Talk:Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion

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Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any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)

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)

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)

Pseudoscience

This seems like an obvious pseudoscientific theory, however, I haven't found a reliable source declaring it as such. Let's stick with "unscientific" until such a source can be found per WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to search out the specific word "pseudoscience", the quotes in the article make it clear that is the general view, barring some sort of positive information from similarly strong sources being found. Things like "NAET has to be the most unsubstantiated allergy treatment proposed to date." being written in a peer-reviewed journal would surely only pass that peer review if it was considered pretty obvious nonsense. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated with the views of the Australian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, who indicate that it lacks any scientific reason to think it might work, any particular relationship to physiology necessary for it to work, or any clinical evidence that it works despite this lack of plausibility. I think that this indicates generally considered pseudoscience per WP:PSCI, and have so categorized. Rigorous sourcing is part of what separates WP from RationalWiki. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The ASCIA says that research is ongoing, though there is no evidence to date. No evidence does not equal pseudoscience. My gut tells me that this technique probably is pseudoscientific; however, my gut is not a WP:RS. And like any good skeptic, I demand evidence. And right now I don't see enough evidence to say NAET works, but at the same time, I don't see enough evidence to simply write it off as pseudoscience. Another issue I have with this article is that some of the citations are from papers discussing allergy elimination techniques in general and not specifically about NAET. Yet, we are misleading the reader by attributing the conclusions from these general studies to this specific treatment. I realize that there probably isn't much out there by way of research specifically studying this technique; however, that doesn't give us license to apply more generalized research to this technique. This could be construed as a WP:OR violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am being dense, but where does ASCIA say that there is any ongoing research into this technique? They do not assign it an EBM evidence-level, but they do indicate a reasonable expectation that it cannot work - as described or at all. I of course agree that lack of evidence is logically distinct from evidence against (though well-designed negative studies do provide evidence), and we should properly characterize the clinical evidence base as nearly nil. However, there is more to pseudoscience than just persistence in the face of clinical studies - our source states that it is implausible to expect it to work. The whole approach is based on an view of allergy which is not based on any evidence and flatly contradicts physiology and chemistry. Additionally, at least three of the four techniques listed as conceptual inspiration are pseudoscience, and acupuncture has pseudoscientific aspects.

Incidentally, since those nice independent sources describe the technique as well as its critical reception, we should practice a little showing-is-better-than-telling so the readers are not just asked to take our word for it. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• What info are we getting from this source?
• This source lists NAET under "Treatments used by conventional and unorthodox practitioners". Further down on that source, under the bold heading "Allergy elimination techniques (also known as advanced allergy elimination and Nambudripad's allergy elimination in some countries)", we learn that there is "No evidence" and that "This approach lacks scientific rationale or published evidence of efficacy" and finally, "At this point in time, proven standardised methods for curing food allergy have not been established, but research is ongoing."
• I don't see how or where we can draw the pseudoscientific conclusion without performing OR. Sure, we might know that (applied) kinesiology, reflexology, and radionics are a bit fringe-y and acupuncture - though more accepted - is still alternative. However, we cannot make an assumption at Wikipedia of what happens when these four techniques are combined. That would be OR.
• Which source states that it is implausible to expect it to work?
• I agree that we should practice a little showing-is-better-than-telling so the readers are not just asked to take our word for it.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A paragraph from [1] that I believe addresses the points where we seem to be talking at cross-purposes:

Comment: This technique combines concepts of kinesiology, reflexology, acupuncture and radionics. Proponents claim to be able to cure almost any allergy or sensitivity. This approach lacks scientific rationale or published evidence of efficacy. It is also a potentially dangerous technique if used for to treat dangerous food, drug or venom allergy. The only proven “allergy elimination” techniques are those of conventional injectable (add WEB LINK) and sublingual/oral immunotherapy (add WEB LINK) for treatment of allergic respiratory disease and stinging insect allergy. At this point in time, proven standardised methods for curing food allergy have not been established, but research is ongoing.

My understanding of that paragraph:The first two sentences I believe we agree on, as they provide information to help us write a nice neutral description of what this practice does and claims. The third sentence supports categorization as pseudoscience, as it notes that the explanation provided is not drawn from science; this is further detailed in the first link you list, where the points where NAET deviates from physiology are noted. The fourth sentence just states that it can be dangerous to ignore allergies. The fifth sentence states that "'allergy elimination' techniques" do exist in two cases using non-NAET methods. The sixth sentence continues by saying that even though food allergies were not in the short list of the preceding sentence, sufferers should not abandon all hope. This indicates to me that researchers are pursuing programs that, like the two treatments from the preceding sentence, are founded in physiology. I do not see this as an indication of agnosticism towards a method described as lacking any scientific rationale or physiological basis. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Hey, I've just expanded this article quite a bit. I'm pretty new at this, so I was wondering if anyone had any pointers to improve my editing in the future? However, I'm satisfied with my contributions to this article: there are nearly 40 references, it focuses on what NAET is, rather than on "solicitations for a business", and it adds a lot of relevant information.

Although I feel that this article may contain some bias, I did try to render it as neutrally as possible. First, I made efforts to keep the current current intact (it's still there, although it's seperated by other sections.) I felt that it was slightly biased in the other direction, and so would help balance the article. Second, I tried to add additional information to balance things more, such as the Certification Section. While I did display the relevant NAET practitioner requirements, I also included the far superiour requirements to become an immunologist. Third, I added a debate section (can someone think of a better name for this section?) In it, I discussed and refuted claims about NAET, while trying very hard not to use NAET sponsored material.Finally, I included an Alternatives section. This section summarizes the major allergy treatment options available today. However, it does also include a similar summarization of NAET treatments. While I'm sure this article has many flaws due to my inexperience, I believe it can be improved-this is wikipedia after all!

