A short break from your usual Holford coverage to discuss some news about the Dore ‘cure’ for dyslexia, ADHD and a load of other things. Dorothy Bishop recently published a paper showing that the evidence for Dore as a treatment for dyslexia and ADHD is woefully inadequate (it’s also suggested as a treatment for ASDs). Lots of newspapers have ran lots of ‘positive’ stories about the Dore ‘cure’ - but they haven’t found time to cover Bishop’s scathing analysis of Dore research. This is a bad thing: if the media runs ‘positive’ stories about ‘miracle cures’ - but fails to run updates when they are shown to be neither cures nor miraculous - this could make it easier for expensive, unproven ‘cures’ to be sold to their readers. On 3/10/07, I therefore contacted the Guardian, Mail, Manchester Evening News, Times and Telegraph to make sure they knew about this new information. Not one of them even responded to my e-mails.
This took me quite a while to do: most people probably wouldn’t be as obsessive determined to see this through as I was. I really thought that - by putting so much time into this - I would persuade at least some of the papers I spoke to to run the story. However - despite phoning and e-mailing all the papers below - the only response I’ve had is an ‘out of office’ autoreply (of course people talked to me when I phoned them, but often seemed keen to get me off the phone ASAP; I could almost hear the boredom in some voices). Apparently, ‘miracle cure for children’ stories are news; ‘miracle cure lacks evidence of efficacy’ stories are not.
I’ll list the papers I contacted below, and explain why I think their coverage of Dore is - as it stands - inadequate. I’d hope that some may still pick up on this story, but frankly I doubt it.
Readers were told that “Millions of people with dyslexia have been given hope by a set of simple exercises that experts say can cure the disorder…A new study found the revolutionary treatment transformed the reading and writing skills of children with dyslexia.” However, the Mail have chosen not to tell their readers about Bishop’s demonstration that the study in question provided only very poor evidence for Dore’s efficacy.
Manchester Evening News
The paper reported that “Schoolchildren with learning difficulties have been “cured” thanks to a special exercise programme designed to stimulate the brain” and ran a positive article on Dore’s “Magic cure for dyslexia?” Prof Bishop has posted on the comments thread for the latter article, but her analysis of Dore is not discussed anywhere else on the website. When I spoke to the paper, they were concerned that criticisms of Dore’s evidence-base were not of local interest (although they apparently believe that stories about its ‘magic’ efficacy are).
Guardian
Readers of the paper were informed that “A revolutionary exercise programme for children and adults with dyslexia and similar learning difficulties was hailed as a major breakthrough last night, as academics said the therapy was working.” Wendy Berliner states that “An experiment using [Dore] exercise in Warwickshire has yielded staggering results. What does it take to impress ministers?” Apparently, “Researchers who have monitored [Dore] treatment for dyslexia today hailed it “as close to a cure as there is”. The Guardian also reports cricketer Paul Nixon’s claims to have benefited from Dore treatment.
The Guardian did - I should acknowledge - run an excellent column by Ben Goldacre, criticising the evidence-base for Dore. However, one column analysing the bad science of Dore doesn’t make up for a load of articles praising the evidence for the treatment.
Times (and Sunday Times)
Coverage in the Times and Sunday Times has, at least, been a little more critical. They do report that “The [Dore] group soon began to show significant improvements in reading, comprehension and writing. After six months the control group was introduced into the exercise programme and similar results were observed. Researchers also noticed that the children’s sporting ability and self-confidence improved.” However, at least they also note that “Dyslexia charities greeted the results with caution and warned parents against expecting the commercially developed treatment, known as DDAT (dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention disorder treatment), to provide “a miracle cure”. They pointed out that the treatment, developed by a private company based in Warwickshire and costing £1,500 for a full course lasting one year, has not been shown to work for all people with dyslexia or related conditions.” Caroline Scott’s piece on dyspraxia considers some of the criticisms of Dore and the research behind it. The Times also ran two critical articles on Dore/DDAT.
That said, the Times has also ran several positive pieces discussing Dore (drawing largely on anecdotal reports). Also, while Zoe Brannan’s article on Dore considers some of the criticisms of Dore, the article ends by dismissing such criticisms with a quote from Wynford Dore’s daughter: “Twenty-five years of my life were wasted. At that time, I felt there was no hope for me…The company doesn’t make anything, and he still doesn’t take a salary. People ask me, ‘What can you do to pay him back?’ And I say, ‘I’ve done the only thing he really wanted. I’ve survived’.”
In other words, the Times’ coverage of Dore was better than the other papers I’ve looked at. However, this is a case of being best in a rather shoddy crowd - rather than being any kind journalistic exemplar.
Telegraph
The Telegraph told its readers that, in one study, “The [Dore] group showed such a swift improvement that teachers even said they believed that parents were doing their children’s homework…After six months the control group was also introduced into the exercise programme so it too could benefit. The researchers re-screened the children after the treatment and all were shown to be free of dyslexic symptoms. Remedial help in school was no longer necessary.” Readers also learned about how “Brain exercises ‘improve’ behaviour of criminals” and how Dore exercises allegedly took Tom Rees to the rugby world cup.
To be fair, the Telegraph does have John Clare answering a reader’s question by advising them to “waste no more money on DDAT - or Dore Achievement Centres, as they now prefer to be known”. It also quotes Susan Treadwell of the British Dyslexia Association saying (right at the end of a positive article on Dore research) that “I would be cautious in hailing it as a miracle cure”. This very limited critical coverage does not, however, engage with the serious problems with the research on Dore - the coverage is therefore inadequate.
Conclusions
It therefore seems like ‘miracle cure appears not to work’ stories are seen as far less newsworthy than ‘miracle cure saves children and cute fluffy bunnies’ stories (although some newspapers are better than others). Even when someone like me is sad enough to contact a number of newspapers - explaining what the ‘negative’ story is and why they should cover it - this is ignored.
I’m sure that this will all be a great thing for those who are trying to sell ‘miracle cures’ to the British public. However, it is more problematic for those of us who need to work out what treatments work, and what treatments don’t. Can the mainstream media start offering more balanced coverage of such ‘cures’, or will those wanting reliable information need to look elsewhere?
57 responses so far ↓
gimpy // October 16, 2007 at 8:49 am
I find this really quite sad. It might be worth pointing out the these journalists that the NUJ code of conduct states that members:
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
I think you could convincingly argue that by not correcting the positive reporting of Dore they are doing harm to society.
Of course the NUJ are as firm as the SoH when it comes to enforcing their code of conduct.
Claire // October 16, 2007 at 10:37 am
“…Can the mainstream media start offering more balanced coverage of such ‘cures’, or will those wanting reliable information need to look elsewhere?”
I wonder if it would make a difference if significant numbers of people could be motivated to send letters to the editors of newspapers who run these kinds of stories? To make things easier for us time-poor or plain lazy folk, perhaps some public spirited bloggers could supply a brief list of points which should be covered in such letters, plus e-addresses. Or is this hopelessly naive?
Amnesty International often refers to a ‘culture of impunity’ as one of the root causes of violations: if abusers are never called to account, the abuse just goes on. Perhaps a culture of impunity also operates regarding misleading reporting of health scares and miracle cures?
missellie // October 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm
In answer to the comments about Dore, my daughter is one of the success stories and I do not see the treatment as a gimmick.
