Doubling the rate of neurologic development in Down syndrome: a pilot study

Recently, Von Tetzchner and colleagues completed the first study in three decades of the method of Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential (IAHP.) They found no benefit. Because Von Tetzchner's study had few patients (17-18), many diagnoses, and numerous (13) different outcome measures, these flaws may have obscured a treatment benefit with excessive variance. This study was designed to correct those flaws. One diagnosis (Down syndrome), a larger study (218), and a single outcome measure were used before and after (the IAHP developmental profile). Each child was compared to himself, before and after treatment. The goal was to minimize variance.

Study patients were encouraged to crawl early and engage in movement and balance exercises. Patterning was used to help children learn to crawl. The children were taught to read and count from a very young age. Nutrition and physiology was also addressed.

Before IAHP treatment, children had neurologic age/chronologic age=0.55. This is consistent with standard median Down syndrome IQs of about 40. After treatment, from initial exam to first follow-up, children had delta NA/CA = 1.43. The rate of neurologic progress more than doubled. The p value was p < 10-15.

The animal literature on environmental studies provides strong foundation for IAHP methods. Human adoption literature demonstrates substantial catch-up recovery is possible in humans. While surprising, these results are consistent with scientific literature.

Conventional methods, according to von Tetzchner, have no proven benefit. The evidence presented here demonstrates a strong, clinically significant benefit, which is highly statistically significant. The IAHP method enhances development and cognitive performance, and is highly cost effective since 1) it works and 2) most of therapy is done by parents. This study is a verbatim reprint of Baggot PJ and Baggot RM (2016), Doubling the rate of neurologic progress in Down syndrome: a pilot study, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 21 (2): 41-46. It is reprinted here to make it available to a wider audience of physicians and scientists, as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not indexed on Pubmed. For metanalyses, it should be counted once, not twice.