Reading the last few pages of this thread I see that the Teitelbaum study has been mentioned and he has himself commented here, so I’d like to make a few points. There are 7 authors on this paper, 5 of them hold positions at the Nambudripad Allergy Research Foundation set up by the inventor to promote the technique and are presumably NAET practitioners (the second author on the study is Devi Nambudripad, the inventor of the technique). This affiliation is only declared in the paper for 3 of the 5. The remaining 2 authors are Jacob Teitelbaum and his wife Laurie Teitelbaum. Laurie Teitelbaum is a NAET practitioner, Jacob Teitelbaum does not appear to be one himself, but his website recommends NAET for a variety of conditions. The only thing vaguely independent about this study is that apparently a herbalist, Michael J. Glade, seemingly unrelated to NAET, was employed to do some, or all, of the statistical analysis.
In the paper, under disclosure, they state, “No competing financial interests exist. Some authors are NAET practitioners, and Devi Nambudripad developed the technique”. Not only is the first bit completely false given the above, but it doesn’t even make sense in and of itself. How can NAET practitioners, employees of NARF and the inventor have no competing financial interests?
A previous commenter has claimed that this study was double-blinded, it was not. The study was completely unblinded and no attempt was made to control for placebo (or seemingly anything else). It is claimed in the paper that no placebo was used because it is inherently difficult to employ a NAET placebo, but, contrary to this, Devi Nambudripad has previously self-published research claiming to be placebo controlled double-blinded studies of NAET.
It is being claimed that because this article has been published by a peer-reviewed journal (Integrative Medicine), the study is respectable. However, reviewing the available sample issue, much of the journal is taken up by adverts for supplements and the like, non peer-reviewed conference abstracts and opinion pieces. There are then a few suspicious looking review articles, including one by the CEO of a dietary-supplement company! There is only one original piece of research in the entire issue. Integrative Medicine looks like a bought and paid for trade journal, it is not a respectable academic journal.
That it is being suggested by advocates that this study provides evidence for NAET is laughable, if I was being cynical I would suggest that Jacob Teitelbaum was brought in as a figurehead for Devi Nambudripad, because his connection to NAET is not immediately apparent and therefore his name as lead author provides a thin veneer of independence to the study.