If you had dispaired about your child who was three years behind her peers at school, unable to take in the simplest of tasks. Have traites of autism and be told that the school could only do so much for her and she would struggle with learning as well as her social skills into adulthood.
She commenced Dore in 2004 and completed it in 2005 my daughter is not the child who started the treatment she was on a par in learning with her peers following the treatment and has devloped into a fully functional teenager who can hold her own and can go for whatever she wants to out of life. To us mothers who have seen the changes then yes to us it is a miracle cure!!!!
Lesley // October 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Perhaps it is because of the letters they receive from truly happy customers, that is swinging the balance?
Bishops comments are critiscims of the research. Frankly we need more research, as it clearly works for many.
Many Occupational Therapists ,depending where you live, use very similar exercises to great effect with LD children, the problem there being that with their rediculously long waiting lists. Their services privately are comparible to Dore, but Dore is run specifically for LD. Of course it’s not a “miracle cure”, LD’s are not a diseases and a 12 months+ treatment which takes comitment clearly does not constitute a miracle. My son has made exceptional ground up, especially with his Speech and Language, the S&L therapist commenting that she had NEVER seen such accelerated progress in 6 months and turned to me with a wink telling me “He’s on Ritalin isn’t he?”. Well no actually he’s not. His writing, organisational skills, reading are catching up. I await more progress.
Dore is most definitley a bonus to society and I would have been at my wits end without them.
- A very happy mother of a dyslexic, dyspraxic, and (probably) ADD inattentive 9yr old son.
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Lesley and Missellie- glad your kids are doing so well. However, without decent quality research, it’s not possible to know whether that was down to Dore, to the support you’ve been giving them, to the extra attention, etc.
To take an anecdote of my own, I started reading relatively late, and when I did so my reading abilities came on very quickly. If I had been doing Dore or similar, I might well have attributed it to that. But I wasn’t. People - especially children - can develop in stops and starts. This makes it easy to get the impression that ineffective - or even harmful - treatments are helping their development. I could provide lots of examples of glowing stories about miraculous treatments, which good quality research later proved to be useless - see for example secretin for autism.
Dore is marketed as a “Proven Long Term Drug-Free Solution” - this is completely inappropriate without the research to prove this. It’s wrong for newspapers to hail Dore as a cure without the research to back this up, and then fail to cover articles that point out the inadequacies in research on Dore.
One more thing - Bishop doesn’t ‘just’ criticise research on Dore, she also raises questions about whether the putative mechanism of action is plausible:
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 3:04 pm
To make things easier for us time-poor or plain lazy folk, perhaps some public spirited bloggers could supply a brief list of points which should be covered in such letters, plus e-addresses.
Thanks, that’s an interesting idea. In brief, you can find a summary of many of the relevant points here. In short, the research on Dore has been poor quality, and the putative mechanism for action is implausible or barely plausible.
In terms of e-mail addresses, a bit reluctant to post here for fear of spambot harvesting. However, a quick look at the paper websites should find you details of e-mail/phone contacts, if you’re wanting to get in touch :)
Lesley // October 16, 2007 at 3:15 pm
My own sister was a late reader and came on as you did, but she had none of the other traits of LD’s i.e. poor short term memory, S&L deficits, organisation skills, writing, auditory processing deficits, visual processing deficits. Dyslexia is so much more than poor reading skills so you cannot really compare your reading skills to that of a child with Dyslexia. What about the speech and languge problems you seem to be ignoring the comment made by an experienced S&L therapist, she was amazed and had NEVER seen this before. The cerebellum is linked to languge centers. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the other balance senses can compensate for the lack of vestibular balance i.e. somatosensory visual. This reasearch has been around for years thanks to an OT in USA but it was pooh poohed then, by so called experts. Dyslexia is very complex and comes in many forms not all Dyslexics can be helped and Dore does not take on those who do not have fit the crteria of Cerebellum Development Delay.
How come atheletes with Dyslexia who should have perfect coordination balance and motor skills can benefit from the programme then? I just wish these “experts” would come out of their ivory towers, stop shuffling papers and speak to the real sufferers of LD’s and their families.
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm
My own sister was a late reader and came on as you did, but she had none of the other traits of LD’s i.e. poor short term memory, S&L deficits, organisation skills, writing, auditory processing deficits, visual processing deficits.
I did, and in some areas still do. But I have developed some abilities that might - given these deficits - be surprising. This has happened without interventions such as Dore.
The reason that I did not respond to your comment re. speech therapist is that - while I’m glad your child improved so quickly - I very much doubt that such anecdotes can be generalised. Such glowing reports also come when treatments that are know to be useless/harmful were tried - e.g. see this anecdote about secretin as an autism treatment
I just wish these “experts” would come out of their ivory towers, stop shuffling papers and speak to the real sufferers of LD’s and their families.
Most psychologiests in this area (including, iirc, Bishop) do work with people with LDs. More to the point, if Dore want to be able to sell their treatment as a ‘cure’, why don’t they pay for some good quality research to test its efficacy? After all, a good study would not cost all that much more than the poor quality research that Bishop critiqued…
gimpy // October 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Lesley and Missellie, I must echo johnhw’s comments too. The trouble with methods such as that used by Dore is that they lack a scientific rationale for their techniques and are reluctant to subject their method to critical analysis. While I have every sympathy for you and your children and understand that resources are scarce when it comes to OTs that is no reason not to be wary of unproven techniques, especially those that charge money and offer fantastical promises.
Lesley // October 16, 2007 at 4:31 pm
So your Dyslexic ? Should have said earlier, I would have expected more understanding, but there are different severities of Dyslexia, of course.
My son decodes well above his age, but ask him to read and the words and accuracy fluency and comprehension are poor. When and if this kicks in I will really shout from the treetops. Please don’t patronise me by saying what I see is merely something that could have happened anyway due to maturation, and that your pleased for us. My son has been working hard for several years on his reading, luckily Dore is looking after the other symptoms. If I had just sat back. he would be even further behind.
I have first hand experience of Dore where you have a few badly designed research papers and a Bishop “critique”.
I think we will have to agree to differ on this.
But be aware there are many more like myself who are ready to send “our “letters to the newspapers, and a few who like myself are public spirited bloggers.
PS I believe there is more research going on as we speak into Dore, I believe it to be very costly. I for one would not want my son in the control group. There’s loads of reasearch into the cerebellum,cognition, etc just google scholar it :)
That’s why many OT’s offer the same sort of exercises on the NHS, unfortunatley they don’t work soley with LD’s and the waiting list can be enourmous.
Lesley // October 16, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Thanks Gimpy, but if a lesser version is available on the Nhs why are we called gullible parents for wanting it quicker and privately? It is no more expensive than a private OT and it is a professionally run outfit, with physiotherapists and teachers as their employees.
Dore has been around a good few years and is now being “sold” more by word of mouth, by pleased parents.
Yes we need more research, but I have a feeling that research, being so slow, is being left behind.
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Lesley- there’s a huge range of treatments/cures sold for LD’s (not all targeted as dyslexics, I should say). Everything from brain gym to body brushing to different variants of nutritional therapy to NLP to INPP to NACD to homeopathy to osteopathy to sacral cranial therapy. Even if I were looking for a ‘cure’ at this point, I’d likely be skint from the pricing on these things and dead from old age before I’d been able to try all the treatments sold for LD’s.
