Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques

POV text moved to talk

I've moved the following text to talk, as it is clearly POV, and also looks like a potential copyvio:

The following overview of EFT by Brian Walsh PhD

EMOTIONAL FREEDOM TECHNIQUE (EFT) and Learning

The State Dependant Memory Learning and Behavior (SDMLB) theory states that life events are encoded in a person’s physiology on a cellular/molecular level. These events, both positive and negative, include both the thought, which becomes a memory, and the original emotion attached to that thought. According to the research of Dr. Candace Pert, research professor at Georgetown University's Department of Physiology and Biophysics, our thoughts convert to emotions that in turn become neuropeptides. The neuropeptides, strings of amino acids, communicate with the body on the biochemical level. (If you watched the film “What the Bleep Do We Know?”, you may remember Dr. Pert as one of the participants.) These stored events reside in bodily energy fields that flow on unique major neural pathways, corresponding to what acupuncurists call meridians.

EFT is a meridian therapy, one of the many healing techniques in the new field of Energy Psychology, which, by linking an emotion/memory event to a physical tapping process, can clear negative, disturbing emotions, eliminate or reduce pain and phobias, and assist in setting and implementing positive goals. EFT can be thought of as a form of psychological acupressure, for it is based on the same energy meridians used in traditional acupuncture. Focusing on the issue and stimulating the major neural pathways through tapping initiates a memory process causing change, by unblocking the emotional short-circuit. This process results in substituting neutral or positive emotions for the negative emotions which were previously learned and associated with the issue.

The process initially requires the person to tune into the disturbing thought, event or issue to be addressed. With a simple finger tapping on key points on the face, head, chest and hands, kinetic energy enters the specific meridians which flow through these points. This combination of tapping the energy meridians and voicing specific phrases works to clear the emotional block from the body's bio-energetic system. This restores the mind and body's balance, which is essential for optimal learning and mental health.

Some of the other energy therapies are Matrix Works, Break Set Free Fast, Energy Diagnostic & Treatment Method, Attractor Field Therapy, Thought Energy Synchronization, Acu-Power, Healing From the Body Level Up, Neuro-Emotional Technique, Tapas Acupressure Technique, Psychological Kinesiology, and Healing Touch.

EFT can dramatically enhance intellectual performance simply by eliminating the emotional lids on our intellectual potential. END

Speculation

Removed from article, not based on reliable source:

EFT has also been the subject of numerous books and non-peer-reviewed studies. For example, Andrade and Feinstein reported that EFT was most effective for anxiety and panic disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. They reported that EFT was also effective in obsessive compulsive disorder, social phobia, mild to moderate situational depression, Tourette's syndrome, substance abuse, and eating disorders. These researchers found EFT to be less useful or contraindicated in major depression, personality disorders, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and chronic fatigue syndrome. This research appears on the webpage of the Assocation for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, and has not been published in a journal as of February 2007.

Newer version moved from article for improvement

I have moved the following from the article per my comments in the previous section. It is the largest part of this version.

Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a form of alternative psychotherapy that uses tapping on acupuncture points while a patient focuses on a specific traumatic memory. EFT is notable for providing relatively fast results,(peacock wording) and for scientifically demonstrated effectiveness, as studies typically show results as good or better than Cognitive Behavioral Therapy with fewer sessions. EFT is believed to manipulate an energy field that Eastern philosophies and treatment practices associate with the human body.

While the effectiveness for patients is well-established in peer-reviewed studies, (eftuniverse doesn't qualify as a ref for such a statement.) and EFT is quite widely used in psychotherapy, the mechanism of its effect remains controversial. Critics have described the theory behind EFT as pseudoscientific and have theorized that its utility stems from its more traditional cognitive components, such as suggestion (the placebo effect), distraction from negative thoughts, and the therapeutic benefit of having someone actually listen.

Theory

The theoretical explanation of EFT's effects is that negative emotions are correlated to disruptions in energy meridians, as are described in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Indian Ayurveda and Yoga, Acupressure, Acupuncture, Tai Chi, QiGong, Reflexology, and other practices. (A ref here need not be MEDRS, but can be opinion from RS.) Body-awareness meditation practices and body-centered psychotherapies argue that emotional experiences are reflected in corresponding body sensations, which although subtle can be observed through body awareness training. (A ref here need not be MEDRS, but can be opinion from RS.)