I do have two concerns:

• The first sections of the article now use references almost exclusively from NAET sponsored material. My reasoning was this: These sections are describing NAET and its treatments, not determining if they work, where to get one, or how much they cost. Who better to describe NAET practices and treatments than NAET itself? Is this logic in line with Wikipedia guidelines?
• in the debate section, I called Dr. Nambudripad's Credentials into question. Angelfire.com does state that a college is not accredited by CA, and I researched and agree that it isn't, but I couldn't independently verify whether Nambudripad's PhD came from that college or not. Should this section be removed because it is potentially damaging to Dr. Nambudripad's reputation, she's a living person, and it is not completely verified, or should it stay because it was information found by a source outside of wikipedia, and so verified by angelfire.com?

--Jediskywalker (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• the current revision lends undue weight to the theory and practice of NAET. While the lead correctly summarizes the opinion of the mainstream medical community about this practice, the body does not. My suggestion would be to eliminate the "Howto" section (as those are disallowed anyways), rewrite the "debate" section (as it basically says "the practice is controversial but hey, lots of things are") and remove the alternative section. I know that basically leaves the article where it was before but we have a responsibility to cover the subject in a neutral manner with regard to its notability in the world. this might seem unduly harsh and for that I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It uses advertisements by Nambudripad as its primary sources, eliminated all cmainstream criticism, and has original research about medical costs and attacks on other treatment methods. Hell no. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First-hand testimony

Note to Anonymous User: You are obviously new to Wikipedia so I'll tell you about a few rules: Firstly, assume good faith on the part of other editors. Don't go around accussing people of editing for financial gain, please. Secondly, please stop top posting. Post BELOW previous comments and add new sections BELOW previous sections (I have reordered your comments below). Also, think about getting an account if you are going to continue editing, so I don't have to refer to you as Anonymous User. Finally, please maintain civility at all times. Most other editors are simply interested in the topics they are editing, not part of some sinister conspiracy. Famousdog (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One person here cites the lack of scientific evidence for NAET, however, there is a great case study in Medline (official medical literature):

Cases J. 2008 Sep 19;1(1):166.

Please look at this article and use this to re-edit this Wikipedia page. If the information in this article is to be true, you must fairly include this article as well as Dr. Nambudripad's book just as you have cited Stephen Barrett's "webpage" for his biographical article in Wikipedia.

160.87.155.49 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add content from this source to this article; however, please don't remove other sourced information from this article without the benefit of conversation here first. Thanks! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is very simple. This article explicitly says that NAET does NOT have evidence and is unscientific. Well that is obviously not true since I have clearly given you a reference that is in the medical literature. Thus, you all must agree that we need to remove the statements saying that NAET is unfounded and not proven, etc. It is fine to say that more studies need to be done to validate the technique but it is very unscientific and "BIASED" to have the article written as it is now. Stephen Barrett must be donating money to wikipedia or something because his articles are self-propagating but no one on wiki is even considering that. What a shame indeed.160.87.155.49 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article to include the ONLY cited article in medical literature that should be used to evaluate NAET. In fact, the articles by Stephen Barrett and others are not even regarded in the medline literature search. However, the article from Australia is fine to use because it is cited in literature. As the article stands now, it is acceptable. 160.87.155.49 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Anonymous User one swallow doesn't make a summer. One piece of anecdotal evidence is not proof, it is evidence, but not particularly good evidence. Just because a case study was reported in a journal (one that specialises in case studies - and quite a new journal too, established only last year) does not make it more reliable that other pieces of evidence and good old fashioned logic. NAET makes extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. One case study is not sufficient to throw out everything we know about physiology, biology, anatomy, etc. Famousdog (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

This article on NAET is poorly researched. The NARF group has published quite a few double-blind placebo controlled studies for at least 5 years now. Their research methodology is sound as is the effect of their treatments. NAET practitioners are now all over the world, with several thousand practicing in the United States. I personally recovered from terrible illness thanks to this technique.

How does the old adage go? Don't knock it until you've tried it. Hey, Barrett also says that acupuncture can't work. Will that one be tackled next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.25.246 (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So add those studies to the article and see what happens rather than grumbling that "someone else should do it..." Nambudripad's Allergy Research Foundation (NARF) was founded by Nambudripad herself to prove her own treatment was right and the Journal of NAET is published by that same organisation. Um... conflict of interest, anyone??? As for the fact that there are lots of practitioners, so what? There are lots of homeless people. Does that mean that they must be really onto something with the whole not-having-a-permanent-residence thing? Also, acupuncture doesn't work for the vast majority of complaints, so who's "poorly researched" now, eh? Famousdog (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that conventional medicine is interested in researching NAET and if there is nothing wrong with Pfizer doing their own double blind placebo controlled studies why should it be different with NARF. By the way your article says that NAET treats "chemical insensitivities" you mean chemical sensitivities right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.31.210 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pfizer might do their own clinical trials, but they also publish them in independent, peer-reviewed journals for the scrutiny of other scientists, not in their own publication. I have made the change you suggested, but take the opportunity to reply that it's not my, or indeed, anyone else's article. Such is the joy of Wikipedia. Famousdog (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I've just read a book review in the Journal of NAET of a book by Jacob Teitelbaum that appears to have been reviewed (favourably) by his wife! And we're expected to take this seriously!? Famousdog (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia, not judge and jury (Major edit, justification, and summary of changes)