Most of these treatments have anecdotes of success that they claim couldn’t have been possible without said treatments. However, it is exceptionally hard to know whether or not the treatment was responsible for these successes, without good quality research (e.g. the use of a control group receiving a treatment like ‘conventional’ OT). Such research is also needed to allow people with LDs and their families to make an informed choice re. whether or not to use various approaches (although some of the approaches listed above have already been tested well enough that there is good evidence that they are no more than placebos, while some approaches also raise safety concerns).
Re. research being slow, Dore has certainly been around for long enough to have carried out one (probably more) decent quality studies. If those discussed by Bishop hadn’t done so badly, there could already be some good research on Dore - doing research well doesn’t take much longer than making a hash of it…
missellie // October 16, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Research is needed we all agree on that but who will do the research may I ask?
Dore has done it’s own research which is more than others have done, but their findings were found to be floored.
If all the critics of Dore’s research would do their own, maybe then they too will find out why it works for so many. Dore want independent research like the government itself to undertake it which shows their commitment and belief in it.
In the meantime Dore will try to help all that it can within the prison sevice and for us who have lost faith in ever seeing any help within the schools.
As Lesey said while the research remains slow and the arguments rage on about Dore. Many parents will continue to put their children through the professional hands of Dore and reap the benefits.
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Research is needed we all agree on that but who will do the research may I ask?
Dore make claims like ‘proven’ for their treatment. They should therefore fund the initial research to test whether it works or not (well, they should have done the research before making the claims, but anyway…) If Dore were to fund one or two studies, they would have no trouble finding academic researchers prepared to undertake the research; they would then ‘just’ need to make sure that the supervision was in place to ensure better quality research this time.
Many parents will continue to put their children through the professional hands of Dore and reap the benefits.
Many people will continue to go through Dore. Without decent quality research, though, we can’t know if Dore is useful to them, or how useful it is.
Duck // October 17, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I have Dyspraxia myself, and a very strong family history of SpLDs, so I can assure you I do not lack practical experience in the area. I am doing my undergraduate research project testing some aspects of alternative diagnosis & treatments for Dyslexia. People do not research SpLDs in a vacuum, and many researchers will have a particular interest from their personal and family background. No-one wants to ’suppress’ treatments which work. That would be ridiculous - what motivation do you suggest for such a thing?
Research papers are a way of organising and measuring the first-hand experience of many people who have tried a particular treatment. If you deny research evidence, you are denying the first-hand experiences of everyone who took part in those trials. Your experience is important, but the combined experience of many people is a more reliable basis form which to draw conclusions - they are not ‘just’ research papers.
It’s common for children with SpLDs to make rapid progress at times (so do most children). SpLDs are difficult to diagnose accurately, and as developmental disorders, it is hardly unexpected that they alter with development. My parents were told that I would never learn to ride a bike, but 12 years after that I was placed in an Ironman triathlon and worked in a bicycle shop. This wasn’t due to any specific treatment, just the normal variability in course of developmental disorders - some children do grow out of some aspects (though I am still very dyspraxic in some areas, just not bicycle-riding).
I completely agree that more research into what works for SpLDs would be a good idea. Tell you what - I’ll graduate in Psychology this summer, and I’m already doing my undergraduate research into SpLDs, including some evaluation on Dore. Would you like to fund a PhD at my uni for research into Dore? I’d happily take it up.
Would it be too nasty to point out that it’s the posters who claim to have found a ‘cure’ for Dyslexia who have the poorest spelling and grammar?
Lesley // October 17, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yes it would, as Dyslexia tends to run in families, but you should know that.
Lesley // October 17, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I also have a fellowship and am chartered in my field of work , so trying to tell me that I’m dumb and shouldn’t be listened to, just because you “almost” have a degree, won’t wash. Get the degree first as your results with decide wether your PhD material.
Is that too nasty?
Lesley // October 17, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Woops spelling mistake well I’m not a trained in typing am I? Or perhaps I’m dyslexic! As I explained previously there is no cure for Dyslexia it is not a disease.
eraina // October 17, 2007 at 3:19 pm
what a load of twaddle!!! never in my life have I heard so much crap from people who have never even attended a Dore centre let alone completeds the programme!! missellie, lesley..WE KNOW it works… i think arguing with these ‘critics’ is like winning the special olympics.. Dore Rocks !!!FACT!!!!!!! if Dore paid for research then they would say ‘ well of course its in their favor they paid for it’ we have the living, walking, talking proof it works…they can call me gullable, misguided or whatever they want, but it wont alter the fact that my son is like a different child and doing so well now!! nothing to do with extra tuition or anything else (i know cos he never had any!!)Dore is a fantastic programme. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!
jonhw // October 17, 2007 at 7:12 pm
lesley- I don’t think anyone said you were dumb and shouldn’t be listened to, did they?
As I explained previously there is no cure for Dyslexia it is not a disease.
That’s interesting. So can we agree, at least, that it’s wrong for journalists to describe Dore as a ‘cure’?
eraina- are you saying that I can’t read research papers about Dore without having gone through the programme? Why? It’s very common for people to read about treatments that they haven’t tried, and use this as a way to decide whether or not to use or recommend that treatment.
i think arguing with these ‘critics’ is like winning the special olympics
Classy. I can’t quite figure out which group(s) you’re insulting most, but it’s sweet that you felt able to do so without worrying about details like coherence, spelling or grammar.
eraina // October 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Im sure you can read as many research papers as you like, but as you are so convinced that only NEGATIVE research is correct maybe thats just a waste of time too. Hence my question regarding your experience of the Dore programme. Classy..yup you cant buy class…lol…Sweet..hell yeah..fo’ sho’….!!! Unfortunately I am in need of the Dore programme so please excuse my Dyslexic tendencies!!! *rolls eyes*
Lesley // October 17, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“Would it be too nasty to point out that it’s the posters who claim to have found a ‘cure’ for Dyslexia who have the poorest spelling and grammar?”
And everything else duck said smacks of intellectual snobbery.
Oh dear started a sentence with “and”, tut tut.
I also agree it shouldn’t be describes as a miracle, I always thought they happened in a short period of time. Something like “reading relatively late, and going from barely reading at all to reading unusually well for age within less than one week”- wow now that would be a MIRACLE
missellie // October 17, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Duck I can see what you are saying and I can relate to your family history of spLDs. My mother,her triplet sister, myself and twin sister as well as two of my three children.
I too at the age of 14 finally mastered riding a bike but not very well, I would be the one pedalling along like a madman because as long as I kept pedalling I wouldnt fall off!!!
I had thought I had conquered my LDs at school a late developer which meant I missed out when it came to GCSE’s I did not have the time to make up for all the years I was stuck in my non learning bubble. I made up that time over the years and I mean years. But I went on to get my GCSE’s took many exams during my nursing to gain my general and orthopaedic nursing as well as community nursing.
Where you are doing your degree I started my district Nursing Honours degree completed the first year and then had to put it on hold. Those difficulties I had as a child and which I thought I had mastered came back to haunt me. Since then I have finally been diagnosed with dyslexia, probably dyspraxia as well.
My two children inherited their problems from me and I was not willing to sit back and watch them suffer as I had. My eldest at 9 had a verbal IQ of 83 and non-verbal of 94 for that reason they would not give her a diagnosis of any learning difficulty even though by then she was 3 years behind her peers at school.
If the establishment were not going to help her then I would have to look myself and I found Dore.
