wilberto - 18 December 2007 01:30 AM

This will be my last post as well. If you want more informaiton feel free to read the report publicated by the Autism Research Institute regarding Biomedical treatments for Autism at http://www.autism.com/treatable/adams_biomed_summary.pdf
In the last page there is a summary of the different Biomedical/Non-drug treatments and it is listing NAET. This report was done by Dr. James B. Adams a person highly recognized for Autism research.

The report says that 44% of the people treated using NAET got better and 52% saw no improvement.  Yes this is a very low number but the Gluten free diet (most popular biomedical intervention method) has a 65% sucess and the other methods have about the same percentage at NAET.  This is a report done by one of the most important Autism research institutions and was conducted in march of 2007.

All I can say is that I have a son that have drastically improved after we started this treatment!!!

Wilberto,

Thank you so much for the further information.

I can appreciate how important it is to get results for your son’s autism, no matter where they come from.

In looking at the study you mention done by Dr. Adams I believe it prudent to point out a few pertinent facts:

Dr. Adams states:

“This document is intended to provide a simple summary of the major biomedical treatments available to help children and adults with autism/Asperger

wilberto - 14 December 2007 01:45 PM

One day we met with a board member of the Autism Society of GA and she introduced NAET to me and my wife.

Your post here may lead some to believe that the board member was in some way making a recommendation of NAET in their capacity as a member of the Autism Society of GA.

This reply from The Autism Society of GA is, I believe, of interest.

“Though ASA-GGC does not endorse or denounce any particular treatment or program, a board member may certainly engage in a personal conversation about treatment options that have or have not been effective for their own child.  This type of personal conversation would not constitute a recommendation by the organization simply due to association as a board member.”

Cindy Pike
Executive Director
Autism Society of America -
Greater Georgia

This may give the recommendation a slightly different level of implied importance than in your original post.

The same board member could, in theory, have alerted you to the efficacy of Cod Liver Oil. However, in the context of posts supporting NAET, the Cod Liver Oil “treatment” would not quite have the same kind of buzz attached to it.

wilberto - 18 December 2007 01:30 AM

This will be my last post as well. If you want more informaiton feel free to read the report publicated by the Autism Research Institute regarding Biomedical treatments for Autism at http://www.autism.com/treatable/adams_biomed_summary.pdf
In the last page there is a summary of the different Biomedical/Non-drug treatments and it is listing NAET. This report was done by Dr. James B. Adams a person highly recognized for Autism research.

The report says that 44% of the people treated using NAET got better and 52% saw no improvement.  Yes this is a very low number but the Gluten free diet (most popular biomedical intervention method) has a 65% sucess and the other methods have about the same percentage at NAET.  This is a report done by one of the most important Autism research institutions and was conducted in march of 2007.

All I can say is that I have a son that have drastically improved after we started this treatment!!!

Willberto,

I emailed Dr. Adams to check on the apparent “recommendation” of NAET in the report you quote.

You apparently offered up your son to a NAET “practitioner” on the basis of this report and are recommending NAET to other parents.

His reply:

“That page of my report came from the Autism Research Institute (as it says on the top of their page). 

They had 77 families report on the use of NAET in their informal survey, and the results are listed there.

Note that NAET is not one of the treatments that I recommend in my 28-page summary, because I think there is insufficient evidence to justify recommending it..”

James B. Adams

Professor

School of Materials

Arizona State University

PO Box 878706

Tempe, AZ 85287-8706

(480) 965-3316

(480) 727-9321 (fax)

So, as you can see, Professor Adams did NOT recommend NAET.