Stumbled across this page whilst searching the net to try to learn what NAET actually IS. I found that this wikipedia page has fallen victim to the "anti-quack campaigners" (for want of a better phrase), it is filled with discussion about the scientific validity/invalidity but doesn't actually say what NAET is.
The fact that we can currently learn more about what NAET is by visiting Stephen Barett's website, than we can on the wikipedia page, is a shame, which is why I have made such a substantial edit. The edit from jediskywalker on 25th august 2008 that was promptly reverted by shoemaker's holiday an hour later on the same day seem to be the closest that this page has ever gotten to an explanation of what NAET. jediskywalker's edit contained unbiased and promotional content and was more suited to a brochure than an encyclopedic entry, but I think I can pull together a paragraph or two, use some of the references to at least give the reader an idea of the topic at hand. I have cross referenced his edit, with excerpts/quotes from Stephen Barrett's website and other anti-quack websites in the sections of background and treatment. Anecdotes from the web confirm jediskywalker's description of the technique, but I have no primary reference for this - can someone please add a "need citation" tag to prompt those in the know. Please help me to format and reference properly as wikipedia has changed significantly in the 4 years that I have been away :)
Summary of edit:

• shifted discussion on scientific validity to new section. added preface that no double blind RCTs have been done on NAET. added study on applied kinesiology
• added qualifier to Stephen Barrett (head of Quackwatch and related health fraud websites) to add context to his opinion on NAET
• created new section - background - that contains a brief on how NAET was developed (need reference tag)
• created new section - technique - that describes the technique used in NAET (need reference tag)
• added link to allergy page to direct reader to information about allergy treatments
  
  Not changed in this edit but suggest for discussion - in describing Nambudripad, remove label of physician, change to chiropractor. Nambudripad's MD qualification is apparently from a "scam" university (University of Health Sciences, Antigua) and she is not actually listed as an MD in Wisconsin (or West Indies) from what I can gather. This should be verified before removing though, as she does still list herself as Dr .. MD (WI), DC, L.Ac, etc on her website and I can't find a primary source to verify her qualification.
  
  Thanks in advance.Piekarnia (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  Despite considering myself a member of the "anti-quack" lobby that you refer to, I am actually very happy with your edits. I have edited them a little, but otherwise, great job. I warn that other users will object to the only reference related to the technique being a book published by the inventor of the technique, but I think that this circularity is unavoidable if we actually want to discuss these ideas. Famousdog (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Looks pretty good, I think. For non-controversial material attributed as such, the primary source should be fine. It is only when an article starts discussing redflag claims or how the technique is viewed by the medical community or the public at large that we really need to worry about that. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  Recent edits

  To counter some of the justifications you have provided for your edits, Richff, a placebo effect is possible in animal studies although its often claimed by alt-med proponents that this is not possible. Also, experimenter bias and publication bias are a serious consideration in these studies. The case study identified NAET as the causal factor, but there may have been some other factor not noted in the case study, so we cannot be sure of the causal relationship without a more controlled study. Famousdog (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Famousdog - looking back over the history on this page, many people are frustrated with the biased viewpoints and bizarre choices of reference - Quackwatch being one. We can spend the rest of our days reverting and changing, or we can agree on a sensible overview of NAET that allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Personally NAET has changed the lives of my family and I don't dispute it's abilities to reduce or cure allergies. I don't know what your agenda is, but I won't let this account remain so biased while promoting the allergy industry that relies on drugs with side effects and steroids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Richff, I am an evil genius intent on crushing dissent toward orthodox medicine. I am in the service of Big Pharma who pay me to sit in my bunker in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan removing The Truth About Allergies from Wikipedia... Now, If you've finished implying that I have "an agenda" and assuming bad faith on my part, how about you provide some decent sources for the quite ridiculous statements that you've been making in your edits? Its laudable that you want this page to be less "biased", but the quality of the counter-evidence you have provided is fairly poor. With regards the current sources in the article, only one statement is drawn from Quackwatch and this site is not a "bizarre" reference at all - The Journal of NAET quite clearly is. Famousdog (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  In response to you other edits, the University of Health Sciences Antigua, where Nambudripad received her Doctorate of Medicine is a diploma mill and a controversial one at that. See Dental Watch article. Similarly, Samra University of Oriental Medicine, where she got her PhD only seems to be accredited to hand out Masters degrees... Hmm. Famousdog (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Famousdog, an agenda is an agenda no matter who benefits. As discussed I think a compromise is in order. I hope you will find the recent edits regarding; the number of practitioners, updating the link to the independent case study and including more relevant text from the study satisfactory. Would you agree that these updates are fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  As an aside Famousdog, have you tried NAET? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  I just reverted a few edits that seemed to promote this therapy rather than describe it neutrally. The Neutral point of view policy requires that we follow the most reliable sources in how they describe the technique. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks 2/0, that saved me a job. It seems now that a (different?) user is now attacking Barrett and Quackwatch's credibility rather than improving the references in NAET's favour. Regarding your edits Richff, the fact that this study was carried out by a particular (non-notable?) researcher at a particular institution is neither here nor there. If we included this level of detail in all WP articles they'd all be twice the length they are. The details of the subject's food allergies can be found by reading the article and your edit gives undue weight to a single case study. As such the original text summarising this research (and adding a "disclaimer" pointing out that a case study is not really much better than anecdotal evidence) is more than adequate. Famousdog (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  No demonstrated efficacy