They were the only ones who gave her a diagnosis for her LDs the cerebellum development delay. 18 months later she was on a par with her peers and has maintained it going into senior school out of learning needs.
My point is yes she could have developed in her own time by producing the coping mechanisms as I did by the time I was 14 but they are never perfect and I too have cerebellum development delay.
What is the alternative for my children to continually struggle through life as I did or to do Dore for 18 months which has given my daughter the potential finally to go for what ever she wants out of life. My son is in the wings for January when he is 7 as he to has dyslexia like his mother.
I am a practical and level headed woman looked at the evidence available but there was no help for my daughter there. Dore has been proven to me by my own experiences of having spLDs that it does work because my daughter is now free of those difficulties where I very much still have them.
My time will come for Dore but first my son needs come first as he has his whole life ahead of him.
It would be lovely if someone would fund you to do research into Dore, to me they have something there if people would be open enough to see it.
sunrise1408 // October 17, 2007 at 10:32 pm
What is so terribly sad is that someone discovers a method of help, and all people want to do is shoot the poor guy down in flames! It is good to be objective, I cant deny that. But what about the people that really have seen an improvement? Can that be ignored? To be honest, it really doesnt make any difference to me what people think about Dore. I thoroughly researched it, the good and the bad. And I felt it was worth the risk for my 8 yr old son,as he is 24+mths behind.
School have been as much help as a chocolate teapot, which believe me is so frustrating. I have even been told that if he was aggressive, they would be on the pulse about it. But because he quietly hides away praying that no one spots that he cannot read, complete or even remember the task in hand, he will always be overlooked. Now that is not good enough. We have been on the waiting list to see an OT for 11mths now.My son cannnot afford the time to wait for some pencil neck in school to say if he qualifies for help. Even though I have paid (out of sheer frustration)privately for a diagnosis which says he needs to be statemented.
When you look around for help you have to make some tough decisions.Maybe Dore doesnt work for everyone, who knows. Yes, their help does come at a cost. But nothing is free.When you add up all the 6wkly appointments,the phonecalls whenever you have any queries. It actually works out way cheaper than paying the Ed psych per appointment. Nobody forces you to hand over money.It is early days for my son, as he has barely been on this 6mths yet, but there have been some improvements.His eye tracking has improved, his sense of balance is improving too. It is a slow climb, but he is working hard at it. Also, you have to remember that there is a commitment when you are on the programme. To do the set tasks twice a day. Can you hack it? To do it religiously, without fail. Its not for people without staying power thats for sure. Just try to be open minded and fair thinking. The staff at Dore are amazing. Always available to answer questions and give help and advice, which is a damn sight more than the so called professionals have been doing. Thank God for Wynford Dore!
Please dont slate it unless you have had first hand experience of the programme and therefore know what you are talking about.
pv // October 18, 2007 at 12:34 am
As a vaguely interested bystander I am wondering why those defending Dore are so put out that anyone should suggest it might not be what the newspapers claim. Anyone would think their religion is being attacked - perhaps they feel it is. There does after all appear to be a rather religious or cultish, rather than rational, overtone to the defense of Dore, does there not. After all, an anecdote isn’t data and is always faulty for a myriad of well known and undeniable reasons.
And why the slightly religious like defensiveness when the criticism is of the over-the-top, unbalanced publicity given by newspapers for a “treatment” that hasn’t been properly researched yet is being hailed as a “miracle”? The British press are famous for hyping up quackery and magic - it sells papers and, more to the point, advertising space to quacks and snake oil salesmen eager to part the vulnerable and gullible from their money. That’s how it works with the press whether you like it or not.
What is so wrong in pointing out that claims of evidence backed by research are mistaken or false, when one can demonstrate the case? What is so wrong when one can illustrate why a particular piece of research is of poor quality or faulty?
eraina // October 18, 2007 at 1:01 am
LOL@PV yes we get quite Evangelical about it dont we!!! I guess it is just so frustrating to hear about ‘reasearch this n that’ when we have seen the evidence for ourselves….It IS a treatment that can help people with LD’s, and as most Dore Bores will tell you, it aint no miracle cure. Its a hard, long, labour intensive programme (not a quick fix pill like our NHS pead wanted us to give our child after a 5 min consultation)it causes tears and tantrums..but also its not the Emperors New clothes either, when you live with the evidence and are there to see the changes in your child first hand you cannot deny it works!!…I really wish that there was some independent research that would put this all to bed. I would actually be more wary of the programme if there wernt debates such as this!! sermon over!! *steps away from the computer!*
missellie // October 18, 2007 at 7:52 am
Hi PV I had to smile when I read your post as you say we are very passionate about what Dore do.
We have learned to be we were originally in dispair with our children who were struggling not only at school but socially because of their learning difficulties. Dore gave our children the ability to learn at school but it also finally showed that our children were capable of many things we had never dreamed they would be able to reach because of their LDs.
My daughter is now 2 years post Dore and I can see a rosey future for her at 12, there is no longer the need to constantly be at logger heads with the education establishment about her needs she has none. She is a normal teenager who is looking forward to doing what ever she wants to in the future.
If our passion for Dore seems to be like a religion then maybe it is because there is nothing more life changing than seeing your child blossom into a happy, normal contented teenager and know that a simple treatment of exercises without drugs had got her there.
gimpy // October 18, 2007 at 10:26 am
missellie, I assure you if your child is happy and contented as a teenager then that is very unusual :). I am glad that you feel your daughter has overcome her difficulties though. However, please understand that anecdotal evidence isn’t sufficient to make claims of treatment efficacy. Unless a treatment is investigated using proper scientific method with adequate controls no proper claim can be made that it works. How do you know that if you hadn’t used Dore you daughter wouldn’t have improved anyway? As Duck has pointed out SpLD’s can improve over time independent of intervention. There could well be benefit in Dore but until is investigated using the scientific method with a credible rationale for its proposed mode of action it cannot be considered to work better than doing nothing. Would you pay for a new drug that hadn’t been tested and nobody had a proper theory as to how and why it could work? Why should Dore be treated differently?
superburger // October 18, 2007 at 11:08 am
problem is with all things in life is that we’re desperate to believe in what we want to believe and easily blinded to things we don’t want to believe.
maybe Dore works, maybe Dore doesn’t. Maybe it works, but not as well as people say. Maybe it works for 50% of kids, not the other half. Maybe £ for £ it isn’t the best.
If you thinks it has worked for you or your child that is great, and i wouldn’t try and take that away from you.
some properly designed objective research is what will answer these question. Personal anecdotes only serve as a starting point.
If we could show it *was* effective that’d be amazing; all sorts of things could be done to refine and improve the concept and economies of scale would come into effect and everyone could access the treatment.
superburger // October 18, 2007 at 11:23 am
oops - and always need to remember that there is the possibility that Dore *could* make child’s condition worse - no evidence for that - but need to be open to the possibility……
jonhw // October 18, 2007 at 11:27 am
I’m a bit surprised that this post has been so controversial. Dore is advertised as ‘proven’ despite the fact that what research there is into the treatment is of poor quality. Newspapers have misreported poor quality research as showing that Dore is a cure for LDs, and have chosen not to cover a review of this research which has made painfully clear the inadequacies of the research. These are bad things, right?
If Dore is something worth advocating - surely what you should be pushing for now is good quality research (and accurate media coverage of that research). If Dore works, this will be by far the best way to get your message out.
