So anyway, now that I have had a long nap, a nice cup of tea, and a few chapters of The Hobbit, allow me to jump back into the fray:
So I am pretty much seeing you doing nothing but deflecting, which does nothing to improve my opinion of you as a human being. You use the same ‘weasel words’ that carefully skirt the edge of legality. We say ‘we want proof this works’. You respond with ‘Well, everything else isn’t proven, because I say so, so therefore proof is useless’. You are a perfect example of our ‘how not to support your product online’ thread.
Anyway, let us turn to the Wikipedia, shall we? One particular item I am keenly fond of is the listing of logical debate fallacies. Let us see where this takes us, shall we?
First, we have you claiming that studies are flawed, therefore studies should not be used as proof. While there is a very small number of flawed studies, you are attempting to put doubt upon all of them. Hasty generalization or Overwhelming exception, depending.
Next, you claim that clinical practice is the best way to determine effectiveness. This can be chalked up to personal preference, but given that it supports your argument better than other forms, I am going to file it under Cherry-picking your results, especially as you then go on to attack our requests for clinical trials and studies, as covered above. You’re also Moving the goalposts and Special pleading by stating that your form of proof is somehow more valid than our form.
Oh, and the part that annoyed me the most? Claiming that ‘just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not true’ - Ad Hominem, Burden of proof, Argument from ignorance, and Appeal to authority by implying that you understand better than us. For your information, we DO understand it, very well, thank you very much, and that even if we did not, it would not mean that your position was correct.
On to your next post:
Let’s see.. yes, yes I do get angry when I am insulted by someone. Especially when they are doing so to discredit myself and my friends. I have often found that when someone says ‘no offense’, it is in fact something that is offensive.
As Peter pointed out, your argument that off-label use of known medicines does not connotate that on-label use of NAET is valid. Non sequitur.
You then go on to attack the validity of clinical studies again, and point out a few examples of failure. This still does not prove the validity of NAET. This is also cherry-picking your results: there are a very large number of prospective medicines that proved to be harmful or ineffective during the trials and studies, and therefore do not make it to the market. We do not like Straw man arguments around these parts.
Yes, you are correct, I, personally, have not linked to any studies which disprove NAET. There are, however, a few links to such studies and their results buried in this monster of a thread, and I am not going to bother to look for them. Mainly because it is not my job to disprove your position. Even if there were no such studies that disproved NAET, it would not change the fact that there are no valid studies which prove it, either. We also do not appreciate attempts to shift the Burden of proof.
Peter hit most of the main points, but whether or not something works with or without studies is irrelevant, we want proof that it works, and refusing to give such proof makes one wonder why it is being witheld.
Peter also brings up the good point of safety. I will refer to an earlier post by me - the one right above yours, in fact - asking for a study which shows NAET to be a safe process. If it can have that much influence on a human being, what would happen if it was performed improperly? Am I going to have a heart attack if a practicioner screws up?
So you have no firm opinions on the matter? You might have fooled me. Way to support both sides of an argument.
Actually, this is NOT a matter of opinion. This is a matter of facts. True and false that are independant of personal preference. Don’t try and deflect in that manner, it will not work, and will annoy people.
Lacking a condition for which NAET claims benefit, I am incapable of ‘trying it for myself’, and even if I did, my personal opinion would not be valid proof.
We HAVE spoken with people who have tried it, or those close to them. There’s quite a few of them in this thread, if you bother to read back a bit. Even if they support our position, anecdotal evidence is not proof. Yes, that one cuts both ways. This is, however, the sort of ‘research’ you claim supports your position - people trying it and finding it does or does not work.
True, most treatments are not 100% effective - I would counter that amputation cures Athlete’s Foot reliably - but I wonder what you consider to be an ‘effective’ percentage? 90%? 75%? 30%? 10%? Give us a percentage of those who had a positive result with NAET. Then compare that percentage with that gained from placebos. Unless the numbers are signifigantly different, you do not have an effective treatment.
To sum up: your whole argument is one big attempt to shift the Burden of proof onto us, rather than on your shoulders. Your statements are filled with enough Weasel words to fill a bucket, and you still provide us with no proof of your arguments. Instead, you attack the concept of scientific testing as invalid and irrelevant.
Now, to be fair, this DOES imply that I am falling to Argument from fallacy - stating that because your argument is fallacious, that your conclusion is false. Not so - my view that your position is false is based upon a number of other conditions, many unrelated to your argument. The fact that you are deliberately not supporting your position properly does not help that.