  An editor recently removed the text: has not been demonstrated to be effective for any medical condition beyond possible placebo effects. This sentence was supported by three references. Source 1 states "Evidence: No evidence". Source 3 states: "There have been no studies supporting the use of these techniques, and several have refuted their utility. A beneficial placebo effect may be responsible for the perceived clinical effectiveness in many cases of food intolerance." Source 4 is even harsher. Source 2 also supports this language, stating that "as a cause of allergies, energy flow and electrical fields in the body have not ever been proven." I have attempted to include this information, adhering as closely as possible to the sum of the sources. Please propose alternate wording if this does not address your concerns. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  
  

  Thanks for your thoughts, there is simply too much material in this article based on opinion. Let's get rid of the natural therapy-bashing nonsense and work together to create a page that uses up to date information, presents a fair and compelling overview and subscribes to the Wiki guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Dear Richff, If you really value "working together", please stop stomping around the talk page making pronouncements against other editors, or against unidentified "material" in the article that you claim is "opinion". If you want to do something genuinely constructive, please tag any parts of the article that you consider "opinion" with a {{citation needed}} or {{Or}} tag and other editors can then make the necessary edits.

  Dear Anonymous User, Please stop cutting the bit out of a sourced quotation from a notable source that you disagree with. Famousdog (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Happy to do all of this, when we have the starting point of a non-biased article. Until we reach that point, I'm not going to humour this waste-of-space article designed purely for alternative-treatment bashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Added the update from 2007 regarding Kinesiology to show that this treatment is now a recognised therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richff (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  So you complain that this article is biased, but can't be arsed to improve it. Fine. It will stay as it is. And by the way, just because the sale of something is regulated by a government agency or NGO does not mean that it works. Famousdog (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Kinesiology != Applied Kinesiology

  Kinesiology is distinct from Applied Kinesiology. The latter method is the testing method relevant here. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ha! Good spot that man! Famousdog (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Glad to see that you're keeping a level head Famousdog. Richff (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  At least I'm not resorting to abuse and veering dangerously close to breaking WP:3RR by repeatedly blanking the quote by Stephen Barrett. Now if you haven nothing more substantive to contribute to this article, please stop lurking. Famousdog (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Case-controlled study on NAET

  There are two new references to NAET in the literature now. One is in medline and is a French article. Being a medline article, it has more validity than any other quoted source from Stephen Barrett or other such sceptics that some editors seem to love. No one should remove this French article without first discussing why that is the case (Famousdog!) Otherwise you are in direct violation of Wikipedia by removing credible sources without authorization.

  Also, there is a new study that is funded by Jacob Teitelbaum (not NARF as was attempted to be inserted into the entry maliciously) and written by NAET practitioners that has excellent results for autism. The fact that the NAET authors wrote the article does not seem out of the ordinary. When other doctors or researchers come up with claims or new findings, not only do they write the articles but they often name those findings after themselves (Hashimoto's disease or Parkinson's disease or even the Blalock-Taussig procedure)!

  Please discuss with us before making further edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.203.1 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  I will make my case here since you have instigated mediation. Famousdog (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, since you three (?) seem intent on reinstating your contentious material, I will make my case here instead. Certifiedallergist, SParish and 99.186.203.1 (all new single purpose accounts) have been using primary sources to dismiss the conclusions of the more well regarded secondary sources, which is contrary to policy regarding medical articles especially this section. I suggested that they check out WP:MEDRS especially the section on primary sources, but they appear not to have done so. Furthermore, at least one source that they emphasise in their edits is not independent and represents a serious conflict-of-interest (see below) as I state in my revertions here and here.

  The Slomski reference, included expressly to throw doubt on pharmacological treatments is an opinion piece, albeit in a reliable source and as such should be assigned very little weight. It does not specifically mention NAET and therefore reflects original research or inappropriate synthesis on behalf of the editors.

  This anonymous editor appears not to realise that MEDLINE is simply a searchable database of scientific reports and believes that it confers some additional validity to appear in said database. This user (who may be either SParish or Certifiedallergist) also states that the Teitelbaum study is "funded by Jacob Teitelbaum (not NARF as was attempted to be inserted into the entry maliciously)". Examination of that paper should reveal that is states quite clearly in the Acknowledgements section that "The study was funded by the Teitelbaum Family Foundation and NARF, Buena Park, California." Despite the fact that in the Disclosure section it says that "No competing financial interests exist", a study self-funded by the authors who are mostly members of the foundation formed to promote the technique under investigation - or, worse, are the founder and originator of the technique in question - should be treated with the upmost suspicion, if not ridicule. The french article referred to is an abstract. Having not seen the paper, it is not clear to me whether this is an experimental study or simply another opinion piece (the short abstract seems to suggest that it is simply an editorial or a letter - there are no details of methods employed, etc). The author, Savornin, appears to be an NAET practitioner. I cannot find out any information about Soins journal.

  CertifiedAllergist says in the mediation case he initiated that my edits "do not allow the data from the studies to even be presented." This is factually incorrect. My edits retain the Teitelbaum and Terwee references, but make clear the relevant conflicts-of-interest in each case and tag the references as potentially unreliable (which they most certainly are).