Frankly, I’m surprised that those who believe Dore works haven’t been raising hell about the poor quality of the research would had been done. If I found out that researchers investigating a project I was involved in had taken up my time and energy, only to produce such shoddy research, I’d be livid…
Lesley // October 18, 2007 at 12:40 pm
There’s IS more research coming out, but you like us will have to wait for it. We don’t need to raise hell, we know it works. There’s more science papers coming out all the time to support the theory. In 10-20 years time it will be out there for all to peruse, just some of us need to get on with life today.
There’s nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence.
I would like to see peer reviewed evidence into phonological methods, where are they? That’s been around for years and people are still arguing about the how to best teach reading in our schools! I’d like to see all methods of remediating LD’s benchmarked. Where is the research on methods already used?
Duck // October 18, 2007 at 12:54 pm
‘Intellectual snobbery’ - well, if you say so.
As I explained, I’m planning to do my final year project researching aspects of DORE, for free, at an institution that’s got nothing to do with DORE. Surely that’s exactly the sort of thing you should welcome, as properly-conducted, independent research supporting DORE could help convince people to make it more widely available, maybe even on the NHS.
If you really believe DORE works, then decent research into it is the best possible thing that could happen. Research is a way of combining the first-hand experiences of many people who have tried a particular treatment together in an organised sort of way, so you can draw conclusions from all of them. It’s like asking maybe 100 people who have been through the programme, instead of just one - you have the benefit of 100 sets of experiences. Ignoring and rubbishing ‘research’ is ignoring and rubbishing the experiences of the research participants.
I’d rather ask 100 people than just one before putting a lot of money, time and effort into something. You can call that ‘intellectual snobbery’ if you wish, but I’d call it making decisions based on the evidence - and the more evidence the better. I have not said anyone is ‘dumb and shouldn’t be listened to’ - quite the contrary, I’d like to listen to and find out about the experiences of many people who have tried Dore, not all of whom will post on websites explaining what a wonderful success it is.
Spelling - if you’ve used DORE, yet still have common dyslexic difficulties, this does not support the case that DORE is a ‘miracle cure’ for dyslexia. However, a sample size of a few hundred words by a few people doesn’t prove anything - perhaps this helps to explain why solid research is needed before drawing conclusions from anecdotes?
Missellie, fair enough if you are using DORE on your children first, but it does again beg the question of why DORE is so expensive when if it works it could benefit so many. Same for eraina - if you think you ‘need DORE’, why haven’t you done it? If DORE were to publish their methods fully, it would be cheap and easy for anybody to use and research them, for little more than the cost of a few beanbags and a bit of photocopying. I am surprised that more ‘evangelical parents’ haven’t posted the full details of their children’s treatment online for others to follow.
If there is no ‘cure’ for Dyslexia, why did Wynford Dore write a book called ‘Dyslexia: The Miracle Cure’?
I don’t want to ’shoot DORE down in flames’. I want evidence-based treatments for SpLDs, not just because it’s intellectually interesting, but also because a treatment which has been shown to work would make a lot of difference to many people in my family. As things stand, it’s not possible to evaluate DORE properly because they won’t disclose full details of their treatment, so if it works, then DORE themselves are denying treatment to people who could benefit, and stopping other researchers from improving what they do. If it doesn’t work, then DORE are wasting not just a lot of money, but a lot of time and effort and ultimately hope from desperate people. Neither’s fair, so we need more research and less claims of a ‘miracle cure’ ’till what works is properly established.
eraina // October 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm
heya Duck, my reasons for not doing Dore myself are purely financial.(I would love to do it) 2 of my kids have been through the programme and my youngest who has Aspergers will also be doing the programme when he is old enough. (he’s nearly6)I also have 2 teenage boys who have NO LD’s (apart from the fact they are just stroppy teenagers, they have never struggled with school work, co ordination etc) so as you can imagine I dont have thousands of pounds to use for ME! The kids come first, when my youngest has done the programme then we’ll see if I can afford to do it. I have many Dyspraxic tendencies BUT they dont impact greatly on my day to day life, except for concentration.I did well in school, but would never make a sports team or be able to dance(except like a drunken monkey!)…and I’d probably forget we had a match anyway!!! So you can imagine that with 5 kids there isnt spare money lying around for ME! I dont feel the need to raise hell about the research cos there are plenty of people out there doing that already by the sounds of it. I know it worked for my kids, I cant MAKE people beleive me. Im not paid by dore in anyway shape or form (mores the pity) but I do believe it works, from my own personal experience. I cant say more than that!! (though Im sure I will!!)
PS I REALLY dont believe it should be termed a Miracle cure either. I think the price sounds very scary, but if you paid a chiroprater or OT etc etc for 3 years worth of assessments and support etc maybe it isnt that much? maybe the book should have been called ‘miracle cure?’ omitting the question mark makes it sound like a fact.
gimpy // October 18, 2007 at 1:45 pm
eraina, the effectiveness of Dore should never ever be about belief. It should be about whether the facts and evidence support claims that it works. So far they don’t. Believing in something doesn’t make it true.
eraina // October 18, 2007 at 2:24 pm
appreciated, gimpy. (does this mean there isnt REALLY a Father Christmas???lol) When I first found out about dore I can honestly say I was going in ‘blind’! I hadnt heard of the programme before I got talking to someone who had met Jordan and recognised in him some traits that were very much like his own son. I had never heard of Dyspraxia and I was going along the road of consulting the NHS pead. re ADHD. School wernt particularly helpful either. I was at the end of my tether (this I think is the point that you think people will do ANYTHING that helps. Not so!!) Anyhow the pead. had a five minute consultation with me and said he was will ing to prescribe Ritalin for Jordan (as you are all aware a PROPER ADHD consultation is a long process, not 5 mins!!)I declined his offer hoping that there would be something that helped the problem, not simply papered over the cracks. Im sure that Ritalin used correctly is beneficial to those who need it, but it did seem like a ‘lazy’ solution after such a quick consultation and Jordan didnt seem to really fit the whole ADHD criteria. Anyway I heard about Dore and decided to get an appointment. (I didnt have any salespeople calling me or anything like that it was purely my decision) after Jordan started with the exercises changes started happening very quickly, reading, writing,co ordination, concentration (you REALLY had to know this kid PRE-Dore to appreciate this)It was hard work and at times I got really fed up doing it, along with fitting in everything else too!! If they made a pill that did the same thing Id give them that instead!! but they dont!! (do they?????lol) i never checked any reasearch and very much doubt that I would have stayed on task long enough to even truely understand it. I appreciate that the plural of anecdote ISNT data. Guess I just get sick of being seen as a gullable over anxious mother without two brain cells to rub together, who cant possibly think for herself, and is willing to believe ANYTHING as long as her little darlings are ok!! If you knew how cynical I am about EVERYTHING you’d KNOW thats just not how I am!!! So ,the evidence I have seen (for me anyhow) supports the claims it works!!!
pv // October 18, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“There’s IS more research coming out, but you like us will have to wait for it. We don’t need to raise hell, we know it works. ”
That’s just it Lesley, you don’t know. You know something is doing something but in the absence of some properly controlled research all you can do is guess. If repeatable research points to something else, some other mechanism, say, will you still be insisting?
