Talk:Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Puppetry

After the abuse that has been heaped on me (an experienced WP editor of over 6 years) over the past few days by several newbies, whose IP addresses reveal that they have serious conflicts-of-interest, who do not understand either WP policy or the scientific method, who have been acting appallingly in their insistent edit-warring, who have made no attempt to address my entirely valid criticisms of their edits, and who frankly may simply be sockpuppets of the same person, I am stepping back from editing this article in order to not further personalise this "debate". I am hugely indebted to Randomnonsense, Ronz and Brangifer for stepping in and supporting me in the face of some really quite disgusting breaches of WP etiquette. I firmly believe (and hope) that ALL these editors (registered and anonymous) will shortly be blocked from further polluting WP. Famousdog (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

...and I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. Famousdog (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to that, Harshcritique has now been established to be a sockpuppet of Certifiedallegist. SParish is confirmed to be located geographically close to Certifiedallergist and is therefore a potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Famousdog (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to that, the IPs, 99.186.203.1 and 108.0.122.250, are both located in the near vicinity (~20 miles) of the NARF center. Randomnonsense (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Actually ~20 miles isn't quite correct for 99.186.203.1, it might be a bit larger than that (although that's the IP registered to DEVI INAMEUDRIPAD DBA), but within driving distance of the NARF center nonetheless. Randomnonsense (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To add further context, 108.0.122.250 is also Certifiedallergist, as evidenced by this sequence of diffs (1, 2, 3) in which a comment by 108.0.122.250 that thanks and refers to him/herself as an an anonymous editor is removed and then replaced under Certifiedallergist's signature when the mistake is realized. Randomnonsense (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the diff I was looking for! I saw it and then tagged User:108.0.122.250 accordingly. Please add this to the evidence at the SPI. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Randomnonsense (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, both of Certifiedallergist's IPs (108.0.122.250 & 67.52.123.227)have been blocked for one week, and if CA continues to be disruptive, then a complete block will likely follow. Frankly, I have seen no evidence that CA is a real MD or certified allergist. A real MD would know more and better than to get involved in anything like this BS. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Achieving Balance

Too much time and energy has been expended disputing over this article. Both parties (i.e., advocates and critics ) are correct in their desire to be heard, yet incorrect in the approach taken. In keeping with the spirit and goals of Wikepedia to inform the consumer, the article should be “balanced,” providing both parties to voice their concerns. This article is no different from any other Wikipedia article. The advocates should be permitted to describe the treatment in an informative manner, free of advertising or overstating the facts. Similarly, critics should be free to state their reservations in a Criticisms paragraph. If both parties follow this format, one which is commonly used in other Wikipedia articles, then there should be no problem. The problem occurs when (1) the critics infuse negative language (e.g., unsubstantiated, unreliable evidence, unsupported) in the descriptive sections and (2) the advocates try to totally eliminate any criticism. Simply put, both parties need to stop “slanting” the article in their direction. Allow the other to state their case without interruption. SParish (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that criticism sections are strongly frowned upon, do you have a particular suggestion for improvement? Is there some form of descriptive wording that will better describe the treatment? Please provide your suggested wording here, together with the sources you wish to use, and we can look at it. Maybe it can be included, or tweaked until it's appropriate enough for inclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"yet incorrect in the approach taken" Howso? Seems like a false equivalency. One side appears to have all the relevant policies behind them, especially NPOV and MEDRS.

"providing both parties to voice their concerns" This appears to be a general misunderstanding of NPOV and MEDRS.

"The advocates should be permitted to describe the treatment in an informative manner" Not in a manner that violates NPOV and MEDRS.

"critics should be free to state their reservations in a Criticisms paragraph" Once again, this appears to be a general misunderstanding of NPOV and MEDRS.

