{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03431372549019608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012745098039215686, 'mean_word_length': 5.0058823529411764, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letters to the Editor

Reynolds and Nicolson state that they are accustomed to criticisms of their study; it is important to be clear why the criticisms continue. There are two reasons: first, their intervention study was methodologically deficient on many counts (see Table 1); second, the stakes are high, because their findings are used to promote the Dore approach to treatment of learning disabilities. Thus, on the Dore website (http://www.dore.co.uk), this research is cited as showing that for those completing the intervention, ‘Reading progress improved by 300%, SATS Comprehension improved by 500%, SATS Writing improved by 1700%, dyslexia risk reduced to no risk or borderline risk in all pupils, and attention symptoms improved by over 80%’. Clearly, claims such as these will encourage many parents to sign up for this expensive treatment. The research by Reynolds and colleagues is also used to support the view that the root cause of learning disabilities is an underdeveloped cerebellum. Parents who buy