Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:54:09 EST |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 1/23/99 10:48:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> It is risky because when a parent with a child with severe food allergies
> reads a
> claim that a method cures food allergies they attempt it falsely think that
> would
> cure allergies they would take a risk of trying food and thus risk a
chance
> of a
> fatal reaction. Most parents receive no educational information on the
> dangers
> of food allergies from their allergist. Then when they start reading they
> are
> often misinformed and take huge risks.
Yes, I see your point. Even if "cleared" I would still exercise extreme
caution in introducing milk into a kid's diet with an anaphylactic allergy.
However, your previous post--at least to me--implied that NAET itself is
risky. Being non-invasive by use of acupressure would not pose risk. Loss of
money, perhaps, if the treatment is not effective. However, if NAET can even
*reduce* the severity of an anaphylactic child's allergy, then at least for my
kid, I think it would be worth the try.
Lynda
|
|
|