In general, these suggestions don't appear to follow the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said. I don't think you are in a position to cite policy at us. Famousdog (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Brangifer, you asked if I could suggest a better way of wording this article. The first sentence of the NAET Wiki is a perfect example of what I am referring to. Yesterday, I changed the verb "purport" to "is" and provided the following rationale. The verb "is" is more neutral and in keeping with other Wiki posts. Medications can cause side effects, yet it would be inappropriate to write, "Pharmacotherapy purports to be the treatment of disease through the administration of drugs." See Wiki post for Pharmacotherapy. Then today someone replaced "is" with "claim." Once again, that verb "claim" is not neutral. Furthermore, it is linguistically incorrect since the verb "claim" (as it is used here) requires a human subject as in "Mr. Jones claims that..." However, NAET refers to a set of techniques, which of course, are not human. In short, the verb "is" remains the most neutral and linguistically correct option for the reasons given above. SParish (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying that it is a diagnosis and treatment of allergies is misleading and, it seems, false with respect to the diagnosis of allergies, given the negative evidence on applied kinesiology. The word "claim" is not biased, it is a perfectly accurate description of the situation. Using the word "is" would not be accurate. Your comparison to pharmacotherapy is invalid, the evidential basis of the two are very different. A fairer comparison would be the Homeopathy article, which also uses the word claim in the lede. As to it being linguistically incorrect, I would disagree, but perhaps something like "Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques (NAET) are a series of alternative techniques whereby practitioners claim to be able to diagnose and treat allergies and related disorders" would be an acceptable alternative. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Just to back up my claim above that Integrative medicine - A Clinician's Journal is "a junk journal that has an explicitly pro-alt-med mission", their mission states here that they "provide() practitioners with a practical and comprehensive approach to integrating alternative therapies with conventional medicine." Nothing about testing the validity or efficacy of alternative medicine. I had a look at their freely available sample issue (which, bizarrely, appears to have disappeared in the last couple of days - no matter, I took the liberty of making a note of the issue. It was Vol 8, No 2 from 2009). This issue has 68 pages: 22 are full-page ads for dietary supplements and the like (an additional 8 pages contain either 1/4 or 1/2 page ads), 11 pages contain opinion pieces and letters, there are 12 pages of abstracts from a conference and 4 pages that simply contain information about the journal, diary dates, etc., and 1 page that's just a big photo of a dandelion. Oh, yeah, and the cover. That leaves, what, 17-ish pages for scholarly work. Let's look at that then. There are 4 reviews that are so selective as to basically be opinion pieces pushing a particular product - including one review by the CEO of a dietary-supplement manufacturing company ... (ahem) ... My conclusion is that this reads like a trade journal or lifestyle magazine and contains only ONE (yes, ONE) original research paper. I have no comment to make on that since it isn't my field. Famousdog (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is neither a respectable nor reliable source. The sample issue is actually still available, see here. Randomnonsense (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Various comments

This statement, "NAET draws on ideas from acupuncture, applied kinesiology, and allergy medicine", seems incorrect. NAET does not in any way that I can see draw on ideas from allergy medicine.

I am uncomfortable with the statement, "She claims that NAET is practised by over 8500 licensed medical practitioners all over the world.", it seems unnecessary to include promotional claims about NAET from Nambudripad above what is necessary to describe the technique.

The sentence, "Various reviews of the scientific literature...", gives a false impression of the number of reviews discussing NAET. There are only two such reviews, although many others discuss applied kinesiology, which is integral to the NAET.

A reasonable source for the description of the technique might be this page on Nambudripad's website discussing fraudulent NAET treatments and what real NAET is, plus the addition of the books she mentions there.

This statement, "NAET does NOT claim to cure allergies or food, chemical, and environmental sensitivities", from the frontpage of her website should probably be included in the article somewhere, although it seems to contradict things said elsewhere by Nambudripad (the link in the above comment for instance, where it says "When done properly the NAET® technique successfully eliminates allergies to the treated allergen").

"NAET treatment itself does not have documented side effects, but its effectiveness in the treatment of mild, moderate or severe allergies is not scientifically proven." is unsourced. It is a claim of medical fact and therefore requires verification. A comparison to some sourced statement of acupressure side effects as non-significant with the appropriate caveats would probably be sufficient given that they are practically the same, and as I doubt a reliable source is available for NAET. The portion concerning its evidential status belongs in the next section, is redundant anyway, and should be excised.

The adjoining portion, "Effective methods for dealing with the symptoms of an allergy include avoiding the allergen, and pharmacological and immunological interventions.", in my view is probably better placed in the lede, leaving this section solely describing the NAET technique.

