Dear Kimberly:

Well, let me answer you from a personal point-of-view first. I have some of the conditions that the N.A.E.T method is suppose to cure. I will not use N.A.E.T. now or ever. That is my own personal opinion.

Now, let me discuss the subject of "miracle cures" and "revolutionary discoveries" from a Consumer Advocate point-of-view.

According to the N.A.E.T. the alleged "research" to prove the effectiveness of this program is totally anecdotal.

Their website states:

Data gathered and analyzed from office documentation spanning a ten-year period. Data from both male and female subjects of various ages were used. The patients completed symptom survey questionnaires; the most common signs/symptoms recorded in the sample group were used for the purpose of this analysis, result of a few surveys are shown here.

The number of patient visits until symptoms resolved were then tracked and documented.

Results: Approximately two thirds of the sample group experienced resolution of symptoms within the first 15 -25 visits.

 Thus, based on their information, the "research" that proves the effectiveness of this method is based solely on examination of patient charts and self-reporting from the patients themselves. This is anecdotal evidence, NOT scientific evidence.

Thus, from a scientific point-of-view, N.A.E.T. does not appear to have any real scientific credibility. For example, we need to know the intensity of the Placebo effect.  Many of these remedies are effective only because the people think they are effective. The Placebo effect is powerful and cannot be dismissed. This is not to say that the Placebo effect is not useful; it can be. The question, however, is whether or not a treatment or therapy has any actual scientific medical effect.

The N.A.E.T. people, as far as I can find so far, offer no scientific evidence of the effectiveness of their treatment.

This tends to be true with much of the "alternative" medical treatments.

Another red flag are claims that a treatment will solve most anything. There is NO SUCH THING as a magic bullet, a single therapeutic approach that will resolve all health problems, or even a extremely wide-range of problems.

Even treatments that do have scientifically verifiable positive effects on health, that proven effect is one a very narrow range of symptoms.

In addition, N.A.E.T. appears to me to be an attempt to make appear more "scientific" the same essential theory of Chinese Acupressure (which also claims that allergies are the main cause of most of our health problems).

Saying all this does not mean that the theory of allergies causing many medical problems does not have some truth to it. It may very well be true that allergies are a major cause of many things. I am not a doctor so I really cannot speak to that.

But as a Consumer Advocate, and former Chinese Alternative Medicine Practitioner, my red flags go flying when I see the utter lack of scientific studies to verify the "great" claims of some treatment program, and the claims that any one particular treatment program can cure such a wide range of ailments.

A good book I recommend that carefully analyzes Alternative Medical Techniques is: Dr. Rosenfeld's Guide to Alternative Medicine: What Works, What Doesn't And What's Right for You

Dr. Rosenfeld, who is Jewish not Christian, examines the various alternative medical techniques from a scientific and medical point-of-view. He does not, however, offer a spiritual analysis and may at times brand as okay things that would still be inconsistent with Christianity. But the value of the book is his medical analysis.

While this book, written in the mid-1990's does not specifically mention N.A.E.T., it does provide some principles and guidelines on how to evaluate alternative treatments.

For example, one of Dr. Rosenfeld's major points of advice is that if it sounds too good to be true, it is. NO technique and NO medicinal substance will cure everything. Run, do not walk, away from products and techniques that promise the cure for about just anything.

Other advice he gives in a chapter called, "How to Spot a Quack" is to "suspect quackery in any of the following situations:

1. A product that promises to cure a variety of ailments quickly.

   N.A.E.T. claims quick cures in their claim: "Approximately two thirds of the sample group experienced resolution of symptoms within the first 15 -25 visits."  These claims include the "resolution" of arthritis and fatigue, which Dr. Rosenfeld specifically mentions as a typical quackery claim.

2. Testimonials and "case histories" used to bolster claims for a particular treatment...that has allegedly alleviated or cured conditions considered incurable.

   N.A.E.T. claims to "resolve" Arthritis, Eczema, and chronic fatigue all of which are considered incurable.