Many practices seek to discharge emotion from past experiences, as reflected in the body's energy field. Tapping is a fairly simple and easy-to-teach way to achieve this. By tapping on meridian points that pass through regions in the body's energy field where these subtle sensations are felt, the bodily sensation changes, and the patient experiences relief from the charged emotions. EFT's main innovation is to simplify by tapping on a standard set of major meridian points, enough to provide reasonable coverage of the entire body. This makes the tapping technique very practical, as it does not require patients to do anything beyond the tapping procedure and to focus on the emotional experience itself. (Please provide a verifiable source. There must be a statement online we can see, isn't there?)

Studies

EFT has been the subject of several publications, with both positive and negative findings. Several positive studies have shown that EFT performs as well as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, while requiring a much shorter treatment time.

Distraction hypothesis

A 2007 article in the Guardian suggested that the act of tapping parts of the body in a complicated sequence acts as a distraction, and therefore can appear to alleviate the root distress. However, while what makes EFT work remains somewhat unclear, simple distraction has not been shown to reproduce the empirically demonstrated efficacy of EFT.(Also dubious in light of Waite and Holder study)

Able to achieve positive results with random tapping

The EFT procedure combines focused visualization, acceptance of the emotional experience combined with self-acceptance, along with a somewhat flexible(promotional language) tapping process. One study compared the effect of standard EFT to a control group that followed the EFT procedure of visualization of a traumatic memory with the exception of tapping on randomly-chosen points. (Also neglected to mention the control group that tapped on a doll, rather than themselves) The study found that both groups experienced the same clear, positive changes in recipients as following the EFT's traditional sequence of tapping points. EFT originator Gary Craig responds that traditional meridian points on the fingers themselves could account for these interesting results.(Also means that EFT is not falsifiable via the scientific method, therefore pseudoscience) Each tapping group in the study demonstrated reduced anxiety. (Note that positive results were achieved, i.e. it worked!)

Meridians are not visible anatomically

EFT has been labeled pseudoscience in the Skeptical Inquirer, based on what the journal identifies as its lack of falsifiability, reliance on anecdotal evidence, aggressive promotion via the Internet and word of mouth. Gary Craig, the originator of EFT, has argued that tapping on meridian points on the body will manipulate the energy flow in the meridians, thus releasing the disturbance. There are many pressure points used by acupuncturists, reflexology, or acupressure not included in EFT methodology, which focuses on about twenty major acupuncture points. Skeptics have pointed out that such an argument renders EFT untestable by the scientific method and that it therefore needs to be categorized as a pseudoscience, however beneficial some may consider it.

EFT's successes(And promotional language) are also thought to stem from "characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies",(Where is this quote from?) rather than manipulation of energy meridians via tapping acupuncture points. There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.(This whole para. is a non-sequiter)

Discussion about revision

References.....please make comments above this line or create new section below if it's unrelated to this revision

regarding review of trials - PMID 22402094

This is an edit that summarizes my complaints with this article.

The current article does not allow for the supportive evidence to be included, and instead issues a derogatory, blanket condemnation. My issue is with the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques

vs. the edits I attempted to make previously, which all involve high quality reviews: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533282956&oldid=533180950

If you look across articles like this, you will see a similar pattern, of ideologues of a persuasion against this content banding together and censoring information they don't like. I believe that pseudoskepticism has hijacked this, and related pages.

Opposition as been made that one of the people who wrote one of the reviews, which are published in the American Psychological Association's journals, is an "advocate", as if that is supposed to dismiss his publications. In the wikipedia policy covering "righting great wrongs", it is noted that one articles have been published in mainstream journals advancing a controversial position, those articles warrant inclusion. Two reviews showing efficacy have been published in mainstream journals. My sources are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, and supersede the dismissive articles that are not in peer-reviewed journals - these articles being from Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine, in quality. Additionally, high quality reviews, like Cochrane reviews, demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture, which the treatment is based on. To me, the failure to include them is unwarranted, and this is just another example of a group of ideologues getting together using bully tactics, engaging in censorship.Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be payed for, but it can be read here: innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/mechanisms.pdf It mentions EFT as a modality being evaluated with relevant statements and references on pp. 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, & 26.