  Barrett is a respected (admittedly not by Quacks), notable Quackbuster and makes some very important points about NAET's validity. There are reliable secondary sources from ASCIA, Morris and Teuber stating that there is no evidence for efficacy. A single, conflicted primary source from an unreliable pro-alternative-medicine "journal" should not overturn that consensus. This is why I have been persistently reverting your edits. Famousdog (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Please ANSWER these criticisms before reverting the article! Saying I'm biased holds no weight whatsoever. I'm biased, you're biased, everybody in the world is biased. That's why we have policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and many, many others. Famousdog (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Excellent points that need to be answered. BTW, sockpuppetry is not allowed here, so collect your editing under one account and always remember to log in. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  First of all, many articles and studies have been conducted at universities and research centers that are funded by them and support the findings of their own professors or researchers so this is not unusual. For example, Johns Hopkins University often publishes data and studies that are performed by their own faculty and staff. So I don't mind Famousdog pointing this out BUT we MUST include the details of the study and the findings. The general public has access to this data anyway. We need to present those findings on Wikipedia to be accurate. Please tel me why you disagree with this basic point. Certifiedallergist (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Did someone say that Barrett is "reputable"? I don't think so. Look at this. http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.122.250 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  The Soins journal is located here and the article is here (behind a paywall). The article is labelled "Point of view" (see here). It is an opinion piece. Randomnonsense (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to Randomnonsense for showing us how to get the opinion (secondary source?) article, which is exactly how Stephen Barrett should be handles as well (secondary source). Also thanks to anon user above for the following http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html Can someone please comment on this link and this doctor's opinion that Barrett is questionable. Should we really be citing "possibly" questionable sources such as Barrett? Certifiedallergist (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Certifiedallergist, the Savornin reference does not meet the reliable source criteria under WP:MEDRS guidelines. Opinion pieces are not subject to peer-review and the author is a NAET practitioner and thus not independent. The grounds for removal are incontrovertible. Randomnonsense (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  OK that is fine, but we need to accept the controlled study with the details as it is an independent journal and peer-reviewed as well. It does not seem to be run by NARF and so conflict of interest as Famousdog claims is not as significant. Certifiedallergist (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Reading WP:MEDRS guidelines, specifically this, this and this, I cannot see that it should be cited alongside secondary sources. Randomnonsense (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Reading those same [[WP:MEDRS}} guidelines and WP:PRIMARY, it seems appropriate to include the case controlled study and the basic results of the study without interpretation or analysis which I think the newer edits have done. It is not right to completely ignore this reference as it is a peer-reviewed journal reference that is independent from the authors. Any deletion of this citation or negative conclusion or analysis of this citation is in violation of WP: neutral point of view Harshcritique (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  Your understanding of those policies and guidelines is incorrect. Famousdog is right. As newbies, all of you have a lot to learn, and we've all been there. Even those of us who have edited here for many years are still learning! I suggest you stop edit warring, let the article revert back to its stable version before all the newbie edits which violate policy, and let's work this out here.

  The trick is to be patient. If you can convince us, your ideas, sources and edits may well become part of the article, but if you edit war by reverting our deletions of the newer content, which does not have consensus, then you'll only get blocked. Collaboration with editors who hold opposing points of view usually produces the best articles. Since editors with connections to Nambudripad are now editing, which is not good, the repercussions and blocks may be quite severe. It would be a shame if she isn't allowed ANY input here because of your editing. Everyone with connections to her should immediately stop editing the article and only discuss on this page. Let others then add the content, and only after a consensus version has been developed after discussion with other editors who hold opposing POV. That's the Wikipedia way of doing things. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well it looks like the current version of the article suffices and addresses most concerns. The issue of Dr. Barrett's credibility is noted after reading the weblink http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html But be careful citing websites. Stephen Barrett's website should also be cited very carefully and that is still questionable according to policy right? Harshcritique (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  99.186.203.1 appears to have a possible WP:CONFLICT issue. An IP trace gives the registered organization as "DEVI INAMEUDRIPAD DBA", Devi Nambudripad is the inventor of the technique, director of NARF and is second author on the Teitelbaum study. Randomnonsense (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  FAMOUSDOG uses the term, “unsubstantiated” freely in his edits of NAET. I take issue with this. The term merely means that no research exists. It means nothing else. It is "a leap in logic" to believe that the absence of research implies quackery. It does not. Those who are more familiar with research know that the existence or absence of research on a given topic is due to any number of factors, none of which have to do with quackery.

  For example, there are certain illnesses which have been researched with greater frequency than others. Why? Because someone was interested in the topic, or there was funding for research on the topic. There are any number of good reasons why there is research on one topic, but not another. In the case of NAET, Dr. Nambudripad is primarily a practitioner who is quite busy treating patients. That is her priority, as it should be. It takes time, effort and extra resources for a practitioner to produce research support for their treatment procedure.