Let me put it this way, in the absence of a telescope there is a man in the moon, the earth is flat and the sky is a hemisphere dotted with fairy lights. You can observe it all with the naked eye… except you would be wrong. The anti-MMR lot are the same, except there is plenty of good quality evidence available to contradict them and none to support them. Ditto anti-thiomersal groups. There are certain characteristics these groups, and others like them, have in common. One is there is always someone or organisation in the background selling them some dodgy or unproven miracle remedy (always with research “just around the corner” or “unpublished” that mysteriously never sees the light of day). Another is the religious fervour of the adherents who’ve “seen it with their own eyes”. Another is that, whatever the evidence points to, they never change their position because it’s a matter of principal and they are convinced that their interpretation of whatever they think they’ve witnessed is infallible. Yet another, if on-line forums are anything to go by, is a profound ignorance of what science is and, just as importantly, what it isn’t.
All that said, what is being criticised here is the misleading if not downright false reporting by mainstream media on the one hand, and Dore giving the impression that what they are selling is proven - when it isn’t. As far as I can see, no-one is saying it doesn’t work or it cannot work, but from experience of miracle cures and the press one must conclude these are distinct possibilities irrespective of what personal anecdote might say.
There are many confounding reasons why anecdotes are untrustworthy, particularly when it comes to observations of our own children.
Btw, I have a nine year old son who has ocular motor apraxia and quite a few of the learning difficulties associated with that condition. I am well aware of parents’ anxieties if their children are handicapped in any way and their desire for remedial action when required. I am also well aware that parents are not necessarily the best or most objective observers of their own children.
missellie // October 18, 2007 at 4:22 pm
PV so what you are saying then is that us parents
who have seen the changes in our children cannot be considered as reliable evidence that the treatment works.
Does that also include their school teachers, professionals who deal with LDs like ed psychologists, S&L therapists who have all been involved with a lot of these children and have seen their changes in a short space of time.
In other words unless there is a whole load of research which as we know will be pulled apart anyway because that is what critics do. That is the only way that you would believe that something works and while we wait years for all the research to be done and all the critics to pull it apart as it is their job and we get more research to cover what the critics say is floored then everybody will realise that it does work.
In the meantime us parents will continue to make up our own minds and do what we think is right for our children because if you listen, the school system lets many of these children down.
I am happy with the way my daughter has turned out, even though she is considered an unreliable statistic. Cerebellum development delay needs to be recognised. But as you say until there is the reams and reams of research there to show what us unreliable mothers have been saying all along then the debate will continue.
Just a little note for you mentioning the MMR fiasco. I heard a news report earlier this year, so low key in amongst all the other news just a little snippet of information that most people seemed to miss. The use of mercury in vaccinations like MMR, flu jabs etc has been stopped. I didn’t know they used mercury to prolong their life. Interstingly the single vaccines do not contain mercury
What affect was this having on our children do we know and was the research undertaken by the doctor who was rediculed originally that stupid I ask myself as well as the parents who were considered unreliable evidence because they were in essence just parents and did not have a clue what they were talking about.
Ohh we could go around in circles here, you are either one who tries a treatment and sees the evidence with your own eyes or you are one who will only believe the evidence when it has been rigourously researched over and over again. In other words stalemate!!!!
FrazzleDazzle // October 18, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Why can’t Wynford say that the therapy is a miracle cure”?
It literally SAVED his daughter’s LIFE!
Coming from a father’s heart, he has every right to say it is a miracle cure.
Susan // October 18, 2007 at 6:13 pm
No need to pay thousands of pounds, here’s a page of FREE
Balance-remediation exercises:
http://www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/exercise.htm
Professor Diane McGuinness, a leading cognitive, developmental psychologist, says that the widely accepted description of dyslexia as an inherited, neurological weakness is wrong: “The cross-cultural comparisons reveal that the source of English-speaking children’s difficulties in learning to read and spell is the English spelling system and the way it is taught. These comparisons provide irrefutable evidence that a biological theory of “dyslexia”, a deficit presumed to be a property of the child is untenable, ruling out the popular “phonological-deficit theory” of dyslexia. For a biological theory to be accurate, dyslexia would have to occur at the same rate in all populations. Otherwise, some type of genetic abnormality would be specific to people who learn an English alphabet code and be absent in people who live in countries with a transparent alphabet, where poor readers are rare. A disorder entirely tied to a particular alphabetic writing system is patently absurd and has no scientific basis. English-speaking children have trouble learning to read and spell because of our complex spelling code and because of current teaching methods, not because of aberrant genes.” (D. McGuinness Early Reading Instruction p3)
jonhw // October 18, 2007 at 6:38 pm
The use of mercury in vaccinations like MMR, flu jabs etc has been stopped. I didn’t know they used mercury to prolong their life. Interstingly the single vaccines do not contain mercury
It is a common misconception that MMR contained or contains thimerosal. It never did. MMR is a ‘live’ vaccine - a preservative such as thimerosal would render it inactive and therefore useless.
Duck // October 18, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Susan - I take it you are familiar with the concept of floor and ceiling effects? English is harder to learn. English has an irregular orthography (weird & changing letter-sound combinations), therefore it is not implausible that someone could show signs of dyslexia in English, but be better able to cope with a language with a more direct letter-sound correspondence, or differently taught.
Compare how height is determined - partly nutrition, partly genetics. If people are adequately nourished, most of the variation will be explained by genetics, and there will be very few people who are shorter than a given height. Equally, in an ‘easy’ language, most people will learn to read & write adequately, so few will experience sufficient difficulty to be classed as dyslexic. In an environment without enough food, the average population height will be shorter, and the number of people below a given cut-off will be lower. Same for people learning a difficult language like English - environmental challenges are greater, so either or a combination of genetics or poor resources / teaching can more readily push people below a particular reading/writing level where dyslexia may be diagnosed.
Why Wynford can’t say the therapy is a ‘Miracle Cure’ - because it’s not fair to lead people to expect that by following his ideas their child will be instantly and magically better. Even those who support his work have said on here that the exercises take time, effort, & persistence - therefore it’s not a ‘miracle’. If it was a ‘miracle’, it would not be amenable to research (this seems to me to be the basic definition of a miracle - something which does not happen by natural means) so he could not claim that it would work for other people or talk about how it works. Compare antibiotics for meningitis - truly awesome & dramatically lifesaving, but not a miracle because we know how they work & how to replicate those effects.
eraina - again, if DORE is that good, why not publish full methods? That’s the way research & treatments can be improved - someone thinks of something, tries it out, publishes the full details of what they’ve done, & then other people re-test and see if they can make it better. If DORE is really that good, you should be attacking the organisation with everything you’ve got for it to publish it’s treatments fully. It wouldn’t cost much to set up a web page with details of the exercises etc, and then people would only have to pay for photocopying and a few bits of cheap equipment (unless there’s some sort of Top Secret stuff I don’t know about?). If your child has been through it, why not publish the details where everyone can see them?
eraina said that she was ‘going in blind’, and I don’t think anyone so far has disagreed that DORE is a lot of time & effort for everyone, children included. There are a lot of ‘treatments’ out there for SpLDs, many of which don’t have much of an evidence base, are expensive, take time & effort, & may be unpleasant for the child (I was subjected to a few). Most of them have glowing testimonials from some parents who will say that they ‘cured’ their child, because some children do improve a lot in a short period of time, which may not be related to any therapy happening at the time. If DORE works, then you need to prove that with research, otherwise there is no reason to choose it over any other ‘alternative’ / unproven therapy, and people will waste time, money, & effort on things that don’t work. As it is, why should someone choose DORE over something like ‘body brushing’, ‘patterning’, ‘GF/CF diet’, or any of the other unproven ‘treatments’ with glowing testimonials out there? Take a look at their websites & explain why a parent would know which to choose. That’s why research is important - to enable people to make informed decisions on the best possible evidence about what works best, and to find out how to make it better. Saying ‘try everything & see what works’ is going to mean a lot of children don’t get the best possible treatment, & whether or not you think that DORE will be shown to be the best possible treatment, I don’t think that’s what anyone wants.