The whole framework of procedures is mentioned (p. 5) as "a common though unconventional procedure that is appearing in a variety of clinical formats, with "Thought Field Therapy" (TFT), the "Tapas Acupressure Technique" (TAT), and the "Emotional Freedom Techniques" (EFT) being among the most widely practiced." Hence this review is applicable for all of those entries.Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we need to use independent source. Feinberg is a promoter of these "Energy Psychology" and is not an independent arbitrator of if it works or not. Yobol (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The review was published in a mainstream journal. To the extent that he is an "advocate", it is because he has found it works, as shown by RCTs not conducted by him. Invoking WP:Fringe is unnecessary in this case, and will block any kind of positive evidence from appearing here. If a mainstream journal vindicates a so called "fringe" idea, we can't ignore it just because it is not in accordance with our ideology. RCTs published in mainstream journals have also demonstrated efficacy of this and related modalities, like PMID 22708146, PMID 23141789, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2012/257172/, PMID 22986277, and http://tmt.sagepub.com/content/18/3/73Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

All these "energy psychology" techniques are exactly WP:FRINGE, and require us to follow these guidelines. These techniques are not widely supported by the psychology community (as evidenced by their lack of acceptance in recent surveys, and lack of approval by the APA for their use). On fringe topics, we can not portray fringe as mainstream when they are not, and using fringe promoters as evidence for the use of fringe techniques is a no-no. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the continuing effort to dress up WP:FRINGE subjects and make them look more evidencey, which seems to have affected several articles now. bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Over here, under the wikipedia article, in a subsection entitled "Righting Great Wrongs", the following is noted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs

"Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability. So, if you want to

Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or

Vindicate a murder convict you believe to be innocent, or

Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community

On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."[2]"

The problem is that evidence HAS been published in mainstream journals, that clearly shows evidence for this. I would like to also point out that David Fienstein was initially a skeptic, but went over to the other side as he was personally confronted with evidence: http://www.innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/PN_article.pdf

The sources to "rebut" it are purely ideological, and do not confront the evidence.

This article, in order to "debunk" the basis of energy psychology, acupuncture, relies on Edzard Ernst, a person who lied about his background in order to buttress himself as a more effective "debunker": http://www.hmc21.org/#/edzard-ernst/4543212059

(and on the contentious subject being discussed, the fact is that meta analyses and RCTs in mainstream journals have shown efficacy: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/therapeutic-action/homeopathic-treatment)

(I know you will reference all the "mainstream" sources that support him, but the fact is, he lied about his career)

Independent reviews without conflict of interest have come to the conclusion that acupuncture is effective, and superior to sham techniques, like PMID 22965186 and PMID 19370583

A plethora of randomized, sham-controlled trials have shown efficacy, many of which can be read here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/therapeutic-action/acupuncture

The fact is that the mainstream in this is fraudulent. From the following Frontline interview, we have the following: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER:"Skeptics say that there's no biological marker--that it is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it."

Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center: "That's tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn't have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid--schizophrenia, manic depression, Tourette's Syndrome--all of these would be thrown out. ... There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn't make them invalid."

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Dr. Allen Frances, the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the DSM IV, “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/19/science/scientist-at-work-allen-j-frances-revamping-psychiatrists-bible.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

In the wired article "Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness", he noted: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

In the last page of the article, we find the following: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/5/

"Diagnosis, he says, is “part of the magic,” part of the power to heal patients—and to convince them to endure the difficulties of treatment. The sun is up now, and Frances is working on his first Diet Coke of the day. “You know those medieval maps?” he says. “In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here.’”

He went on: “We have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without that map.”"

For more, see Mad in America[1] and Anatomy of an Epidemic[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what article improvement this long post is supposed to be in support of, and absent any explanation, WP:NOTAFORUM seems relevant. Zad68 04:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of that is to change this article back to this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=532708739&oldid=532703880Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification... the problem is that the sources proposed don't mention "Emotional Freedom Techniques" and so using those sources in the way proposed is WP:SYNTH, a form of disallowed original research, as the edit summary correctly stated. Zad68 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the very first item I posted, which I will repost for you:

The article (PMID 22402094) needs to be payed for, but it can be read here: innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/mechanisms.pdf It mentions EFT as a modality being evaluated with relevant statements and references on pp. 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, & 26.

The whole framework of procedures is mentioned (p. 5) as "a common though unconventional procedure that is appearing in a variety of clinical formats, with "Thought Field Therapy" (TFT), the "Tapas Acupressure Technique" (TAT), and the "Emotional Freedom Techniques" (EFT) being among the most widely practiced." Hence this review is applicable for all of those entries.

