Anotherone

Thanks for stating your position without being drawn into venom spewing. I can see where you’re coming from, and appreciate your sincerity in the context of your experiences.

And I certainly get your point that if something truly works by the placebo effect, then it’s a hell of a lot better than drugs which are sure to have undesirable side effects to one extent or another.  That’s a valid point.

At the same time, I hope you understand that the human mind has a powerful ability to see what it wants to see and disregard what it wants to disregard, even if that causes great harm to innocent people.  Witness, for example, all the people whose lives were utterly ruined and/or who were sent to jail for as much as 20 years because people saw what they were looking for rather than dispassionately seeking the truth.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria .  And how about those Salem witch trials.  Don’t we have the same DNA in us coursing through our blood as the judges (or juries?) at those trials and the people who presented evidence at those trials?

The OJ Simpson trial was a great example of people believing what they wanted to believe.  It seemed like virtually every white person in L.A. believed with complete conviction that Simpson butchered those people and that the evidence proved it conclusively , and virtually every black person in L.A. believed (or at least claimed to believe) with complete conviction that Simpson was innocent.  As stated by one juror, “All that [the DNA evidence] proves is OJ gots blood.  We all gots blood.  That don’t prove nothin.” Obviously, the ability to process information is powerfully influenced by personal viewpoint, experience, interest, and bias, not to mention edjookashon.

My own experience watching the “Curves” flim-flammery by David Schmidt (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/2526/P4360/) convinced me that you can put almost anything in front of people and convince a number of them that it is doing them actual and significant good as long as you sound confident, and especially if you invoke some cool sounding terms like resonant frequencies, quantum mechanics, lines of energy flow, mitochondria, harmony and light, etc.  That’s why sooooooo many scams like the Q-Ray bracelet and Lifewave continue being profitable long after you would have expected them to die.  They’ve done studies (sorry, I don’t have the link for you now) that demonstrate that doctors are subject to an observer’s brand of “placebo effect” by which the doctors report the data that fits with their expectations, and downplay or disregard the data that doesn’t fit those expectations.

I therefore believe, like EDHUK/Dave, and submit to you, that a responsible practitioner will investigate whether a particular supposed treatment is based in sound science and repeatable independent research rather than relying merely on, “Well, it seems to work a fair percentage of the time from what I’ve observed, so that’s good enough for me” - - because none of us can know for sure how prone we are to seeing what we want to see, and dismissing what we don’t want to see.

Please answer EDHUK’s question: What kind of a practitioner are you, and what are your credentials” I’d really like to know.  Thanks.

To open up a can of works:  So in view of your experiences, what do you think should be the minimum level of supporting science and/or objective clinical trials that the government should require before allowing people to hold themselves out, and make money, as practitioners of a particular treatment?  Should there be complete liberty/free market/anarchy? 

Do you think people should be able to make a living by charging people money for administering something that has no effect other than the placebo effect? 

I look forward to your thoughts.

Anotherone

Nothing worthwhile is easy!

You make some very good points and I can certainly understand your frustrations with the medical and pharmaceutical industry as a whole.

“ ...I can see that what I have seen is not held with much importance.”

The degrees of importance are not really the point. We are trying to understand how good people, like yourself, can get swept up in the NAET movement and not see the obvious missing links to reality.

“You know, most of us couldn’t get into medical school to become real doctors anyway, but we’re good hearted and try to help others.”

Surely you can understand how people might find your position a little disconcerting?

“ Most of us actually, believe it or not, believe what we are seeing.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe anyone has accused you of not truthfully recounting what you have experienced.

“...hope you understand that it will be hard for me to go to my patients tomorrow and explain that I can no longer treat them, even though they have had good results because the research done thus far does not support that this technique works. Or maybe I’ll just do it for a few more days to help a few more people and then see if the real doctors will let me come take out their garbage. Oh, why didn’t I go to medical school?”

Forgive me, but this does sound a little childish. I don’t quite follow your reasoning here.

You have admitted to “treating” “patients” and presumably accepting money for “services” renderred.

You are unable to give an account of how such treatments work, if indeed the “treatments” are responsible for witnessed “changes” in your “patients”.

You believe what you do is “harmless”.

How do you know this?

What if something you are doing now has consequences that will not be known for another 10 years?

Please don’t give up on us.

This is definitely not a witch hunt, unless of course you are a witch!

As with the other threads that I and others contribute to, I’m just interested in finding out the real facts behind claims made by various “inventors” “healers” etc.

Dave

CAN NAMBUDRIPAD LEGALLY USE THE LETTERS “M.D.” IN CALIFORNIA?

