...it is too much for the mindset of the critical to be open to the fact that they just may be wrong.
I’m always amused when practitioners of quackery think they have an open mind. The skeptics here are questioning: a treatment that was “developed” by an unqualified medical person who made wild claims about curing herself from allergies that are physical impossibilities (vitamin C, sugar, etc), belief in a treatment that goes against not just one thing but many things that medical science has learned in the last 200 years, use of said treatment for 30 years without any scientific testing to ensure its efficacy and safety. And you have the gall to call us close-minded! What this means is people like you have been making money from human guinea pigs without any concern that you may be doing irreparable harm to them.
You claim to have observed positive results over the years but what if the first few ended in disaster? Would you have modified the treatment and tried again? Were you prepared to tell their families and the prosecuting attorney you tried an unproven experimental treatment on them? I do hope for your sake you have adequate malpractice insurance. And your patients? I guess they’ll just have to take their chances.
Your main justification seems to be you personally observed positive results but if you were a true professional you would know that is the lowest level of proof in the scientific method. How can we be sure your conclusions were not skewed by personal bias or some unaccounted for factor? Even if these things did not affect your results how are we, the public, supposed to know that? Why should we trust you? The answer is, of course, we shouldn’t. That is why protocols like double blind studies were developed. All conventional treatments have gone through this process so why shouldn’t NAET? If NAET is as good as you say it is, it should pass these tests with no problems. Instead it remains on the fringe with no apparent attempt to legitimize it.
The true measure of an open mind is to state up front what it would take to admit you are wrong. I will be convinced I am wrong if there are properly conducted studies of NAET performed by qualified medical researchers, know those studies were published in a respected scientific journal, know that they were peer-reviewed by other qualified medical researchers and see any positive results replicated by even more qualified medical researchers. If that happens then there is a good chance NAET may have some basis in fact.
What would it take to convince YOU that you are wrong?