Also, the article as it stands now involves an attempted debunking of acupuncture, the basis for EFT, when there are high quality reviews without conflict of interest showing the superiority of acupuncture over sham treatments.Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that all of my sources are WP:MEDRS compliant, and supersede the current critical sources, which, in comparison, are not. Institutional bias against this treatment has been acknowledged in my edit, but this is the only "evidence" against the therapy. I would like to also add that the therapy is highly decentralized and individualistic, and thus diminishes dependence on specialists, which is what the APA thrives on. A cogent critique of the APA's position on thought field therapy is here: http://archive.truthout.org/energy-psychology-mental-health-experts-say-its-time-end-ban64393

The reviews showing efficacy are also in the APAs own journals, like http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/16/4/364/, and http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-20923-011, so I don't think WP:FRINGE applies as much as my opponents claim it does.Pottinger's cats (talk)

Time to slow down

I just reverted a massive change that deleted sources, apparently without concensus. The inserted source did appear to have some credibility, but it is very recent, only published last month. Wikipedia has wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait to see if it holds up to the considered evaluation of other experts. In the near term, it should at most supplement existing sources, not supplant them. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My opponents have not responded to my arguments on the talk page, because of this, there is no way to move forward via that route. I updated the article to include both the condemnatory sources they inserted, and the supportive sources coming from meta-analyses in mainstream journals, as a compromise.Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your "opponents" have responded to you. You've ignored their responses and continued to push your edits both here and by edit-warring on the article. It's entirely possible that other editors are shunning you because of your uncollaborative behavior. The best way back is, as LeadSongDog suggests, to slow down and make an effort to engage other editors' concerns rather than trying to steamroll them. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The only response in opposition to my edits is that the person who did an overview agrees with the practice. However, his reviews have been published in mainstream journals, and warrant inclusion, as noted above. Also, part of this article relies on a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted. I attempted to compromise by including ALL sources, both pro and con.Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Pottinger's. I saw your note on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and decided to drop by and take a look. While wanting to include all sources is admirable I'm afraid that doesn't line up with wikipedia policy. PRNewswire, for example, will print anything so long as you pay them enough, so that doesn't count as a reliable source. The other sources are probably giving too much weight to a minority view. I'm happy to discuss any or all of them in greater detail if you like, but you should probably review WP:UNDUE and WP:RS first. Best, GaramondLethe 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the omission of PRnewswire. The other sources are entirely in line with wikipedia's Right Great Wrongs and WP:MEDRS policy.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had cause to spend a lot of time reviewing WP:MEDRS recently and I'm not sure I agree, but let's go ahead and discuss it. Which citation would you like to start with? (As an aside, WP:RGW is part of the essay on WP:Tendentious editing and describes a condition that is necessary but not at all sufficient. WP:UNDUE is going to probably be the highest hurdle in this case.) GaramondLethe 02:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These are the two main citations, and they fit WP:MEDRS - http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021171, http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0028602 These are the other relevant citations, and they fit MEDRS: - http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's take them one at a time. Feinstein (2010) is a review article and has been cited a moderate number of times. You're using this to support the statement "efficacy for this modality". What was the efficacy? How was it measured? What was the modality? Do you have a copy of this paper? GaramondLethe 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC) The papers need to be purchased, but copies of both are located here: http://innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/mechanisms.pdf, http://innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/Acupoint_Stimulation_Research_Review.pdfPottinger's cats (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Feinstein (20102012)? If you haven't, go ahead and read the first couple of sections and then take a look at table 2. I'm working on two of my own papers tonight so I might not get back to this for several hours, but this is.... definitely interesting. GaramondLethe 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Feinstein 2010 "mechanisms" paper from the link P'sC provided and I don't see any tables at all...?? Zad68 04:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At the very end of the document. I particularly liked the study on shooting free-throws where the control was "An inspirational talk by a coach." n=13. I really picked the wrong profession.... Does anyone have access to this one? http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2009-08897-011 GaramondLethe 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. I'm looking at the Acupoint_Stimulation_Research_Review, not the mechanisms. That one is Feinstein (2012). But probably not a bad place to start all things considered. GaramondLethe 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I do see the table now Garamond. I really want to be laughing along with you on this joke but I'm not getting it yet... Why would a coach pep-talk be an unreasonable control for the experiment? The article itself is a review article published in a reputable journal associated with a reputable association (the APA) in the relevant field. I think it's peer-reviewed? The journal's impact factor puts it in the top quartile of journals in the field. Feinstein is indeed a practitioner but as far as I can tell we don't discount reviews of a technique done by practitioners of a technique... we wouldn't throw out reviews of heart surgery techniques written by a cardiologist, would we? I've been keeping my mouth shut because I've been waiting for those smarter and more experienced than me in evaluating stuff like this to tell me what the answer is to the question "Why isn't this article useful?" but I'm not seeing it yet... Zad68 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the peer-reviewed literature.... I have in hand (well, onscreen) Pignotti & Thyer's Some comments on "Energy Psychology... that lists the several negative studies Feinstein neglected to mention. I think this (rather than my long editorial below) is sufficient to prevent mentioning of Feinstein's work here (unless both are mentioned together). I'm happy to email a pdf to whomever would like a copy. I'll try adding the sham studies tomorrow, but with the paper deadlines that might get pushed back a day. GaramondLethe 09:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a page about acupuncture