  Now that Dr. Nambudripad and a team of medical practitioners have produced an empirical investigations that does, in fact, demonstrate the efficacy of NAET treatment, FAMOUSDOG does not want to permit this information to be posted on the Wiki article describing her treatment. He and others have harshly criticized her for the lack of scientific evidence, yet when it becomes available, he/they do not want to acknowledge it. I do not comprehend this line of reasoning. SParish (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with SParish in that the original edits by Famousdog seem to violate WP:neutral point of view and should at the very least state the results of the case-controlled study and not give any interpretation or analysis. I also agree with SParish that Famousdog has used very strong terminology when describing the research which once again violates WP:neutral point of view. If this article lists the Terwee primary reference and Nambudripad's book as primary sources, then I think it should at least include the Teitelbaum reference. I would like comments from BullRangifer, CertifiedAllergist, and Randomnonsense on these points. Harshcritique (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  SParish, I use the term "unsubstantiated" not "freely" as you claim, but in quotation marks, because it is a direct quotation from the Morris article. You also claim that I "do() not want to permit this information to be posted on the Wiki article." Harshcritique states above that they think the article "should at least include the Teitelbaum reference." Like CertifiedAllergist's earlier accusation that my edits "do not allow the data from the studies to even be presented." The idea that I am preventing the Teitelbaum reference from appearing in the article is factually incorrect. My edits retain the Teitelbaum reference, but make clear the relevant conflicts-of-interest and tag the references as potentially unreliable (which they are). Now will all three (?) of you please check your ****ing facts before disparaging me further. Famousdog (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Certifiedallergist further states here that Integrative Medicine journal (in which the Teitelbaum paper appears) "does not seem to be run by NARF and so conflict of interest as Famousdog claims is not as significant." I did not suggest a link between Integrative Medicine journal and NARF. I did however, point out that this study (which concludes that NAET is great) was funded by NARF, an organisation that, as stated on their website, was "founded by Dr. Devi Nambudripad and her husband Kris Nambudripad in July 1993." Again, Certifiedallergist is accusing me of things that I simply DID NOT DO. Famousdog (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's not only a question of funding, 3 co-authors hold positions at NARF: Devi Nambudripad is inventor of the technique and director of NARF; Yvonne Tyson is an assitant director at NARF; Mala Moosad is clinical director at NARF. NARF is an explicit advocacy group for NAET. Another co-author, Robert Prince, is a NAET practitioner. The lead author Jacob Teitelbaum recommends NAET for a variety of conditions in several places on his website. The Teitelbaum study egregiously violates the WP:MEDRS guidelines on independent sources. Randomnonsense (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Having just checked the 2 co-authors I didn't mention, Laurie Teitelbaum and Ming Chen, they are also NAET practitioners. So all of the authors have conflicts of interest, and their claim in the paper that "No competing financial interests exist." is completely false. Randomnonsense (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  There is nothing wrong with an inventor or practitioner of a technique or invention writing up their findings in a research study! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Obviously none of you have ever performed clinical studies or been authors of case reports or prospective studies. Who do you think Hashimoto's disease was named after? It was named after the PHYSICIAN who discovered the disease! He wrote an article describing it. Who do you think the DeBakey clamp was named after? It was named after Dr. DeBakeyd once he described the technique of using a specialized form of tool in surgery. Wikipedia is such bullsh*t because it allows double-standards in their edits obviously. Until this bias against natural medicine is removed, Wikipedia will never be looked at favorably by the general public. The Teitelbaum article needs to be cited in this article in order for the article to be considered fair with a WP: neutral point of view, which is one of the three basic tenets of WP. Certifiedallergist (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  CA, you write: "There is nothing wrong with an inventor or practitioner of a technique or invention writing up their findings in a research study! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Obviously none of you have ever performed clinical studies or been authors of case reports or prospective studies."

  True enough, and I don't think anyone objects to it, in principle. What we object to is the lies about it being independent, properly controlled, and that there is no COI. There's a HUGE COI involved, which is why our MEDRS sourcing rules don't allow such primary research to be listed until it has been confirmed by independent research in well-controlled studies, preferably in meta-analyses of many such studies. This pseudoscientific, COI, junk science "research" has only a very superficial resemblance to good research, so it will not be included here. It's inclusion would seriously debase the quality of Wikipedia as a reliable source for medical information. It is your ridiculous demand that would do this, not our adherence to our good sourcing policies. Your demand would make Wikipedia look bad, and we're not going there. Seriously, until Nambudripad understands science, she and her institute are going to continue to push quackery. What else can one expect from a chiropractor with an "MD" degree from a "disapproved", so-called "medical", school? Her knowledge and education are seriously deficient, and her listing herself as an MD might be considered evidence of the illegal practice of medicine without a license.

  Apparently a California legislator has introduced SB352 that will ban all chiropractors from performing allergy testing of any kind. It would also prohibit advertising these services. Since she is licensed as a chiropractor, and her "MD" degree is from a "disapproved" "medical" school, this bill could affect her business. The current law prohibits all healing arts practitioners from making false claims in their ads or practices.

