53 of 56
53
Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Techniques, NAET.  Expensive quackery or miracle treatment?
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 573 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  141
Joined  2010-09-21
Jacob Teitelbaum MD - 18 January 2012 06:14 PM

Are you interested in a discussion of the science ? If yes , happy to proceed. if not, sorry to have wasted your time

Has the “science” of the study (  you know, the study that was funded by your foundation)  been replicated in any independent lab not funded by your foundation, or been published in any medical journal other than journals of “alternative” medicine?

I’m also impressed that by your thorough analysis you’ve come to the conclusion I don’t exist. Just searched on my name and 455,000 hits came up.

You can get numerous hits if you do a web search for “loch ness monster”, sasquatch, or bigfoot.  Which proves only that you can get numerous hits if you do a web search for those things.

Odd comment. I don’t sell NAET, or make money doing NAET.

No? Yet when you visit the online store at your site, you can buy “Vol. 4, Issue 3: Getting Your Immune System Back In Balance - Part 2, NAET: A Breakthrough Treatment For Allergies, The Multiple Food Elimination Diet”...

Does your foundation/web business not make any profit off the sales of this book?  Or do you sell it at cost to support the publisher?

 

 

 Signature 

“Facts are meaningless - you could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!

“Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.” ... H Simpson

“The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 574 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2894
Joined  2005-06-15
Jacob Teitelbaum MD - 18 January 2012 08:54 PM

Hi Peter
Sorry for the oversight—Happy to address it.

There are levels of “independent” in research. As noted in my post, we have kept funding and study design and data analysis and reporting about as clean and clear as can be for a medical study requiring expertise. If the people designing the study and the practitioners giving the treatments are not familiar with the illness, you get really poor studies. It would be like orthopedists applying chiropractic manipulation (conclusion of study—all patients injured—chiropractic does not work) or if it was reversed and chiropractors studied heart surgery and did the surgery (conclusion—all patients getting heart surgery die horribly)

So it is needed that there is familiarity and expertise, but low financial motivations. As you are very picky (I say this because I doubt 1% of US studies on medical treatment would fulfill the criteria of no connection, and very few be as free of financial bias as this study), and some may say that it would be too much of a conflict if a surgeon performed the surgeries in a surgical study , I will add for complete disclosure that my wife is one of the over 10,000 health practitioners worldwide using NAET.

I can understand your not choosing to use the treatment. Novel and unexpected therapies do take time to gain acceptance. I am simply responding to the earlier statement concerned that there was no research in the area and asking to be shown the research. I am simply supplying a study. Are more studies needed? Of course, as in most new areas. The next study being explored is using NAET to treat Celiac Disease (a severe and likely genetic wheat allergy), for which Anti-transglutaminase antibodies can be measured. And it is appropriate for the NAET Research Foundation to be involved (the director is an MD Pathologist—the specialty that directs lab medicine/testing). It is similar to any other specialty group (American Heart Association) being involved in study design.

I do appreciate a good skeptic—as I am one myself. And I do thank you for your thoughts and appreciate them.

How about “independent research” as in done by an institution that has no vested interest in NAET. Look at one of the Ivy League universities. Look at John Hopkins as a possiblity. Or look overseas. I’m sure Melbourne University or Sydney University would be prime candidates to approach for such a study.

I’m “picky” because I don’t like to see people waste their money on what looks looks to me like a scam.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 575 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

There aren’t ‘levels’ of independant research. Either it is, or it isn’t. There isn’t any ‘gray’ area.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 576 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2012-01-18

Hi Peter

Did you read any of the ~ 1/2 million hits? Do they look like the Loch Ness monster?

For that newsletter (brings back memories—I suspect written over 10 years ago), if you look it is not even in the store (deleted many years ago because my newsletters are free and have been quite a while). So I suspect you found it by searching on the word NAET so it came up that way. But look under the “publications” in the web store—it’s not there (none of the old newsletters are)

No the foundation doesn’t make money on the sale of my books—I do;-)
But the books are not on NAET (beyond being 1 of hundreds of topics discussed)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 577 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2894
Joined  2005-06-15
Jacob Teitelbaum MD - 18 January 2012 09:17 PM

Hi Peter

Did you read any of the ~ 1/2 million hits? Do they look like the Loch Ness monster?

For that newsletter (brings back memories—I suspect written over 10 years ago), if you look it is not even in the store (deleted many years ago because my newsletters are free and have been quite a while). So I suspect you found it by searching on the word NAET so it came up that way. But look under the “publications” in the web store—it’s not there (none of the old newsletters are)

No the foundation doesn’t make money on the sale of my books—I do;-)
But the books are not on NAET (beyond being 1 of hundreds of topics discussed)

How about listing a few of those hits. Take your pick.

I agree with Robin Bobcat when it comes to independent research. Why don’t you reply to that one?