Rod Everson // October 19, 2007 at 6:09 am
Susan wrote that Diane McGuinness states:
“For a biological theory to be accurate, dyslexia would have to occur at the same rate in all populations. Otherwise, some type of genetic abnormality would be specific to people who learn an English alphabet code and be absent in people who live in countries with a transparent alphabet, where poor readers are rare.”
Ms. McGuinness’s logic has a flaw. Dyslexia very likely does have a genetic origin and it very likely strikes all, or most, human populations. The flaw in her logic is that she assumes that other societies don’t have the poor readers typically found in the English-speaking world.
They no doubt do, but because of the more easily learned spelling systems in those societies, it is much more apparent that children in those societies should be taught exactly how their languages are structured. In other words, they wouldn’t dream of not teaching the phonics structure of their languages.
English, being far more complex, results in a more confused environment for curriculum writers, and as a result there is little agreement as to which particular curriculum is the best overall.
The results? In English-speaking countries, dyslexics read painfully slowly and often inaccurately and have a difficult time learning to spell, whereas the straightforward orthographies in many other languages result in dyslexics becoming able to read and spell, but there is still a subset of their citizens that read much more slowly than their peers. These are the dyslexics. They’re just not so easy to spot.
As for “miracle cures,” I’m convinced that deficient vision skills are behind many dyslexics’ troubles with reading. These can often be addressed with proficient vision therapy. (Read more on my website at ontrackreading.com) However, I’m more than willing to concede that the deficient vision skills have a genetic origin and that Dore’s exercises might address not only the vision skills deficits, but also other deficits shared by many dyslexics. Dore therapy likely addresses the developmental delays evident in most dyslexics at a more basic level of development than vision therapy does.
eraina // October 19, 2007 at 9:40 am
eraina - again, if DORE is that good, why not publish full methods? That’s the way research & treatments can be improved - someone thinks of something, tries it out, publishes the full details of what they’ve done, & then other people re-test and see if they can make it better. If DORE is really that good, you should be attacking the organisation with everything you’ve got for it to publish it’s treatments fully. It wouldn’t cost much to set up a web page with details of the exercises etc, and then people would only have to pay for photocopying and a few bits of cheap equipment (unless there’s some sort of Top Secret stuff I don’t know about?). If your child has been through it, why not publish the details where everyone can see them?
I dont know, and like I said many times before I can only tell you what I know from MY experience. Im not into marketing or science or research…so I dont know how these things work! However i do know that the exercises are tailored to meet each individuals needs (some have more need for vestibular training, some need visual etc etc) everybody is different! there are already exercise programmes that are a one size fits all out there and available. If these work (i dont know ‘cos i havent REASEARCHED them!!then brilliant and fantastic!! I agree that by calling it a miracle cure that is misleading, if it was a pill that costs 50p and youre child is intantly cured thats a miracle. I doubt anyone would disagree that its hard hard work, but I think most that have completed the programe would agree that its worth every minute and every £!!
About publishing the details about MY child? I m not sure I understood the question? do you mean I should do it? Dore is good but it’s not MY place to be on at them to publish their research-Thats their job!! they know what needs to be done!! It may sound a bit like ‘Im alright Jack’ but I know it works and my kids are sorted, I didnt have tonnes of research or testimonals when I tried it..If you wanna try it try it, if you dont..dont!! maybe a bit simplistic but its not MY job to convince everyone whats best for them or their kids.
eraina // October 19, 2007 at 9:41 am
ps Jordans story on the dore programme is already on the websites!
Susan // October 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Rod, Diane McGuinness covers the subject of ‘good decoders but slow readers’ as seen in those countries with transparent alphabet codes, in Ch.7 of Early Reading Instruction. Some of the points she makes are
- the studies on ‘slow readers’ have been carried out on English speakers who are slow AND inaccurate.
- most slow readers are boys with poor verbal IQs.
- the optimal reading rate varies across ages (reading speed is on a continuum) and individual differences but MOSTLY across writing systems.
- content also determines reading rate.
- ‘’reading a lot’’ does not increase speed.
In every country about 2-5% of children have problems learning to read and spell due to general language delays, weak auditory or verbal short-term memory, or other perceptual and cognitive deficits BUT these are language and memory problems, not “reading disorder” problems.
It’s a myth that ‘dyslexia’ is caused by faulty genes; Claims to link a complex, learned behavior that has to be taught (not part of species specific trait) to a gene complex, can only be bogus (McGuinness) ‘Thus, contrary to what practitioners may sometimes suppose, family relationship (familiality) alone is not a reliable indicator of genetic heritability’ (Rice/Brooks p32)
Susan // October 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm
P.S. I should have added that in those schools in the UK that do teach reading using synthetic phonics first, fast and only, all children learn to read and spell (except those 2-5% with severe cognitive and perceptual deficits).
Please watch CH4 TV next week when they are doing a series of programmes on illiteracy ‘Lost for words’ http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/L/lost_for_words/ and if you’re still not convinced about the benefits of using empirical evidence -based reading instruction come to the RRF’s conference in London (9thNov) and hear Ruth Miskin, Sue Lloyd, Prof. Diane McGuinness, Fiona Nevola and other true, no ‘woo’ reading experts talking about interventions that work :-)
http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=3026&sid=8c2ff86408920942271723ad4f9305cc
jonhw // October 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm
one more thought re. Dore - they list some ‘positive’ research on their UK website. Wouldn’t it be better if they also listed e.g. the various journal articles critiquing this research - to help parents and clients make an informed decision as to Dore’s suitability?
Rod Everson // October 19, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Susan wrote:
“In every country about 2-5% of children have problems learning to read and spell due to general language delays, weak auditory or verbal short-term memory, or other perceptual and cognitive deficits BUT these are language and memory problems, not “reading disorder” problems.”
Ah, but this is exactly what I was saying. Every country has poor readers. You assume that they are not genetically determined, but what if those all those individual “causes” you cite above are part of a pattern of poor development that are induced by a genetic tendency.
Furthermore, I have tested many children who read well and have good phonics skills (because someone taught them well) but who avoid pleasure reading because of persistent visual discomfort. They don’t always know it’s visual, because sometimes they just get headaches, but when you address their vision skills issues, their discomfort disappears.
Had these children gone through a poor US public school they undoubtedly would have stood out as dyslexics. Had they attended an Italian school as native Italians, they likely never would have shown up on the radar screen as having any reading problems. I maintain that eventually these people, too, will be found to be affected by the same genetic abnormality. When we finally figure out how to do the test and actually “read” the gene, I think we will find that 8 to 12% of the world-wide population has that particular gene activated. I also think that we will find that it is activated in those we consider autistic, affected by Aspergers, are dyslexic, have ADD, are dyspraxic and yes, even the “normal” readers who avoid reading due to headaches, etc. The 8-12% is a pure guess, and is based on it likely not being higher than 15 or 16% and having a 5% floor due to the numbers you willingly cite. The 2% is pure fantasy, but is heavily favored by the “everyone will learn to read using the right phonics program” contingent.
