Cerebral Palsy maybe/maybe not

study, conducted over an extensive period with many clarifying alterations generates more than 400 pages of summary data? Who publishes that ? Where does that get presented? What if it only makes sense in light of something else, something seemingly unrelated and so taken to be unimportant? This book is NOT about creating new dogma. It is simply an attempt to grab you by the head from behind and turn your direction of gaze away from published jargon [bedeviling sources] toward actual visually overt things that defy presentation to those reactionary guardians of what is be allowed to be read and only in allowed terms and approved measures. Peers or censors? We will start disassembling what you currently KNOW [can quote articles] and strip you naked of surety and do that from the ground up. This does NOT dismiss good science. It just requires the ability to reformulate what “results” actually means. Often the answer is simply a formulation of a better question to ask.

Science is nice, but it can be like the oracle of Delphi and confuse us if we are too skewed in how we interpret what we are actually seeing and not color it with personal biases that color the language we use. Accepted classifications bias even seeing and certainly telling. Ground up. Start with no particular biases. We are NOT here as mathematicians, nor scientists. We are engineers. We are not looking for fact deluge, but insights to fixing FUNCTION. Start with inventory. Look at actions that do work. What is common to what works? Is what works conditional on any CONTEXT?