  Here is a link to the Bill

  • http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_352&sess=1112

  • It appears to have been passed 34-1

  Brangifer (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Don't worry RONZ, FAMOUSDOG, and BRANGIFER and whoever else keeps trying to deny these valid sources their proper due. Children are getting better with this technique and I will NOT be wasting my time trying to convince you or edit-war with you anymore. The study participants were video-taped with before and after results and all that is going to be shown on national TV soon. Once the study grabs more limelite you will all look like fools. Go check youtube and look at just a small sampling of video clips of children, treated by NAET practitioners. If Wikipedia does not want to acknowledge the proof, then the public will realize WP is stupid and it will go bankrupt. Certifiedallergist (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Brangifer's point about this Bill from California is irrelevant to the fact that there is a study that is controlled and prospective on NAET now. I know that video proof has been taken of the study participants and other patients as that data is available on youtube. Go see for yourself. The study participant video used to be there but now has been taken off for some reason, perhaps to protect confidentiality or some other interest. I understand the point about secondary review of the study and agree. I just don't understand all this negative rhetoric as it seems to violate WP: neutral point of view The study should be listed at least as a reference just as primary references are listed in other articles. I am familiar with Nambudripad's techniques as I have patients who have benefitted from her care. My allergy shots and immunotherapy did not work and so I went to WP to see if there was any evidence I could find. I was sad to see through other means that there is evidence but is not being shown on WP. This is truly sad and taints the reputation of WP. Certifiedallergist (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, they're going on TV??? Why didn't you say so!? Television is a renowned source of unbiased, expert medical information not in anyway controlled by advertisers, salesmen and people with more money than sense! Famousdog (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, television is less biased than wikipedia. The youtube videos are VERY convincing and if you ever have a child with autism, wouldn't you be interested to know that Teitelbaum did a study showing improvement in kids with autism? Is it fair to take away that information for parents who are seeking, very desperately, for something that may possibly help their children. Do you know any autistic children? Do you have any medications or therapies to offer them in solace? The answer, my friend, is no! It may just take television to open people's eyes to the real possibility that biochemistry and pharmaceuticals are not the only way out. If a study shows improvement with a new medical or alternative technique, then it is a right for the public to know about it and investigate it further. Being sarcastic and moronic regarding something very serious like autism is not funny, Famousdog. It is sad and pathetic. Obviously you are ignorant of the pangs of autism. As I said, one day, you will apologize for your poor representations of Nambudripad and her work. It is clear to me, CertifiedAllergist, that this new NAET study which is all over the news now is note-worthy. Why are you denying it's power and importance? 67.52.123.227 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  CA, (if that's who you are - its increasingly hard to tell who I'm talking to these days). I am a psychologist and a neuroscientist. I have a PhD (and I don't put that qualification in "inverted commas" - WTF is that about BTW?) I would say I know a little bit about autism (but presumably not as much as BullRangifer). You, on the other hand, are (as your username attests) an allergist. No offence, but if we're getting into a qualifications-off, I don't think you will fare all that well. Someone who relies on YouTube videos and what they see on telly instead of the medical and scientific literature is not somebody I'd want treating my kids. The study to which you are sooooooo attached is poor (if not pseudo) science, by people with severe conflicts-of-interest, who are not reliable or independent researchers, it is published in a junk journal that has an explicitly pro-alt-med mission, the treatment it is "testing" is based on ancient Chinese woo, has no plausible mechanism of action and the most we can say about it is that it is "as good as other forms of woo. I repeat: You have destroyed your credibility, by lying, posturing, hypocrisy of the first order and generally disgraceful behaviour, so it is too late to claim the moral high ground, quote policy or cry wolf. Please eff off. Famousdog (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Famousdog, answer my question which you have smartly evaded. Is it fair to take away information about a new study showing improvement and involving autism from patients and parents who may be interested in alternative forms of therapy for autism? Certifiedallergist (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Stop wasting our time. If and when there is some medical consensus that the treatment works, then it should be added. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not "evading" anything, you imbecile. I've already answered that question waaaaaay back on 31st January. My original edits retained the stupid piece of **** "research" that thanks to your moronic rantings and bloody-mindedness has been removed by other editors. I was happy to let it stand and with some disclaimers, despite the fact that it is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. Now b*gger off, timewaster. Famousdog (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  New Revisions

  We need to come to an agreement here in terms of which articles to include on this page. First of all the controlled study needs to be described in terms of the results, not conclusions or interpretations. Also, we need to include the Savornin article from France as it is listed in Medline (official medical literature) as well as the Cases Journal article. The citations by Stephen Barrett are not official literature and although, I have no problem including those opinions, they are not in any way superior to the references from Medline by any stretch of the imagination. In order to protect the non-biased views of wikipedia in general, I believe this to be necessary. Certifiedallergist (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  What I don't understand is that Famousdog states such biased viewpoints in his edits whereas certifiedallergist has edited his comments to reflect what is purely in the articles only. There does not seem to be any opinions stated in the latter points. Can someone clarify why Famousdog can do that legally and get away with murder on an online encyclopedia that the general public is supposed to trust as being fact-based? I including as many sources as possible, including the French article is perfect but we should not be including outside (by Famousdog) commentary that is not even correct! - By the way, I do not know certified allergist but he seems to be forming a more correct article here. 108.0.122.250 17:21, February 1, 2012‎ (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  Thanks to the above anonymous user for your comments. I also felt like the prior version was extremely unfair to the published data. There is always confilct of interest whenever a study is published to be honest but what is important is the data. I just don't understand what is wrong with the paragraph I used in describing the controlled study. I don't mind ALSO including a sentence describing the conflict of interest BUT please describe the details of the study for the public to view for themselves. Certifiedallergist (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  NPOV