We are citing a number of sources to challenge and/or defend the existence of acupuncture points, meridians, etc. This work is much better left to the respective pages on those topics. EFT does not involve acupuncture per se. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article involves a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted.Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An overlong answer to Zad68

Zad68 asked why I rolled my eyes when I saw and EFT experiment on basketball free throws in a review article. A complete answer would take an essay (and I may work this up into essay form). Note: This section is only tangentially related to the article and will be drawn from my experience, expertise and opinion. As such none of this information is intended to be used in determining what should be in the article. For amusement purposes only.

I make my living as a scientist, which still seems a strange thing to say after ten years of grad school and a three-year postdoc. I also have a serious interest in philosophy of science and how it informs pseudoscience, pathological science and the theories of crackpots. I also have a very practical interest in the anatomy and taxonomy of just-plain-bad science, both as a peer-reviewer and as someone whose results are peer-reviewed by others.

Rather than explain my reaction to what I thought the paper would be based on the summary I'm going to jump ahead and discuss the paper itself. This is very close to the process I use when I do anonymous peer review for scientific submissions. Here is the citation:

Church, D. (2009). The effect of EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) on athletic performance: A randomized controlled blind trial. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2, 94-99. doi: 10.2174/1875399X00902010094

and the url:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tossj/articles/V002/94TOSSJ.pdf

Let's start with the journal. The ResearchGate description does not provide an impact factor for this journal. This is a very bad sign: this tells me that nobody is citing what this journal is publishing and, as (most) scientists aren't stupid, nobody is going to publish good work here because no one will read it.

The explanation as to why this is is easy enough. This journal publishes...

...research articles and reviews in all areas of sports sciences, such as anthropology, biochemistry, biomechanics, epidemiology, growth and motor development, motor control and learning, measurement and evaluation, physiology, pedagogy, psychology, history, philosophy or sociology. The emphasis of the Journal is on the human sciences, broadly defined, and applied to physical activity, sport and exercise. Topics covered also include design of analysis systems, sports equipment, research into training, and modeling and predicting performance.

There are journals devoted to motor control and there are journals devoted to philosophy, and if you have a good piece of research in either motor control or philosophy you're not going to send it to a journal that publishes both. If you're wondering how they stay in business, publishing a paper there costs you $800. That's not out of line for open-access publishing, but note the economic hole they're in: if they aren't getting good manuscripts and they start rejecting bad manuscripts, they'll fold.

Moving on to the article proper: was this paper bad enough to deserve this journal?

The subjects are college basketball players. After warming up and shooting ten free throws they were taken individually into a room for 15 minutes and were either given EFT or "received an inspirational reading of tips and techniques from a former college basketball coach, Rick Pitino". Both groups then performed another ten free throws. The EFT group improved their accuracy by 20.8%. The control group declined by 16.6%.

I'd like you to stop a minute and think about those results and how they were obtained. Do you buy it?

Here's what comes to my mind.

1) If EFT really did improve free throw performance by even 5%, every serious basketball player in American from junior high school on up would be using it. A real 20% increase would have a Nobel prize attached.

2) Note that the initial shots that progress was measured against occurred first. Could the additional practice explain the effect? To determine this we would have to had a control group that had a similar experience to the EFT group. Instead, the control group was probably bored to tears and massively demotivated.

3) Instead, if the control group had had a highly personal, supportive conversation with an attentive, caring stranger and performed some meaningless activities, and the EFT group still did better, then maybe we might have something.

4) Alternatively, would the control group have done even worse if they hadn't been read to for 15 minutes? I doubt it.

5) Why shoot only ten free throws? Why not fifty? Why not a hundred and fifty and stagger when the treatment was given, looking at the 20 shots before and after the treatment to judge the effect?

I think we can say with confidence that the only thing we learned from this study is not to read Rick Pitino's books to your b-ball players during halftime.

Frankly, a high school student after finishing a semester of psychology class could have come up with a better experimental design. I can believe the authors were sincere and either misguided or undertrained. I have a much harder time thinking up an excuse for the (unpaid) reviewers. This paper shouldn't have been published, period.

Now let's return to the review article that cited this paper. That author put all of the reviewed papers into tiers, and the highest tier was peer-reviewed, randomized studies. This paper was in that tier. In this field, this paper is the best evidence.