Due diligence, due diligence!

regardless of the recommendation or lack therof, he has been getting good results. what do you recommend he do now? stop the treatment? I had a child come to me once for bedwetting and learning problems. in three weeks his bedwetting stopped and his teachers had noted a change in behavior in the classroom (thought they had put the child on meds, didn’t know anything else was going on). shortly thereafter the father read an unfavorable report in Consumer Reports—a publication with a medical advisory committee determining their views-about things I do-the father stopped bringing his son, despite the good results he had..hopefully, Wilfredo will allow his own experience dictate what he does and doesn’t get lost in the rest of it, for his son’s sake.

excuse me, Wilberto, not Wilfredo

It is possible to edit your own posts, Anotherone—just click on the “EDIT” button in the lower left corner of message box. That way, when you misspell another person’s name, which I have done many times myself, you can correct it within the post.

Anotherone - 20 December 2007 05:51 PM

regardless of the recommendation or lack therof, he has been getting good results. what do you recommend he do now? stop the treatment? I had a child come to me once for bedwetting and learning problems. in three weeks his bedwetting stopped and his teachers had noted a change in behavior in the classroom (thought they had put the child on meds, didn’t know anything else was going on). shortly thereafter the father read an unfavorable report in Consumer Reports—a publication with a medical advisory committee determining their views-about things I do-the father stopped bringing his son, despite the good results he had..hopefully, Wilfredo will allow his own experience dictate what he does and doesn’t get lost in the rest of it, for his son’s sake.

Again, on the face of it very laudable.

“...in three weeks his bedwetting stopped and his teachers had noted a change in behavior in the classroom…”

How do you know it was because of your “treatment”?

“...regardless of the recommendation or lack therof,...”

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect a person making a statement that a well respected Professor has endorsed NAET to check their facts before making such a bold statement.

In my opinion, as opposed to your opinion, NAET is nothing more than a scam. You continue to perpetrate the SCAM and take money in the process.

You continue to rationalize that any results obtained MUST be because of your “treatment”.

You also continue to believe that your interventions can have no possible harmful effects.

How do you know?

You will continue to use rationalization as this is the only way for you to continue doing “the right thing” in your eyes, and MAKE MONEY.

Bedwetting is often a fairly short-lived phenomenon in most kids. About a month, maybe two, until their bladder catches up growth-wise or they learn not to drink so much before going to bed.

There are a few arguements being used against me here. Number one, let’s forget about the money: because of insurance regulations in the state where I am, I don’t charge for NAET in the vast majority of cases; perhaps ten percent are charged. This has nothing to do with money. I don’t need to do it for the money.
Secondly, the idea that all of these people who have long term problems suddenly get better because they walk into my office-thanks for the compliment but let’s be realistic. All of these people having spontaneous results? Not likely.
Third, please explain the idea of potential harm coming to these people. How does a scam technique which does nothing create harm? I’m not dealing with people who are on a timeline of disaster with some disease and for the most part I’m working with people who have already been through a few failed experiences with your beloved medical establishment and the real doctors. How does an accupressure technique which supposedly does nothing now come to be harmful?

Anotherone - 21 December 2007 07:49 AM

How does a scam technique which does nothing create harm?

Thank you for finally admitting it.

Anotherone - 21 December 2007 07:49 AM

How does a scam technique which does nothing create harm? I’m not dealing with people who are on a timeline of disaster with some disease and for the most part I’m working with people who have already been through a few failed experiences with your beloved medical establishment and the real doctors. How does an accupressure technique which supposedly does nothing now come to be harmful?

Well, for many people it wouldn’t do any harm other than taking away their money for no real return (which can be considered harmful, I suppose).  But if it truly does nothing, and if people are led to believe that it does do something and so depend on it to the exclusion of other methods that will help them, then they’re being harmed.

To use a more extreme case to show how this can be. . .imagine if there is somebody who has a blockage in an artery.  Somebody offers him a sugar pill, saying that it is a miracle cure for all sorts of things.  The sugar pill costs only 90% of what surgery would cost.  So the patient takes the sugar pill instead of going to a doctor.  The sugar pill doesn’t directly hurt the person, but it also doesn’t help the person either.  The person dies a few days later from the blockage, when they could have been saved by other methods and lived happily for another forty years.  I’m not saying that NAET is quite that extreme of a case, I’m just setting up an imaginary scenario showing how a scam technique that does nothing creates harm.