"Another concludes that 'there have been no studies supporting the use of these techniques, and several have refuted their utility.'" is a general statement from the abstract of Teuber 2003, while the first portion applies to NAET, the second doesn't. That paper does not state that NAET has been refuted by any study as far as I can tell, although it does note this about the diagnosis of allergies using applied kinesiology.

This portion, "After an examination of the technique and Nambudripad’s credentials, Stephen Barrett writes:", implies something about Nambudripad's credentials but the quote doesn't mention them.

The two primary sources on applied kinesiology should be discarded given that there are numerous secondary sources now listed.

I think most of the scientific investigations section (cumbersome name, why not just evidence?) should be replaced with something like:

Reviews of the available evidence for applied kinesiology, used to diagnose allergies in NAET, indicate that it is ineffective at diagnosing allergies and several advise against its use.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Various medical associations also advise against its use, including the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence[7], the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology[8], the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy[9] and the Allergy Society of South Africa[10].

Evidence for NAET as a treatment for allergies, independent of Nambudripad, is unavailable with two reviews in the medical literature stating that "there have been no studies supporting the use of these techniques"[11] and that "NAET has to be the most unsubstantiated allergy treatment proposed to date"[12]. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy advises against the use of NAET.[13]

The Teuber reference also cautions that "With NAET, there is the potential for an anaphylactic reaction if a patient with severe food allergies seeks such a therapy and tests themselves by oral challenge away from a physician's office after completing the NAET sessions successfully.", which should probably be added. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of those eminently reasonable suggestions. Famousdog (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch what I said about side-effects, this document describes NAET practitioners acknowledging the existence of side-effects. Randomnonsense (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions - Pseudoscience

I recently handled a mediation request on this case and became aware of the various WP:SOCK and possibly WP:MEAT issues we have going on with this article. It's pretty clear to me this article falls under ARBCOM's pseudoscience cases and those are subject to discretionary sanctions. As such I've place the warning on this talk page and directly warned one editor who had proven socks. Since many anons were being used I have semi-protected the article for 30 days. Further disruption either in the form of tendentious editing or use of socks to evade scrutiny or bans is subject to sanctions including blocks and bans. --WGFinley (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Famousdog (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Banner

Hi. Do we think we can get rid of the banner? It seems to me that the article is pretty well sourced now. Famousdog (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. We've gone from 9 to 28 refs since it was added. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog is way out of line by saying this article is "well sourced". How is that so? This page still needs discussion for editing. Half the references give errors when clicked upon. Wikicontroller9 (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Vials containing allergens?

The article currently states that NAET uses vials containing the actual allergen, but this does not seem to be true. Instead it seems that vials are "charged with the electromagnetic signature" of the allergen. It is obvious that the vials can't contain the allergen when there are vials for achievement, distrust, embarrassment, and other crazy things (see this list of NAET allergen kits). ← Randomnonsense ^talk 19:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The emotional vials are samples of homeopathic remedies of flowers (Bach flower remedies) that are supposed to elicit certain emotions. All of the vials are homeopathic remedies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.203.1 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Can we find a good source to verify it? --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you guys referring to here? There are no such links available. This wiki page needs major corrections to ensure proper references. It seems as if someone made up the sources! Wikicontroller9 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias?