A final note to Pottinger's cats: I want to make sure to tell you that you did everything right. You found a peer-reviewed article that reviewed other peer-review articles and had been cited since it had been published. If you haven't spent a significant portion of your adult life in graduate school that's all I can expect you to do.

And a final note to Zad68: Free throws are notoriously hard to study, as is any activity that combines attention, discipline, physical strength and hand-eye coordination. And at the end of that complicated process you end up with a binary variable. As experiments go it's sexy and will draw a headline, but there are just so many potential confounding variables there that you'd need a season-long study for an entire league to control for them. And so when I saw they were reporting an improvement, I just laughed.

To anyone who is still reading, thanks.

GaramondLethe 07:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was one of a plethora of RCTs reviewed.Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If you'd like to suggest that I look at another one where a pdf is available I'll be happy to do so (although perhaps not immediately, and definitely in fewer words.) GaramondLethe 09:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just give a case history - I used EFT to cure a nasty bout of insomnia one night, and extended application greatly reduced severe social anxiety. But here are your sources: (before that though - regarding use in sports, see the following:

numbered and reformatted for review. GaramondLethe 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1) http://golfweek.com/news/2006/mar/25/2006-golfers-tap-psychology-fyg/.

2) also, for another trial, see p. 13: http://thencp.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fidelity-Spring-20126.pdf) see also, of greater relevance:

3) http://www.varkstaden.se/pdf_filer/EFT_article.pdf,

4) http://www.lifescriptcounseling.com/research/dinter.pdf,

5) http://tmt.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/12/1534765611426788.abstract,

6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22986277,

7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22708146,

8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19913760,

9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23141789,

10) (comparison with cognitive behavioral therapy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563510),

11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12945061 (other, related studies not in review:

12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128040,

13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388769)

Here is another interesting study - while not meeting WP:MEDRS, it is still of interest for readers: http://eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2470:preliminary-report-of-the-first-large-scale-study-of-energy-psychology&catid=39:research-studies&Itemid=2073Pottinger's cats (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

An overlong response to Pottinger's cats

Regarding your personal experience: from a practical perspective, you're doing the right thing. You found something that worked for you, and rather than pester the universe with questions like "Ok, can I repeat this? And exactly how did this happen? And how do I know I'm not fooling myself?" you instead got up on and got on with your life. That's a great strategy for day-to-day living, and I use it myself. But the rules change if I want to make a statement as to why this works, or that it will work for others. (I don't have to explain my lucky penny, but if I go into the business of selling lucky pennies I'm going to have some explaining to do.) So I'm not interested in trying to convince you that your interpretation of your experience is wrong. That's none of my business. Published, ostensibly peer-reviewed studies, on the other hand....

You gave me a pile of citations instead of the one I asked for. I'm going to hazard a guess that this is because you don't (yet?) have enough graduate school under your belt to evaluate which of these are better or worse. That's fine, but you might want to take this into account when you're thinking of adding a citation to the article.

So, here's my evaluation of the links you suggested.

1.) Golf Week isn't peer reviewed (and a golf swing is even less appropriate that free throws for a small-effect phenomena).

2.) Journal for the NCP isn't peer reviewed (it's a newsletter)

3.) Brattberg 2008: I have no difficulty believing that EFT is better than doing nothing. The more interesting questions are whether it is better than a placebo and better then current best practice. Note that this study is far, far better than the basketball study because they tested against no intervention, so at least we have an idea of how big the effect is (but not why the effect exists).

4.) Church (undated): Comparison with a no-intervention control group.

5.) Church 2011: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.

6.) Church 2012: Don't have access to this.

7.) Connolly 2011: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.

8.) Benor 2009: Sample size of 5 doesn't cut it for small-effect phenomena.

9.) Irgens 2012: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.

10.) Zhang 2011: Don't have access to this.

11.) Wells 2003: Don't have access to this.

12.) This is about accupressure, not EFT. replaced

13.) This is about accupressure, not EFT. replaced

14.) This is about accupressure, not EFT.

15.) This is about accupressure, not EFT.

16.) Does not establish that EFT or accupressure has any relationship with "energy systems in the body".

17) Does not establish that EFT or accupressure has any relationship with "energy systems in the body".

