Western Association for Biofeedback and Neuroscience — Spring 2017 33 predictability and reproducibility to jus- tify the attempt. That is to say, progress is ‘sufficiently predictable’---even while the final outcome is not---to motivate the initiative. So we have established the exis- tence of a therapeutic process to a level of absolute certainty. At the same time, we have also established a means by which such procedures may be identified and refined efficiently. In short, we have es- tablished a science of neurofeedback that is sufficient to attain any specified confi- dence level with regard to specific prop- ositions without resort to group studies or frequentist analysis or even controlled studies. At the level of subtlety at which we work, no other human being on the planet is capable of serving as a suitable control. The only viable option is to have the client serve as his own control in A/B comparisons, and that is what we have done for many years now. This makes training into an itinerant process that is at every turn guided and shaped by the response to the training itself. This breaks the mold on any standard research design. Since neurofeedback is time-consum- ing and expensive, the benefits need to be obvious upon inspection in nearly every case or it’s game over. As there is no point in chasing small effects, there should be no need to do statistics to bring even small effect sizes to light. With reference to Lourdes, Michael Tansey once said “I want to see crutches going up on walls.” Even back then, he saw neurofeedback as the fulfillment of that dream. For Bernie Brucker, who worked for many years with spinal cord injury using peripheral EMG feedback, this hope was realized quite lit- erally, not only metaphorically. The efficacy of neurofeedback is sim- ply no longer in question, and the issue should no longer engage us. That means all talk of the placebo as an explanatory model should be categorically dismissed. The placebo effects that are worth talking about in this connection are merely an- other aspect of the self-regulatory com- petence of our brains. As such they are part of our working assumption and cannot then also be a confound in our exertions. For those of us engaged in pro- moting self-regulatory competence, con- cern about the placebo is a category error. This case was succinctly made by Robert Shellenberger and Alyce Green in 1978 in their delightful little book, From the Ghost in the Box to Successful Biofeedback Training. Enlarging on this theme, we cannot look to academic research to solve our problem. We are plainly a threat to the prevailing medical disciplines in the sense that our methods stand almost entirely outside of their natural scope of compe- tence or education. This will not change rapidly, so we will continue to have our fate in our own hands. Consider those who have looked at the ‘best’ neurofeedback research available in the mainline literature, people such as Thibault and Raz, and Sonuga-Barke et al. They remain unimpressed; Thibault and Raz see our delusional aspirations as the equivalent of pining for the tooth fairy! They are incapable of escaping the academic echo chamber, the prison of left-brained thinking. If they were to vis- it the offices of Les Fehmi, Jim Hardt, Len Ochs, Paul Swingle or our own, they would get an invitation for their brain to take a journey that will surely confound