3. Claims to "cleanse" the body of "poisons" and "toxins" or "strengthen your immune system".

   N.A.E.T. does not use the terms in quotation marks above that I can tell, but it does use the phrase, Allergens are cleared". This is the same language used in what is known as "Applied Kinesiology" and Acupressure, and similar techniques. The allergy testing that is done with Applied Kinesiology is bogus.
   
   According to the N.A.E.T. website the treatment uses "a blend of selective energy balancing, testing and treatment procedures from acupuncture/acupressure, allopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, and kinesiological disciplines of medicine."

The bottomline is that N.A.E.T. appears to use notions and techniques from Chinese cosmology and practices that include "energy balancing," "applied kinesiology," and other techniques that are bogus.

The claims of N.A.E.T. smack of a quack, are not based upon scientific research, but on anecdotal reports, and probably placebo effects.

N.A.E.T. claims to "resolve" (a cute way to avoid saying "cure") everything from incurable conditions like Arthritis, Eczema, and Chronic Fatigue to flatulence. To the last condition, me thinks there is a LOT of flatulence in N.A.E.T. -- but I thought they cured that? :)

Now with all this said, N.A.E.T. combines many elements in its treatment from what I can gather. Some of the things that N.A.E.T. utilizes in its program are legitimate in terms of proper nutrition. The issue of proper nutrition may well explain some of the "cures" since nutrition can have a major impact on health and on psychological conditions as well.

I know that it is very difficult for a parent who has children with conditions like you describe. This is what makes opportunist and new age dingbats rich in that they can exploit those who are vulnerable and desperate for cures.

The bottomline advice given by Dr. Rosenfeld in his chapter, "How to Spot a Quack" is a good one:

Look very carefully into every treatment suggested to you, regardless of its source, especially if their is a risk involved; determined how commonly it's used; ask how long it's been around; find out in what percentage of cases it has been documented to be successful (beware of testimonials and anecdotal evidence especially as regards to conditions considered incurable); be aware of its potential side effects; and ask whether there are better or proven treatments to accomplish the same end. Finally, check to see whether it is approved by the American Medical Association (AMA), the organization that for many years has alerted Americans to fraudulent treatments, and continues to do so.

On the subject of moral acceptablility, things like N.A.E.T. has more to do with medical prudence, or the lack thereof, than it does with moral acceptability in terms of the Catholic Faith.

I do think that it is morally unacceptable to exploit the vulnerabilities of people who are hurting, in pain and suffering, and are desperate for relief. I understand the suffering reaching out to those who promise relief, but I would suggest that it is not prudent to reach out to just anyone or just to any treatment.

At best such alternative treatments might give some actual relief from pain and suffering either from the placebo effect or perhaps from actual medical reasons; but a cure? not likely.

The practitioners of these treatments are using techniques that come out of, and are based upon, cosmologies that are contrary to the Truth of Christianity. The Yin Yang cosmology, energy flows in the body called meridians, chakra and ch'i and all the rest is just a bunch of bunk at best, and at worse can open doors to the spirit world.

These treatments should not be used except for conditions of which scientific evidence has shown that these treatments can be useful. (for example, acupuncture has been proven to be useful in pain control).

BEWARE, however. Be very careful of the ancillary material that often comes with these alternative treatments. It is common practice for "alternative health practitioners" to use these alternative methods along with occultic/pagan and otherwise non-Christian philosophies and notions.

I myself, when I was involved in such things, would silently and unknown to my patient pray to the "spirits" while performing acupressure and "balancing of energies", massage, and applied kinesiology. Those "spirits" were not of God.

Personally, I would suggest finding other sources besides N.A.E.T for medical advice and treatment. The choice is yours. I do not think there is anything inherently objectionable from a moral standpoint in using alternative medical treatments, but I would exercise great caution. While these things might be morally neutral, they may not be prudent. In some cases could be even be dangerous if these alternative treatments replace more appropriate medical methods. In still other cases, spiritual problems could develop because of the technique and/or practitioner coming from an occult, pagan, or otherwise non-Christian cosmology and worldview in lieu of a scientific approach.

We will be in prayer for your children.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary