Re: Re: Another Allergy question from a newbie

September 13, 2006

Emma,

Have I understood correctly that NAET is what we call in France and Belgium

" kinésiologie " ? I do agree with you that the results are highly dependent on

the kinesiologist's beliefs. I have a long series of stories to back this.

A researcher in Belgium contends that all allergic patients he meets are

actually not allergic to the foods they eat but to an environmental poison.

The 'allergy' is due to a mimicry effect of that specific food to a specific

poison's molecular structure. His job is to find which chemical started the

real reaction in a specific patient. He uses a technique to undo that first

reaction. The mimicry allergy to the food or series of foods then

disappears. If you are interested in the connections, I could either ask him

direct or send you his references. I think you know French from living there

don't you?

Cordialement

Taty Lauwers

taty@...

www.taty.be/nouveau.htm

Re: Another Allergy question from a newbie

>

>> I have recently heard about NAET

> http://www.naet.com/subscribers/index.html

>> and have been considering this in terms of pinpointing which things Im

>> allergic too.

>

> I don't want to sound too dismissive or critical, but I've never been

> convinced that NAET can tell you anything other than what you *think*

> you are allergic to. Blood tests aren't perfect, but they're much more

> reliable than NAET.

>

> Opinions anyone?

>

September 13, 2006

Hi Emma,

Second reaction to this same message. We use blood tests to spot IgG

" hypersensibility " over here. After six or so years observing the results in

people who come to visit me for personal training in nutrition with their

IgG results, enthusiasm is receding. In practice, the foods they are

supposed to react are not actually troublesome (people use daily diaries

with me). Personal observation seems much more efficient to pinpoint what

makes trouble but IgG tests are faster so people go on using them instead.

What is your knowledge on IgG reliability? Two years ago (a long time ago in

that field) a specialized lab testified to me that they were still wrong 50%

of the time... They may have improved a lot in between.

Your opinion?