Your last sentence confirms you do include NAET in your books.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 578 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2012-01-18

Hi Guys,

Sorry Peter. My last response was meant to address Feotu’s comment.

If you look at the Ivy league med schools, Hopkins (where a friend of mine is going through the study proposal process) and even the NIH, you will find these are not independent. They recieve ~ 30+ % of the study funding (so they don’t want to tick off the company whose product is being funded or they will take their business elsewhere. The people doing the studies are usually on the payroll of the drug company owning the drug being studied, and the drug company is paying for it. If a surgical procedure, it is almost always one that is being pioneered at their institution for which the institution makes massive sums of money. Even the NIH and FDA committees are staffed largely my people on the payroll of the drug companies. Peter, do you really consider those options independent???

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 579 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2012-01-18

Hi Peter

How about http://www.doctoroz.com/bios/jacob-teitelbaum-md  and http://www.oprah.com/health/Dr-Oz-Treatments-for-Fibromyalgia


I did address Robin’s remarks. In my response to you

And yes, I do mention NAET in my writings. I doubt that anyone designs a study on a topic they have not spoken or written about. So your point?

Anyway, I’ve supplied the information I can for those that are interested. Time for me to get back to work…

Wishing you all well, and encourage you to keep your BS detectors up (an important skill in medicine)—but not so much that you can’t see anything new:smirk:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 580 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2894
Joined  2005-06-15
Jacob Teitelbaum MD - 18 January 2012 09:25 PM

Hi Guys,

Sorry Peter. My last response was meant to address Feotu’s comment.

If you look at the Ivy league med schools, Hopkins (where a friend of mine is going through the study proposal process) and even the NIH, you will find these are not independent. They recieve ~ 30+ % of the study funding (so they don’t want to tick off the company whose product is being funded or they will take their business elsewhere. The people doing the studies are usually on the payroll of the drug company owning the drug being studied, and the drug company is paying for it. If a surgical procedure, it is almost always one that is being pioneered at their institution for which the institution makes massive sums of money. Even the NIH and FDA committees are staffed largely my people on the payroll of the drug companies. Peter, do you really consider those options independent???

If you have a problem with Johns Hopkins I did list other universities. We could go on down the list if you like.

Jacob Teitelbaum MD - 18 January 2012 09:37 PM

Hi Peter

How about http://www.doctoroz.com/bios/jacob-teitelbaum-md  and http://www.oprah.com/health/Dr-Oz-Treatments-for-Fibromyalgia


I did address Robin’s remarks. In my response to you

And yes, I do mention NAET in my writings. I doubt that anyone designs a study on a topic they have not spoken or written about. So your point?

Anyway, I’ve supplied the information I can for those that are interested. Time for me to get back to work…

Wishing you all well, and encourage you to keep your BS detectors up (an important skill in medicine)—but not so much that you can’t see anything new:smirk:

My point is you seem disingenuous about your level of writing about NAET in your books. One minute you imply it’s an insignificant amount and the next minute you freely admit it’s in there as if to use it to win an argument.

Why don’t you list links for independent scientific studies? I haven’t heard of Doctor Oz but I’m not too impressed with Oprah’s medical knowledge. Then again I’d have to ask how Doctor Oz and his show gets paid. I am sceptical of TV shows like this.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2012 10:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 581 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  141
Joined  2010-09-21

Why don’t you list links for independent scientific studies? I haven’t heard of Doctor Oz but I’m not too impressed with Oprah’s medical knowledge. Then again I’d have to ask how Doctor Oz and his show gets paid. I am sceptical of TV shows like this.

I’ve heard of him, and watched a few segments of his show.  Last bit I watched several weeks ago, he had on a psychic healer .. I stopped watching his show at that point.  Dr Oz’s website has some videos you can watch which examine the question of “Are Psychics the New Therapists?”, and a section called “How do i Close & Strengthen My Aura?...This technique, from an advanced Pranic Healing practice called psychic self-defense, enables you to close and strengthen your energy aura to make it less susceptible to contamination by the negative words or emotions of others. Like pranic breath).


That’s probably all you need to know about Dr. Oz, other than his show is funded by Oprah & was spun off of her show and he is apparently a doctor of psychology.

 Signature 

“Facts are meaningless - you could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!

“Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.” ... H Simpson

“The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2012 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 582 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-02-03

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2012 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 583 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-02-03

I should have linked to Devi Nambudripad’s “double blind-placebo controlled” study (here). Personally, I fail to see how there are difficulties with implementing a placebo here. There are issues with acupuncture placebos and mimicking an acupuncture needle, but this is acupressure (and, apparently, having the patient hold a vial of the allergen in solution), as far as I can tell there doesn’t seem to be any controversy in the literature over acupressure placebos and there definitely isn’t any issue in replacing the vial with a placebo version.

Profile
 
 
   
53 of 56
53