This article is very poorly written in that it has stong bias. It violates the neutral point of view basic tenet of Wikipedia. I just searched Medline and there is a case study which I think should at least be mentioned here. Also, if you look at the NAET website (www.naet.com), apparently there is a controlled study that was performed yet no one would know this based on looking at this article alone. It is deceptive and needs to be corrected. I agree about keeping the reviews and explanation of why this modality is questionable. What do you all think?Sciencemagician (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest concrete changes you think should be made to the article and post links to the studies here and we'll see, eh? Famousdog (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sciencemagician has a valid point of including the study, which does provide an alternate and balanced opinion. You could simply cite the conflict of interest noted in the study. For example, this might be an option, "A controlled and prospective study was published by Nambudripad's group in 2011, which followed 60 children with autism, and concluded that there was significant benefit. However, it must be noted that the authors are NAET practitioners themselves with Teitelbaum, the lead author, being the head of his own foundation. It remains to be seen whether the study will be confirmed by medical consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.56.124 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to attach the link for where the study can be found. I am assuming this is the one referred to by Sciencemagician? http://www.naetautismtreatmentcenter.com/docs/NAETStudy.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.56.124 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The study fails MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Most of the references on this page are inactive. It appears that they may have been old. For example, there is no curriculum vitae of Nambudripad available anymore. Should we start by removing statements that are not supported by acive links? Wikicontroller9 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't remove them. We tag them and then seek to find other sources for them. Sometimes the same links can be found on the Internet Archive. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems like slander to state, under background, "Her website states that she received the Doctor of Medicine degree from University of Health Sciences Antigua (UHSA) in January 2002. The California Medical Board does not list an active license, and it does not recognize medical degrees from UHSA as valid, listing it as a "disapproved" school since 1995," when you do not have a reference for any of that. How do you account for that? Wikicontroller9 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It would only be slander if it were not true, regardless of whether we had a reference or not. Such is not the case. Are you implying that someone here has been deceptive? That's a serious violation of AGF. All content and references have been added in good faith and they have been working at the time. In this case it appears that she is the one being deceptive by attempting to hide information about herself. She has actually removed her own CV from her website, which is a very odd thing to do! Fortunately I have now replaced it with an archived copy. Obviously such attempts by her will only increase the scrutiny around her, so it would be wisest for her to be honest and above board. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The link still does not work. There is no CV that shows so if anyone were to look at the reference they would not see anything. The statements that are made in the article are in fact made up from what I can tell. They are false and should be removed. Keep the article focused on points that can be backed up by current references! Why is Stephen Barrett quoted here? (comment removed per WP:TALK, WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)) From what I can see, he has NO knowledge or training in diagnosis or management of allergies and yet we are using him as a "well sourced" reference. RIDICULOUS I say! What do you think? Wikicontroller9 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to be blocked for WP:BLP violations if you continue as you are doing.

The link works fine. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiding rest of comment thread as per WP:NOTAFORUM and due to presence of promotional links and advocacy in thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What was it that I said? I admit that I am new to Wikipedia but I had to comment on this article because it seemed like rubbish to me as I was reading it. I thought Wikipedia was free for all to use but if I must pay you to have my opinions posted then I guess I cannot afford it. I will go over the policies of Wikipedia as you have suggested but that does not change the fact that this article is misleading. The truest sources for NAET information are not being used here. That much is very clear. Wikicontroller9 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Wikipedia is free to use. It's not a place for promotion, and certainly not a place to slander others. "The truest sources for NAET information are not being used here." That's your opinion only. Provide some sources for inclusion. If they are reliable, we'll include them. When it comes to medical claims, medical references are required. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with your points Ronz, so then why is this article not used in this page: http://www.naetautismtreatmentcenter.com/docs/NAETStudy.pdf Based on the following from Wikipedia help page, it should be used: All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. Wikicontroller9 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Here is another article that is a primary source, I understand, but should at least be mentioned in the article. I find it very funny that these two articles I have cited are not even mentioned. How is that allowed? Wikicontroller9 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The Teitelbaum paper should not be included here for the reasons detailed in these extensive discussions, that resulted from the actions of editors and sockpuppets associated with Nambudripad. I really DO hope that you aren't in any way connected with NAET. Because its a quickfire way to Bansville. Hell, I'm just going to come out and say it: Your promotion of the Teitelbaum paper, combined with your defence of Nambudripad's credentials and character assassination of Stephen Barrett lead me to suspect you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of CertifiedAllergist. Checkuser, anyone?Famousdog 09:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I am not sure what you are referring to when you say such terms. I will look it up now but it must mean that you are associating me with someone else. Anyway, I don't know what exactly you mean Famousdog but I will gladly admit that I have been taking my autistic daughter in for treatments with a doctor who was trained in NAET. I do not know Nampudripard or Teitelbam but I am an attorney, new to wiki editing, and very interested in autism research. I found this wiki article apprehensible and when I thought of ways to edit it, I found that it was pretty complicated. Now I see that there is a link to previous discussions and I will definitely look into them. I am just very confused why these articles were not included, that is all. I sincerely meant to be professional here and I apologize if I offended anyone. As I said, I will educate myself on what has transgressed in the past. I must say though that I DO believe that NAET works and is helping my child! I wish this article could help spread the news to others instead of hiding it. Wikicontroller9 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Great to hear that your daughter's autism symptoms are in remission. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy or promotion. As far as the pilot study goes, the consensus from the discussions is that Integrative Medicine is not a reliable medical source. --Ronz (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much for those kind words Ronz! My wife and I are super excited as my daughter has started speaking several words for the first time at age 7 now. We have only had 10 treatments and are hoping for the best. Nothing else has helped, including therapy. Anyway, I understand your policies a little better now. Again, I truly apologize if any editors here are connected to Barrett, as it seems, but I am just curious. Respectfully speaking, why is Barrett considered a reliable medical source? I would imagine that a case report and controlled study, both have more validity, than one sinlge person's opinion. I looked at the previous discussions for the articles and it is very interesting. CertifiedAllergis seems to have had similar thoughts as myself. I guess in order to get those articles, we will have to go to MEDLINE only. Perhaps others may be able to clear up my confusion about all this. Please keep in mind I am just trying to see what is best for our family. Any thoughts anyone? Wikicontroller9 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Glad your experience with NAET has been positive, but this is an unproven, therefore experimental form of therapy and Wikipedia cannot be used as a forum to promote it until such time as it has been shown scientifically to work. As far as I know, no-one here is "connected to Barrett". That would be just as unacceptable as if they were connected to Nambudripad. We have had serious problems on this article with editors connected to Nambudripad abusing Wikipedia for advocacy and promotion and as you say: "CertifiedAllergist seems to have had similar thoughts as myself" and this aroused my suspicions. Please also check out WP:NOTAFORUM for the reasons why I am hiding this comment thread. Famousdog 07:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Barrett is not being used as a medical source, but as a source for a skeptic's point of view on a relevant topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Independent Research