There have been much better studies done and I hope to have time to point those out to you this evening. GaramondLethe 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

12-15 were tangential, but related. They were not in the review. The sports citations were just to realize that use for that purpose is not anomalous.

regarding the items you cannot access - I think they provide an example of the better studies:

6 - Church - 2012) here it is: http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/lwwgateway/landingpage.htm;jsessionid=Q1nNsw2X2yCSyp2V7DZ6GfJ72l2xrMLMVXZrMnk6FCh5PcBx2VNt!1150561369!181195629!8091!-1?issn=0022-3018&volume=200&issue=10&spage=891

10 - Zhang 2011) here it is: http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=277238&_user=4428&_pii=S0254627211600149&_check=y&_origin=article&_zone=toolbar&_coverDate=2011--31&view=c&originContentFamily=serial&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkWb&md5=687d181940761b183ab63659ccc61ec9&pid=1-s2.0-S0254627211600149-main.pdf

11 - Wells 2003) here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.10189/pdf Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work tracking these down! I'm going to focus on the last one because it's a really nice paper. The authors are perfectly candid about the research question they're attempting to address and go well out their way to point out the deficiencies and limitations of their methodology. The conclusions drawn are limited, appropriate and supported by the experimental evidence.

There's one paper—the most important—that you haven't mentioned: Waite (2003). Here's the summary: The results of the present study indicate that EFT was effective in decreasing fear in a nonclinical population. However, EFT was no more effective than either a placebo or modeling control procedure. The placebo group tapped their arm instead of their "meridian points", and the modeling control group tapped a doll. This is perfectly consistent with all of the other literature you've cited. Talking to people in the manner prescribed by EFT does have an effect, and the ritual of tapping may enhance that effect, but this effect does not depend on any "energy" systems in the body. Feinstein (2010 and 2012, IIRC) completely ignores this study, possibly because he makes part of his living selling EFT paraphernalia (Pignotti 2009). (I have a copy if you don't want to pay for it.)

I really want to emphasize here that this kind of placebo study is the gold standard. If tapping your energy centers is effective but no more effective than tapping a doll, then energy centers just aren't that interesting. And with that, I think we've completed a pretty thorough literature review of this topic. GaramondLethe 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the copy - of Pignotti. The 3 citations I gave compare EFT to other treatments and show greater efficacy. Also, regarding your statement - "Talking to people in the manner prescribed by EFT does have an effect, and the ritual of tapping may enhance that effect, but this effect does not depend on any "energy" systems in the body." - I gave the acupressure (which EFT is based on) citations to controvert this conclusion - and gave the other reviews to likewise controvert this conclusion.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Feinstein made a rejoinder to Pignotti here - it may address the points you bring up: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/46/2/262/

If you have access to both the Pignotti article and the rejoinder, it would be appreciated.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you email me I'll reply with a copy of the Pignotti pdf. It's not at all controversial that EFT show more of an effect than some treatments in some conditions. The problem is that EFT doesn't show more of an effect than talking and tapping your arm or talking and tapping a doll.

Second, I think you're not being quite forthright when you describe the accupressure citations as "controvert[ing] this conclusion". In fact, you removed the last two and silently changed the other two. If you want to change text that someone has already responded to, please use <ss> and <\s>, like this, so it doesn't look like you're being sneaky. This also looks like you're throwing in every citation you can find without reading or understanding them, hoping something will stick. If you recall, I asked for one pdf and we're now at numbers 16 and 17 and you're just now learning what the issues are. And, after taking a look, neither one of your new studies has anything to do with establishing the existence of "energy systems in the body".

I'm not sure what to say at this point. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that you're not reading what you're citing: you're either cutting and pasting from google or some other source. Alternatively you're reading all of these papers but have no understanding as to what they contain. Either way, you might want to consider editing articles that better play to your strengths.

As to Feinstein's rejoinder: it's available here. This is an excellent lesson in tapdancing:

[The studies he found] lend[] support for the efficacy of tapping while mentally attuning to an emotional difficulty. Despite the design flaws found in some of the studies, the preponderance of evidence shows energy psychology interventions to be efficacious.

The first sentence is true, but he neglects to explain why arm-tapping and doll-tapping have equal efficacy. The second sentence equates talking and tapping with "energy psychology" which has the additional baggage of energy fields that can evidently migrate to arms and dolls.

So after 18 citations what we have is the suggestion that a particular kind of talking associated with some sort of physical ritual can be more helpful than other treatments in some situations. I would be comfortable including the two Feinstein reviews if the shortcomings pointed out in Pignotti are highlighted, and I think Waite (2003) deserves a paragraph. I don't see an argument for including any of these other citations. If you want to make such an argument, please be sure to read the citation first and be able to summarize how the citation supports the point you want to make. GaramondLethe 04:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to see the extended discussion of Waite 2003 from Recent Changes onwards.

