar
function (neural level); improved learning ability and/or attentional ability (cognitive level); improved self-esteem and  self-efficacy (affective level); and improved parental/familial support (social level).


FWIW, my own (unpublished undergraduate dissertation) research looked at 12 very high-functioning dyslexics, and 12 controls. 'My' dyslexics were all at university and doing well academically, none had an ADHD diagnosis. One of the few ways in which they tested out differently to their non-dyslexic peers was scoring significantly higher on an ADHD screening tool (ASRS short version). This suggests to me that sub-clinical differences on an ADHD screening tool are not particularly important in determining later academic achievement. Of course, I'd not want to draw firm conclusions from a small pilot study with 24 participants (12 dyslexics), but that's not so different from Balsall Common with 35 participants (6 dyslexics).

It will not be possible for a fully independent study to be carried out on the Dore programme until Dore cease to use 'commercial confidentiality' as a means to prevent independent research by people not of Dore's choosing.

Could you perhaps explain what exactly Prof Coltheart said which was 'totally untrue'? There's a full transcript online, so it would not be difficult for you to provide specific examples, particularly since you state that he 'has been corrected' - I'd be interested to read those corrections, if you could please provide them?

I tend to think that it's a rather weak argument to point to the qualifications of your opponents, rather than arguing the issues. However, since you raise the matter, I believe you trained as a GP, and have yet to complete the PhD you began, supervised by Prof Nicholson who co-authored the 'independent' study to which you referred above? Web Of Science doesn't come up with any publications for you, unless you find time out of your busy life to write for the 'Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics' or perhaps 'J. Applied Entomology' - perhaps I have missed something here, 'Rutherford, R.' seems to be quite a popular name, there's also a Rutherford RB who publishes in Ed Psych but seems to be based in America - if so please do enlighten me?

Prof Coltheart's rather impressive publication list and CV may be found here, and as I have already indicated on this thread he has received several indications of esteem. Both Tu Quoque and Argumentum ad Verecundiam are logical fallacies, and since I don't even have a batchelor's degree yet I'm hardly arguing for them - but an ad hominem attack on Coltheart as 'clearly out of his depth' is spectacularly unconvincing without further supporting information. Kindly provide such, or retract your accusation.

I'll address the second paragraph in another post, since this is getting a bit long - TBC...