Please go to www.naet.com and look at the news section and you will see a recently performed and independent study done on NAET. Our organization had no idea that this study was done until just yesterday. Shouldn't this be added to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.203.1 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No. It fails WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on NAET

Please see this article: http://www.psmag.com/health/naet-nambudripad-allergy-elimination-techniques-alternative-medicine-health-55553/

This is a review of the data regarding NAET in a way and it talks about the Autism study that was done recently. Shouldn't this article be mentioned in this Wikipedia article to be fair?173.55.188.179 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It's not a reliable source, as per WP:MEDRS. Dowiha (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Patient death

Interesting to note that the warning from the Teuber and Porch-Curren review seems to have come true. This article in the Irish Independent reports that a patient undergoing NAET treatment died of anaphylactic shock. 192.34.61.80 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet this study [1] shows that Teuber and Porch-Curren review has not fully evaluated all the evidence, including an Allergy evaluation study of Autistic patients [2]. Deaths like that in Ireland happen also when patients use conventional immunotherapy, which is medically accepted [3]. So what is the difference? If NAET is done in a hospital setting, then it may be safe. The technique is not the problem but it is the setting. If immunotherapy is done by a chiropractor then we will have lots of problems too. Perhaps conventional medicine should study NAET in an appropriate atmosphere before anyone concludes that it is unsafe.173.55.188.179 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Content Not Suitable for an Encyclopaedia

This article uses negative words and qualifications from the start, qualifications which represent the author's bias. From the very first sentence the authors show their bias through the word 'claim' and continue with their bias throughout the entire introductory paragraph. NAET was created, employed,and supported by fully qualified/credentialed professionals and merits an objective point of view, instead of being qualified as a pseudoscience, with a few negative studies cited. It's fine to cite as many negative studies as there are, but not to qualify the topic a priori with 'key' words such as 'pseudoscience.' The entire project Skepticism is not suitable for an encyclopedia and it should be discarded. There is no place for such bias Francine — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancineVallejo (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New medline cited article on NAET that is a secondary reference to other NAET studies

http://www.gahmj.com/doi/pdf/10.7453/gahmj.2014.025

Please take a look at the above article. It should be included in this Wiki article to be fair.108.0.56.132 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's only a case report. They don't even begin to come near a primary source, which doesn't begin to come near a secondary or tertiary source, which doesn't come near a literature review, which is what we prefer per WP:MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also a very obvious fringe journal. 92.4.167.191 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.naet.com/CurriculumVitae.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)