Original sentence: A case study is not, however, strong evidence for effectiveness and on the basis of their case study the authors recommend the carrying out of randomized, double-blind controlled studies.Founded in 1983 by Devi Nambudripad, a California based acupuncturist and physician, NAET draws on theories from acupuncture, kinesiology, and allergy medicine.I believe that practitioners who use NAET have such poor judgment that they should not be permitted to remain licensed.Its core diagnostic approach – muscle testing for “allergies” – is senseless and is virtually certain to diagnose nonexistent problems.Its recommendations for dietary restrictions based on nonexistent food allergies are likely to place the patient at great risk for nutrient deficiency, and, in the case of children, at risk for social problems and the development of eating disorders.More studies need to be performed to study its true efficacy.NAET clashes with the concepts of anatomy, physiology, pathology, physics, and allergy accepted by the scientific community.NAET is regarded by others in the medical community as unscientific, with placebo effects at best.The Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique has been described by a few as not being effective for any medical condition, and lacking scientific rationale or physiologic basis.The story of its “discovery” is highly implausible
Edited sentence: A case study is not, however, strong evidence for effectiveness; on the basis of their case study, the authors recommend the carrying out of randomized, double-blind controlled studies.Founded in 1983 by Devi Nambudripad, a California based acupuncturist and physician, NAET draws on ideas from acupuncture, kinesiology, and allergy medicine.Its practice is not grounded in physiology.The Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique has not been demonstrated to be effective for any medical condition beyond possible placebo effects