Face it, no one has done the studies required to sort all of this out and a lot of people are speculating, including me. However, I’ve asked nearly every parent of children who come in for vision evaluations because they have reading problems whether there is a history of reading struggles in the family and it is a very rare parent who claims that the child in front of me is the only one in the family affected. A far more common reaction is “That would be my husband…he still doesn’t like to read,” or “I really didn’t like to read at all until just a few years ago,” or “I had special reading help in the lower grades” or “I’ve got two brothers who still hate to read.” Either that, or I’m looking at a parent who has one eye obviously out of alignment. Out of nearly 100 such queries, I could count the negative responses on one hand….seriously.
You see, I really don’t need a research project because of the number of times I’ve asked the question and the consistency of the answers I’ve received. The leaves are going to fall from the trees next September and October. How do I know that? Because I’ve seen it with my own eyes enough times that I’m pretty sure that’s what happens.
Frankly, people who keep calling for research before they’ll even consider that someone just might have a point are usually trying to protect a firmly held point of view that is threatened. In your case, you’ve convinced yourself that a) dyslexia isn’t genetic (when anyone who’s around them regularly can’t help but notice with their own eyes the family patterns) and b) that treatments like vision therapy and Dore’s are not useful because you “know” it’s all about providing proper instruction (when there are hundreds of Dore practitioners and vision therapists who keep doing what they’re doing because they see the difference it makes in kids’ lives.) If you would get out of your self-limiting intellectual box and visit a Dore Center or a vision therapy department in a serious way, you would find sincere people who know they are helping kids and who become mystified by attitudes of people who won’t even ask them what kind of results they’ve obtained. Instead they find a skeptic who’s produced a paper and broadcast it’s existence ad infinitum. That paper will likely be proven wrong, just as those disparaging vision therapy are now being proven wrong.
Take a look at the Convergence Insufficiency Study portion on the sidebar of my website for an example of the latter case.
Incidentally, I am in 100% agreement of the need to use a phonics program from the start with children, and am probably very close to you in terms of what sort of phonics program. But I took the blinders off a few years ago as I realized that many kids who struggle are suffering from more than just poor instruction.
Please don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not a supporter of Dore. However, what he claims to be accomplishing (and what parents claim he actually is accomplishing) is consistent with my observations that something genetic is definitely going on, and that it appears to affect normal child development. Therefore, I will not rule out the possibility that when an apparently intelligent and sincere person tells us that he’s helping these kids, I should at least pay him the respect of listening to what he has to say. And if he decides that the best way to proceed is via a business model because he knows he will have satisfied customers, rather than trying to convince the powers that be to adopt his approach, that’s his business. If it turns out he’s right, I hope he becomes a billionaire. It will be money well spent.
missellie // October 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hi Rod I could relate to your post because of the family link. I said in an earlier post that what my daughter had I had as did my twin sister and my mother and her triplet sister.
As my daughter grew up I could see the same problems as myself developing and once at school she was following in my footsteps unlike my time at school where I was considered a late developer then a low achiever.
She was tested by the ed psychologist, S&L therapist and the paediatrition. they all agreed she had LDs but because of her low verbal and non-verbal IQ they would not give her a diagnosis.
I was already aware by now that what ever we all had it was genetic as my niece was also by then diagnosed with dyslexia and her younger sister was following in my daughters footsteps.
My thought on this was in this day and age with science as it is, surely there must be something out there that would give us a diagnosis for my daughter and some sort of help for her.
It took me 6 months of searching to find Dore and from then I never looked back.
My daughters LDs were the same as mine but I did manage to produce the coping mechanisms in some areas just before I left school and made up for that lost time but it has taken me 35 years to get there, where my daughter was learning on a par with her peers aged 11 following Dore. She no longer has the dyspraxic, dyslexia, CAPD, autistic tendencies she once had. She has now outstripped me in her abilities and I too need Dore but before anyone asks her brother Kieran with dyslexia needs help first my time will come later.
I do think the link for my family is the cerebellum development delay which Dore treat. I have it, my sister has it and all those I have mentioned have it. My daughter is the only one so far to overcome those LDs completely, her brother will follow her to Dore in January 2008.
VIA // October 21, 2007 at 1:12 pm
There’s been some Media coverage about the Dore programme in Australia.
The programme was aired in August 2007. The link is http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1994872.htm
The programme is called Four Corners and deals with current affairs. The programme about Dore
is called The Behaviour Business. This is a particular interesting account of the Dore programme. However, my experience of Mr Dore is that he’s a great believer in the “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” and he’s ready for all critics to bring it on? So to speak . I believe Mr Dore is quite happy as long as he/Dore programme has a platform, regardless of the content? I personally have lots of concerns about the business practice of Mr Dore and his cohort.
Via
jonhw // October 22, 2007 at 2:44 am
Thanks Via. I was meaning to say something about the ABC programme in the post, but the length rather got away from me ;) Something for another day, perhaps.
missellie // October 22, 2007 at 11:06 pm
The power of the media where they can produce a programme which can have the slant on an issue which is either positive or negative. The four corners programme looked at Dore in austalia but had a negative slant when it came to the interviews.
They could have been more positive about how childrens lives have been changed through Dore but they too honed in on the lack of research.
You have programmes and papers that give the positive and the negative sides of an issue.
The beauty of free speech but both sides are as vehement as the other about what should be promoted and what shouldn’t, but does it make either camp wrong or misguided.
In the end it is up to the individual what they think about Dore and what they see or hear in the media. The fact Dore can change childrens lives or the fact there is lack of research to prove it. The debate continues!!!. Ellie XXX
jonhw // October 24, 2007 at 1:05 am
The beauty of free speech but both sides are as vehement as the other about what should be promoted and what shouldn’t, but does it make either camp wrong or misguided.
No, there isn’t an equivalence between two ’sides’. The research behind Dore is either adequate to back up the claims they make, or it isn’t. If Dore want to sell the treatment based on anecdotal success stories, then they should make this limited evidence-base clear in their advertising.
To ask again, do you think that it would make potential customers better-informed if Dore listed the more notable critiques of some of the research into Dore on their Research page.
In the end it is up to the individual what they think about Dore and what they see or hear in the media. The fact Dore can change childrens lives or the fact there is lack of research to prove it.
As an aside, if Dore does has such dramatic effects, there’s also a lack of research to prove safety. How do we know that some children would not develop quicker and better without the use of Dore?
As Ben Goldacre suggests, if Dore is ‘proved’ to work due with positive anecdotes, can it be ‘proved’ to be ineffective or harmful with negative anecdotes?
Dore UK go into administration « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // May 23, 2008 at 5:46 pm
[...] about criticisms of the evidence for such ‘miracles’. Even after - to my shame - I was pedantic enough to call and e-mail a number of media outlets to let them know about a new article trashing [...]
Has Dore’s Miracle Cure lost its lustre? « Translucent Science // May 25, 2008 at 5:44 pm
[...] Dore Programme has enjoyed a lot of positive media coverage in the UK. Charismatic ambassadors told their stories of personal transformation. But the stories [...]
Links about Dore « gimpy’s blog // May 26, 2008 at 8:16 am
[...] Media bias in reporting Dore. [...]
Leave a Comment