In short, they got the EFT protocol quite wrong. The only source I could find criticising Waite 2003 was an open letter by Gary Craig. This was deemed WP:SPS and thus not a reliable source.

I'm not aware that WP policy is to force editors to report bad research as this would be pseudoscience in itself. I therefore suspect it's up to consensus of editors. Mindjuicer (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Yes, I glibly engaged in a bit of argumentum verbosum. I removed the acupressure citations because they were not properly controlled. The 2 I kept were. The last is sham controlled, so it is relevant. Here are more sham controlled studies: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/sham%20acupressure

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, and http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820 are also sham controlled.

Please post your email address.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From the rejoinder, here is Feinstein's response regarding Waite - for whatever it's worth: -

"Pignotti and Thyer (this issue) claim “selective bias” (p. 258) largely because the paper did not include two studies, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs), by Waite and Holder (2003) and by Pignotti (2005b). McCaslin (this issue) contends that the paper did “a disservice to readers” (p. 252) by not mentioning the Waite and Holder study. Both the Waite and Holder and the Pignotti studies were actually reviewed in earlier, widely circulated drafts of my paper, but later deleted for reasons discussed below. What is puzzling about the commentators’ position, however, is that the two studies, had they been included, would have actually supported the claim that tapping on the body is effective as a treatment of emotional symptoms:

...

Waite and Holder (2003) tested three tapping conditions and a no-treatment control condition on 119 college students with self-reported fear of heights. One of the tapping conditions utilized a variation of a manualized Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) protocol; one used this protocol but substituted random points on the arm for the standard EFT points; and one used this protocol while having subjects tap on a doll. Relevant background is that using the forefinger stimulates an acupuncture point (Large Intestine 1) that is sometimes used in the treatment of “mental restlessness” (Ross, 1995, p. 306) and the arm contains numerous acupuncture points, although the researchers clearly had not conceived of the doll or arm conditions as potentially activating treatment points. In any case, the three tapping conditions all resulted in significant reductions in self-reported fear (p < . 003, .001, and .001, respectively). The placebo group did not (p = .255)."

Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not looking at any more cites unless you have assured me you've read them and can explain why they support a particular change you want to make in the article. As to the quotation above, I'm reading it as: "Well, I claimed that the relevant energy centers were in the torso, but since that's been disproved I'll now say they're in the arm. Maybe." If you go to my user page there's a link on the left that will allow you to email me. I'll get your address (privately) that way and will respond with the article. GaramondLethe 05:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, and http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820 - and they support acupuncture/acupressure claims for certain conditions, disproving the statement "Evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine.".Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your word for that. I believe you'll find that sham acupuncture is equally as effective. Was there a change you wanted to make to this article? GaramondLethe 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The overviews explicitly compare it to sham acupuncture, and find greater efficacy for traditional acupuncture. I wanted to use those three citations to controvert the "Evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine." statement.Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And....? GaramondLethe 06:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that my previous edit is appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=534267114&oldid=534093398

Ernst and Singh assert that evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine, from which EFT is derived. However, since the publication of their work, proof has emerged that traditional forms of acupuncture are more effective than placebos in the relief of certain types of pain. A Cochrane review of randomized, sham controlled trials, found that stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting and is not inferior to antiemetic drugs. A multicenter, longitudinal, randomized placebo controlled clinical trial throughout one cycle of chemotherapy found that acupressure at the P6 point is a value-added technique in addition to pharmaceutical management for women undergoing treatment for breast cancer to reduce the amount and intensity of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And...? Was there a change you wanted to make in this article? GaramondLethe 06:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

yes - delete the Ernst reference as it stands now - at the end of Research, include the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can work out a compromise. Since this article isn't about acupuncture I think we can make the following two changes.

1.) In the article, change "Evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts..." to "Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians or other concepts..."

2.) In the citation, remove the sentence "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy" (p387)."

Would that work for you? GaramondLethe 08:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine.Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. GaramondLethe 16:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I feel like the work being done on this article is somewhat derailed by the argument over whether or not EFT "works", and various editors' needs to align themselves around that question and make edits accordingly. I suppose that has its place. But currently, we are missing some very basic elements on the page. Who uses this practice? Under what circumstances? Is it commercial or not? What is it supposed to treat? What are the basic protocols and ontologies involved? I think it is premature to start debunking and/or defending something until the article has given a decent description of what it is we're talking about. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The answers are simple: used by people without medical degrees, sold to the hopeful, believed by the gullible. Welcome to WP:Fringe. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)