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?
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*
“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
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.
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.
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?
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!*
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.
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?
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.
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……
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…
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?
‘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.
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.
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.
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!!!
“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.
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!!!!
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.
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)