Talk:NAET

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] First-hand testimony

I find this article very disheartening. When my brother was younger, he was very, VERY sick. We took him to numerous doctors who diagnosed him with everything from allergies to parasitic infection to repressed psychological guilt. He couldn't eat anything with tomato or corn syrup in it (if he did, he'd be violently sick for two to three days). As a last resort, we took him to a NAET practitioner. Imagine our surprise when his condition started improving. It's been over 2 years since he finished his treatments and he is now a healthy weight. He can also ingest foods that used to make him vomit. He used to be pale and frail looking, and now he's solid muscle.
Of course, I can only praise this treatment because I've seen its results firsthand. Without that, I'd think it was a bunch of bull.
agbarnet AT purdue DOT edu

The question is, whould he have got better anyway? If he did get better was it a result of NAET or just the extra attention being paid to his problems? Or was it just a placebo. Anecdotal evidence is always biased in favour of unproven treatments. If you waste money or time on some treatment and it doesn't work, then you don't tend to broadcast the fact, do you? That's why we have science. Famousdog 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll respond to each point in your argument.
-"The question is, whould he have got better anyway?" He was sick for years and his condition was continually deteriorating. I doubt he would have just 'gotten better'.
-"If he did get better was it a result of NAET or just the extra attention being paid to his problems? Or was it just a placebo." I explicitly stated that we took him to several doctors, all of which paid plenty of attention to his condition. He didn't start improving until after several NAET treatments. As for placebo, that would have to be some pretty strong mind-over-matter. It's been over 2 years and he's now as healthy as any other 18 year old kid.
-"If you waste money or time on some treatment and it doesn't work, then you don't tend to broadcast the fact, do you? That's why we have science." Again, I explicitly stated that we took him to several doctors, all who failed to correctly diagnose and treat his problems. I'm sure you realize that doctors are expensive, so yes, I did broadcast the facts.
agbarnet AT purdue DOT edu
If NAET worked for your brother, then that's great. But you say yourself "I'd think it was a bunch of bull." The burden of proof is on the companies and individuals promoting NAET. Without a testable theory as to its mechanism of action, some controlled experiments to validate the theory and some clinical studies on its effectiveness, then NAET must be viewed as pseudoscience (or even quackery) no matter how disheartening that is. Famousdog 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This page needs to be edited. It is incorrect, and unfortunately very biased. Needs to looked over. Shouldn't present opinions as facts as it does. Should be completely objective. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.136.133 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 7 July 2006

Please do not remove references simply because you disagree with them. The current state of this article represents the current literature available on Google scholar. You're very welcome to alter the article if you can find supporting, peer reviewed references from other sources. So far a reasonable search has only uncovered this much. Please read WP:V. Which in a nutshell states:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles
if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever
possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
And WP:NOR
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any
new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
Also WP:NPOV
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This
includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.
I agree that currently this article does not conform to the No point of view policy totally. But without further verifiable information the medical literature can only be balanced with NAET's own claims. This is not a position I am happy with but until NAET submit scholarly sources that can be referenced this is how the facts stand. --Monotonehell 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding in-article vandalism

Simply complaining about something doesn't fix it. This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. I've attempted to balance the bias with quotes from NAET's own website. This is far from acceptable, but with absolutley no evidence from either the western medical nor alternate medical communities we can only view NAET by what they claim on their website and what their educated detractors claim. --Monotonehell 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rename?

Is there any particular reason why this article is under the acronym rather than Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique? If "NAET" is pretty much exclusively how the technique is known and searched for, that is fine, but generally names are preferred to acronyms. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)