  Obviously, there's an WP:NPOV dispute here. I reviewed the article and tagged it. I didn't realize there's an request for mediation. I suggest full protection of the article given all the WP:SPA accounts here and the coi problems. --Ronz (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  It is a blatant lie and violation of WP:NPOV to say that no randomized trials have been performed on NAET because we have the new primary source to reference, which is the Teitelbaum article. That MUST be included now. Harshcritique (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  Okay, let's figure out how to do this without violating our MEDRS guideline. We cannot include it (it is also COI junk science "pilot study") without doing so, so the wording needs to be changed. I'll take a look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  By adding "independent" I fixed the problem, and did it without using any disparaging remarks, like I did above. That keeps that part of the article pretty neutral. We can never use a "pilot study" for anything here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, prior to this edit the article stated that "no randomized, double-blind controlled studies have been performed". The Teitelbaum study was not blinded at all (and lacked any placebo-control), so the sentence was perfectly valid. Randomnonsense (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Given the sockpuppetry report, I've removed the tag. If those editors and ips aren't going to be blocked based upon their editing to date, they should be if they continue to edit-war in any way. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Based on BullRangifer's comments in the case-controlled study section of this page, it appears eerily similar to an email that Terry Polevoy has been sending to his followers. Polevoy is a close friend of Stephen Barrett. Once again there is COI all over this article, including the references to Barrett and edits by BRangifer. Also there is defamatory comments on the part of BullRangifer towards Nambudripad that MUST be removed. These are again blatant violations of WP: neutral point of view and disparaging comments on a living person in addition to having COI based on plagiarized wording from Polevoy. Certifiedallergist (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  At this point, you're not making much sense. I strongly suggest you first address the sockpuppetry report before you're blocked. Then come back and provide specific details on changes you're proposing for the article and your reasoning for those changes. --Ronz (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding to the sockpuppet investigation. Can we continue? Maybe start by identifying the comments you feel are defamatory? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  If there's no response from CA can we please strike from the record his/her accusations against BullRangifer? Potentially revealing another editors identity (whether correctly or incorrectly) is pretty poor netiquette. Famousdog (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  I appreciate your concern for my safety, but my identity hasn't been revealed even close, and if it were, a siteban would be effected immediately. Several have been banned for their attempts to out me. Otherwise I am willing to strike any defamatory comments I may have made. Derogatory comments are another matter. I have a right to my opinion of someone widely regarded as a quack. Will CA please provide the exact wordings which are problematic? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  BullRangifer's comment that Nambudripad is "only licensed as a chiropractor" and "will ruin her business" are both completely false and defamatory. If such comments were made about Stephen Barrett, the sentence would stricken immediately. We all know that. Does Wikipedia have a double-standard here? Nambudripad is an innocent person, as far as we know, and does not deserve disparaging comments for treating and helping autistic children. What kind of editing is going on here? Also BullRangifer's questions of "How will this affect her practice? Will she go deeper into woo to survive? Will she make even more false claims? Will she move to Mexico, where nearly anything is allowed?" are potentially damaging and again defamatory. Of course, I am the same person as CertifiedAllergist as you might have guessed but I thought I should at least stick up for Nambudripad and give her some support amongst all this hate and derision. It is again a sad excuse for an article and I (to answer RONZ) think it would be appropriate to include the primary references that were removed to at least give some neutrality to this article. The study that was performed, at least when I read it, seemed to be peer-reviewed by an independent journal and the study did have a case control protocol. I agree that there was no blinding and you can include that in the sentences but I think it should be given fair share of representation. The case report from Holland is independent from Nambudripad, as so far as that person was only using a technique that Nambudripad discovered. I also think it is important for the neutrality of wikipedia to include that article. As constituted right now, the article is 100% anti-NAET, which is so obvious to everyone (including an "MD" like me). 67.52.123.227 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  "BullRangifer's comment that ..." I don't see how these are false or defamatory.

  MEDRS and NPOV are fairly clear on when and how primary sources can be used - when the primary sources provide additional details on topics brought up in secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Certifiedallergist, I have an autistic family member, so don't lecture me about that matter. As to inclusion of Nambudripad's primary "research", you've already been instructed to get the MEDRS guideline changed before that can happen. Give it up or get blocked. You're beating a dead horse, and that's tiring and disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  CA, you say above that BullRangifer's comments are "false and defamatory" and "if such comments were made about Stephen Barrett, the sentence would stricken immediately." I would like to point out at this point that you are both a hypocrite, since you have no problem anonymously attempting to defame Stephen Barrett and a liar, since you compound your crime by having a wee conversation with yourself about how clever you are, and your attempts to discredit Barrett were clearly not stricken by any other editor. You have already destroyed your credibility here and will soon, I hope, be permanently blocked from polluting WP with your lies, hypocrisy, false accusations and junk science. It is far, far too late for you to start quoting policy and crying wolf. Please go away. Famousdog (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Nambudripad is a licensed acupuncturist and it seems NAET can be practiced if you are an acupuncturist, so BullRangifer's comments that Nambudripad is ONLY A CHIROPRACTOR is FALSE. Also saying that will "ruin her business" is again false as she now has research to back her findings for patients and that statement is defamatory and a DISAPARAGING comment about a living person who has done nothing to deserve such dicsussion. I agree with you about the primary sources and Nambudripad will have to wait for a second source to review her article. But there are both FALSE and DEFAMATORY comments here being made about Nambudripad. By the way, this word "junk science" seems to be used by a lot of people connected to healthwatchers.net as I know many of you are a part of and that is fine. But Nambudripad's study is not junk science as many of the patients seemed to have gotten better. If you don't want to include that then that is too bad. I will not respond to Famousdog's threats and accusations. Certifiedallergist (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  RONZ, I want you to take note that Famousdog called me a hypocrite. Since that is the case, then BullRangifer's comments MUST have been defamatory even according to Famousdog. The hypocrisy label comes from the fact that I defamed Stephen Barrett but am now criticizing someone for defaming Nambudripad. That is Famousdog's logic and so by his own statements, indirectly he is saying that BullRangifer's comment is defamatory. I can't believe Wikipedia is allowing such a derogatory comment like "have to go to Mexico where anything goes" and "ONLY a chiropractor". 108.0.122.250 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE, this is a proven sockpuppet of Certifiedallergist

  Enough. "I will not respond to Famousdog's threats and accusations." That's the right stance to take, but you couldn't stick to it for even an hour. Yes, the discussions here have strayed off topic. Yes, they have become more that a bit incivil. Focus on improving the article. Continuing to disrupt this talk page after all you've already done is simply asking for a block or ban. Please follow WP:DR and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. You are not going to take those defamatory remarks out? I thought you said this discussion has gone off topic. If you truly feel that way, then you would remove all defamatory remarks and false claims. After you do this, then we shall continue discussing how to make this article better in a non-threatening environment. Please let us uphold wikipedia's policies and I will do the same from now on as well. I apologize for my behavior in the past as I was only getting used to the way this thing works. I realize now that wikipedia is not medline or pubmed, which is what we use in the hospital setting for example. So I will be more courteous in regards to edits but please take off the uncalled for defamatory comments and false claims first. Certifiedallergist (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Amazing. So your best defence is "I'm a hypocrite, but somebody else is too". That's your DEFENCE??? Bonkers. Thanks all the same, but I'm afraid it's too late for apologies. You have shown nothing but disrespect and contempt for Wikipedia and your fellow editors. Go away, CertifiedLunatic. Famousdog (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)