A critical analysis of the Peniston Protocol is discussed at length in the previous reviews (Trudeau 2000, 2005a, b). Several controlled studies of the Peniston protocol for addictions, completed by Lowe (1999), Moore and Trudeau (1998), and Taub and Rosenfeld (1994), suggest that alpha-theta training for addictions may be non-specific in terms of effect when compared to suggestion, sham or controlled treatment, or meditational techniques. By contrast, Egner et al. (2002) showed that alpha-theta training results in an increase of theta/alpha ratios, as compared to a control condition. In an in depth critical analysis that examines inconsistencies reported in the original Peniston papers, Graap and Freides (1998) raise serious issues about the reporting of original samples and procedures in these studies. In their analyses, the results may have been due as much to the intense therapies accompanying the biofeedback as due to the biofeedback itself. The subjects may have been comorbid for a number of conditions, which were not clearly reported, particularly PTSD, which may have been the focus of the treatment. In his reply to these criticisms, Peniston (1998)