According to her website, Devi. S. Nambudripad, the person who “discovered” NAET in November 1983 (http://www.naet.com/subscribers/what.html), claims to be an “M.D.” http://www.naet.com/CurriculumVitae.pdf
Her claim to those letters is based on “Doctor of Medicine from UHSA, Antigua, January 2002.” (http://www.naet.com/CurriculumVitae.pdf).  So what is this UHSA, where Nambudripad got her medical degree 19 years after she “discovered” NAET?
The University of Health Sciences-Antigua (UHSA) is based in Antigua, West Indies.  According to its website “Campus Tour” video, visitors to the campus are greeted with what appears to be a hand-lettered sign that says “Medical School – Welcome”, and a campus that consists of a handful of small buildings, and roads marked by white rocks along the sides of the roads, and apparently no curbs or sideways.  http://www.uhsa.ag/ , click on “Campus Tour”.  I can’t tell for whether the roads through campus are paved or whether they are mostly dirt.
You don’t need an undergraduate degree in order to attend UHSA.  “Most students have a BA or BS prior to entering the School of Medicine. However, students who have not completed the baccalaureate degree but have demonstrated academic capability may apply.” http://www.uhsa.ag/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=335&Itemid=30.  You don’t even need to have taken any sciences courses to first receive a crash course in science from UHSA and then be “automatically accepted” into the medical school. http://www.uhsa.ag/synopsis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=873&Itemid=30
UHSA receives a lot of bashing on the Internet. 
According to Wikipedia, California does not recognize a degree from UHSA as being a legitimate medical degree.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHSA (“California list ‘University of Health Sciences Antigua, St. John’s’ as disapproved since 1995, and ‘neither education completed at, nor diplomas issued by, [UHSA] will be accepted toward meeting the requirements for training and/or licensure in [California].’”) That same article further states that, “Kansas has filed suit against a dentist for using the title “M.D.” without complying with state licensing requirements after obtaining a medical doctorate through an accelerated 18 month course of internet classes, clinical rotations and lectures at UHSA,” citing http://www.pitch.com/2004-06-17/news/oral-argument/.
So it’s not clear to me whether Nambudripad can even legally call herself an “M.D.” in California, where she is based.

Joel,

I’d say you’ve documented rather nicely that she’s whistling in the wind.

Not that it’ll matter much to her.

If she can peddle this scam “science” she can certainly handle accusations of not being a real doctor.

Nice research!

Dave

Anotherone

“...hope you understand that it will be hard for me to go to my patients tomorrow and explain that I can no longer treat them, even though they have had good results because the research done thus far does not support that this technique works. Or maybe I’ll just do it for a few more days to help a few more people and then see if the real doctors will let me come take out their garbage. Oh, why didn’t I go to medical school?”

Well, did you keep your word?

You know.. I’m trying *very* hard to not be snarky.. I mean, the comment about seeing ‘if the real doctors will let me come take out their garbage’ just *invites* it..

*sigh* Fine.. I’ll get it out of my system…

*ahem* “In taking out the trash of real doctors, you would be doing far, far more to aid medicine and the care of patients than your current line of work.”

Robin Bobcat - 03 December 2007 12:13 AM

You know.. I’m trying *very* hard to not be snarky.. I mean, the comment about seeing ‘if the real doctors will let me come take out their garbage’ just *invites* it..

*sigh* Fine.. I’ll get it out of my system…

*ahem* “In taking out the trash of real doctors, you would be doing far, far more to aid medicine and the care of patients than your current line of work.”

Ooooh That’s gonna sting!

so the bottom line for me is that this works most of the time..of course, sarcasm aside I continue on my mission help people..I can’t explain totally how it works and neither can anyone else on this board..this difference is you don’t believe it works and I see it day in and day out..not some people thinking they feel better..real changes..again, infant skin changes are probably the best monitor as the placebo infant effect is probably minimal and either skin changes or it doesn’t..and we’re not talking about a slight change either..so there is the stalemate..I don’t think this type of board is generally filled with people who want to know what works but rather tying to disprove things based on third hand information..I don’t care where she got what degree from..is she sneaky or disreputable..not my call..what she has put together works most of the time..also, can show before and after blood tests on many items..so my rambling ends here, with a somewhat hard to read post..I guess for me when I hear something works to help my patients I learn it and see what happens..most things don’t work..this one happens to..luckily for the patients who use it.

I think our contention here is that no, it does not work. Any perceived effects are purely the result of wishful thinking and/or flimflammery. The relevation that you will cease rambling, however, fills our hearts with joy unbounded. I shall have to schedule a party.

To paraphrase, There are more things on heaven and earth than fit into your philosophy, Horatio. Your wishing it not to work has no effect on reality, except yours.