Dore Mentioned In Parliment
Labour MP Paul Flynn has raised this Early Day Motion about Dore
That this House is appalled at the gullible uncritical promotion by the media of Dore, a claimed miracle cure for dyslexia, in the absence of scientific proof of its value; notes that there were five resignations from the editorial board of the journal Dyslexia in protest at false claims published in that journal on the efficacy of Dore; welcomes Ofcom’s finding that Dore’s television advertisement was in breach of its rules on evidence,; calls on the Jeremy Vine Show, Channel Five News, Radio Five Live, BBC London, ITV Central, ITV Yorkshire, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, Scotland on Sunday, Tonight with Trevor McDonald and You and Yours to correct the false impressions they broadcast on an unproven treatment; and congratulates the bloggers and journalist Ben Goldacre for exposing this bad science and other exploitative snake oil salespeople.
It is interesting that it mentions bloggers and five resigning scientists. I wonder how much publicity those same bloggers will give to the fact that fifteen or so other scientists did not resign or the five scientists’ connection with the UK’s largest seller of unproven dyslexic treatments.
Source: The ever entertaining but slightly hypocritical, Bad Science.
Find Out More:
Books:
- Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level
- Graduated Applied Behavior Analysis
- With the Light. Vol. 1: Raising an Autistic Child
- How To Reach and Teach Children and Teens with Dyslexia: A Parent and Teacher Guide to Helping Students of All Ages Academically, Socially, and Emotionally
- Dyslexia My Life
June 19th, 2008
Dore Achievement Centres
Comments on: Dore Mentioned In Parliment
There was a piece in the Coventry Teleraph 2 days ago where an ex member of staff mentioned how it was common knowledge that Susie Dore had never completed the Dore programme.
Posted by: Bob Clarke June 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Bob, I can’t find such a piece, but I’m also not sure how that would make sense. If the programme was developed using her as a ‘guinea pig’, it would not have had the same end-point at the time.
Posted by: brainduck June 20th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Just to add to the debate about Susie. I had a conversation with Susie in the summer of 2006 where she said she was having to go home to do her exercises or her Dad (Wynford) would be on her case.
I thought it was odd and wanted to query why she was still doing the exercises but thought at this time the question was a little intrusive but also I had quickly become aware that Dore didn’t encourage an enquiring environment.
There might be a perfectly acceptable explanation for Susie continuing the exercises?
Posted by: Via June 20th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Maintenance?
Posted by: frazzledazzle June 21st, 2008 at 1:47 am
Maintenance?
Doesn’t quite fit into the claim that Dore make.
According to Dore these changes to the individual’s cerebellum is a physiological and a permanent change?
Sales and Marketing would have seized upon and relished the idea of a Dore maintenance programme!
Posted by: Via June 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
If Susie’s the Dore ‘guinea pig’, it’s not surprising if she’s not doing just the standard stuff at standard times. Having volunteered for all sorts at the department, research doesn’t always look much like the finished treatment.
Don’t think it’s terribly important anyway - except perhaps as a lesson in the perils of using nothing but anecdote.
Posted by: Brainduck June 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
If the Dore programme is predominantly built upon Susie’s experiences, then the questions are valid. Especially, when the claim has been made that the Dore programme offers a permanent solution for those individuals who are said to have Dsylexia, Dyspraxia and Adhd.
Susie’s experiences are used at the forefront of the sales and marketing of the Dore programme.
The questions why she was or is still doing exercises are relevant. Even the ‘rumours’ that she hadn’t completed the programme is open to legitmate questions of compliance.
Compliance to the Dore programme is one of the main reasons that Wynford has said is necessary for individuals to benefit fully from the exercises.
Indeed, compliance forms part of the flimsy ‘money back guarantee’ in the terms and conditions.
Furthermore, Wynford Dore has reported that non-compliance is or was the main reason for instances of ‘individual failure’.
Surely, asking why someone is continuing with a ‘programme’ that has previously laid claim to a kind of ‘cure’ to the learning difficulities is pertinent.
Whilst, I except that Susie might be still the ‘Guinea Pig’ and any involvement is related to further research, albeit somewhat haphazard.
To dismiss this enquiry as not important is somewhat premature. As is suggested “research doesn’t always look much like the finished treatment”.
Importance is a loaded word.
Any possible investments in the evaluation of the ‘importance’ are not always made clear or cannot be made clear.
Any ‘healthy’ research would hold with certain questions, even if it’s anecdotal and put these to one side.
After all, even fact finding has to come from somewhere.
Facts, don’t materlise themselves, someone creates them!
However, if you don’t believe that the Dore programme works in eradicating the said learning difficulites then it’s probably not relevant what Susie is doing.
But if you then consider that Susie’s experience forms the foundation of the Dore programme, then questions of this nature are relevant to the credibility of the company in a much wider sense.
In most research if you already know the questions you want to ask then you probably know the answers, so why ask the questions in the first place?
Raising unexpected questions and encounters with strangeness and oddity is ‘healthy research’, even coming across something accidentally.
Posted by: Via June 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Why don’t you just ask her, rather than keep speculating? Are you even sure she meant her Dore exercises, and not “working out” exercises? Either way, I’m not fond of rumors and speculations, so find out for sure.
Posted by: frazzledazzle June 24th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Do I detect a little annoyance?
Quite defensive, hitting a nerve?
What the saying, can’t remember properly myself but it’s something to do with
‘protesting too much’.
I think you’ve missed some of the points.
Or are you a little tired! Late night!
You’re asking questions so you obviously want to participate in the rumour and speculation!
Posted by: Via June 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
No Via, not annoyed, just some of the points are moot if there was missunderstanding or the issue of “her exercises” was not clarified.
Posted by: frazzledazzle June 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
There are numerous moot points on various different Blogs about the whole Dore issue.
If these ‘moot’ points were removed then there wouldn’t be a ‘Dore Issue’ and little discussion happening.
The context is clearly set in relation to the type of exercise Susie made reference to. It was a general conversation but still pertinent, considering how Dore have presented Susie in their sales and marketing tactics.
The whole discussion about Dore is that, it is a ‘discussion’, we’re not in a court of law where ‘evidence’ has to be supplied.
Nor is the ‘discussion’ taking place on an Academic Journal site.
Nor are we having to complete an essay, to be handed in for assessment.
My understanding of ‘blogging’ is that it’s a genre of its own and a developing one. Conversation and discussion does not generally contain ‘admissable evidence’ and ‘researched details’.
Nevertheless, evidence and research is important and clearly has a place in the Dore issue.
Blogging comments contain spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and ‘typos’ but these also are a legitmate part of the discussion.
If conversations contained ‘admissable evidence’ and detailed research the conversations would become stilted and awkward.
Brainduck has done an incredible job of work in ‘challenging’ Dore’s research.
Fact based evidence would be great but what is fairly clear on the Dore issue, is that most facts appear to be ‘tainted’.
Whilst I have many reservations about the Dore programme I do believe the people who have said that the programme as helped them.
But this ‘belief’ is really only believing in the idea of belief itself.
Posted by: Via June 26th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Chris why are my coments not showing automatically?
I am registered.
Normally, my comments are shown automatically, as you have made reference to this process to Grace?
Thanks
Posted by: Via August 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Via -
Your last comment appeared automatically so I’m not sure what is happening but I will investigate.
Chris
Posted by: myomancy August 16th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Leave a Reply