Talk:Emotional Freedom Technique/Archive 1

Archive 1

recent changes

To whomever it may concern,

The recent edit is aimed at 1) neutrality and 2) updated information. In the middle ages, there were doctores medicinae and barber surgeons, who hated eachother outright, and most of what they practiced would be considered quackery nowadays. Nevertheless, they are the basis of our modern medicine. Weeding out the ritual, arcane and old wives tales is part of the proces.

EFT is having the same proces. You may want to burn EFT on the stake, but it is maturing. Part of this proces is seperating PRACTICE from classical theories, and even from modern western scientific theories. EFT can stand on its own, without theories, as can moderm medicine. And EFT has holes in its theories, as does modern medicine.

What is the point of hanging on to condemming it for its history? I added the image for clarity. I added the practice to clarify what we are talking about.

Yes, my neutral point of view is a point of view. The older edit was a limiting (EFT is old energy theory yada yada) and condemming point of view. EFT is ALSO... so lets let up on the preframe of what EFT is and how it should be interpreted.

So lets go with the newer and more accurate information - take the time to read up on current acupuncture research. It is not oriented towards meridians, but on neurochemistry, trying to explain what is actually happening instead of trying to disprove. this research is here to stay, it will grow and prosper, and take over the old school, which will be marginalised in time.

Kind Regards

Ben Meijer 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to put the image back in. I object to the unqualified and unsourced text that accompanies it. I'm not "condemning EFT for its history". If anything, I'm condemning it for its lack of efficacy, circular logic, inability to answer the studies that show it is a combination of placebo and distraction and, frankly, it's sheer silliness. I'm well aware (and wholly in favour of) of the neo-acupunture literature which is removing the superstition from acupuncture and replacing it with physiological and neurological explanations for it's clear benefits and effects. But sticking needles into nervous tissue and simply tapping on those points have completely different physiological effects and are therefore not comparable. With acupunture there is a clear mechanism of action. Tapping points on the body... not so much. There's little or no evidence (beyond partizan sources) that EFT even has an effect, so why should we try to come up with a scientific explanation beyond the distraction and placebo theories? They seem to explain the current "data" fairly well. Famousdog 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You condem "lack of efficacy, circular logic, and inability to answer the studies that show it is a combination of placebo and distraction and, frankly, it's sheer silliness."

It is nice that you have so honestly put forth your objections. Re: Silliness: now that seems to be important to you. It signifies you do not take it seriously and denounce it, maybe you cannot take something like this seriously.

Placebo is your word: the quackwatchers (Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) state: " ...suggest that the reported effectiveness of EFT is attributable to ::characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies" , not placebo." Overall, these findings suggest that certain components of EFT were effective,"

BTW: Do you forget that placebo works?? and is used lots of times in medicine?? What about using an antibiotic for a viral cold? Using knee surgery - scraping

for arthosis - See http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html

So, you deny its efficacy - ie that it works efficiently -- what 2 studies have shown up till now have shown it to work, and more will follow....

because EFT does not answer? -- Who is EFT, Who needs to answer and for whom?

Re: unproven working methods - Who says you need to prove every theory behind every intervention before you can use it? Scientific explanations have changed and evolved since the middle ages, and will continu to do so. Clinical practice is what gets done by clinicians. Evidence based is not what gets done, clincal experience is what gets done. I have often said to my patients and student: if eating grass as the cows do would do work, I'd have you all eating grass.

Re: distraction: Boy, this is one of the bigger errors in the conclusions or assumptions. You should try this. Take a person with a phobia, like a phobia for car driving, and distract them while you drive with them, and see if their phobia gets any less. It does not. Anybody can say that it is distraction, but distraction never yields a lasting result, EFT does.

BTW the SRMP research kinda sucks: they screwed up how you do EFT. The collar bone breathing exercise the did is used in about 5 % of the clients, when somebody gets stuck during processing. If such a large percentage of the n poplulation of that study did not respond to EFT, EFT was not properly administered. I am going to assume - and errors will allways be made by assumptions - that they did not divide the issues into aspects and tap on each aspect. They tried to apply EFT to all the containers (too general, broad /large)

Never the less, the SRMP did show that tapping works, tapping the body, tapping a doll while being busy with the phobia even works, what does not work is making a toy.

Now, about the line for line changes, please give me feedback:

My text -- : psychotherapeutic intervention tool that intends to desensitize emotions by tapping on the body. It has a background in

complementary medicine and has recently gotten a western scientific explanation as well.

Your text: Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a psychotherapeutic tool based on a theory that negative emotions are caused by disturbances in the body's energy field and that tapping on the meridians while thinking of a negative emotion alters the body's energy field, restoring it to "balance."

-- An encyclopedia needs to seperate fact from opinion, and state the facts and opinions as

such. Now you propose to put that EFT is based on a theory (blah blah) and I contend: What

IS eft? EFT IS an intervention, a tool that intends to desensitize emotions and feeling.

Then state some of the theories as to why it works, the most common ones. There are several

more theories, some quite good actually, like the Emotrance theory by Silvia Hartman.

remove the theories and separate them fom the practice.

Some proponent claim EFT is based on this theory.

Others dont care.

And those on the BSMA website say EFT is just one of several ways to adding sensory input

to an emotional memory.

If not all proponents claim EFT is based on this theory, and even the science does not

agree with it, why say EFT is based on this theory.

I removed the section about Gary Craig being the first to be trained in VT? So

what? relevance? Even if he had been the last to be trained in this VT, I still dont see

the relevance to EFT.

Re: But sticking needles into nervous tissue and simply tapping on those points have completely different physiological effects

Needles are NOT stuck in nervous tissue. Do you know so little about acupuncture? So what

is the exact difference? Sensory neurons will fire, the skin has lots of mechanoreceptors:

Meissner corpuscles, Pacini corpuscles, Merkel discs, and Ruffini corpuscles.

Ben Meijer 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. That's a long post. Famousdog 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Patricia202 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I deleted the following from the criticisms section because the article is just the opinion of the journalist and is not based on any study. A recent article in the Guardian suggested that the act of tapping parts of the body in a complicated sequence acts as a distraction from, and therefore can appear to alleviate the root distress.

Suggested links

I suggest adding the following link to the About Holistic Healing article on EFT [1] to the article's external links section. I am putting this in the discussion page because there is a comment in the External links text requesting that links be discussed before adding.

Also there are some more research links at [2]. I suggest either adding this link or investigating the linked articles for mention in the main article (some already are).

Michael614 (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that at least the first link has a heavy promotional bent to it. In general, I think we should shy away from those type of links (after all, they're readily findable with Google etc) and focus on links that add encyclopedic information. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought external links were supposed to give extra information on the subject. About.com is a general information site on many topics written by editors who are interested in the subject at hand. So you would expect each page on it to be passionate about each topic. It contains many articles on EFT so seems like a good link to add here. I did not read an objection to the second link except that you can find it by googling. I didn't know that the ability to find a link by google was a reason not to include a link! Many external links on most Wikipedia articles can be found by googling. That doesn't make them any less useful to someone new to the subject so long as they provide extra information about the topic. Is there a guide to what external links should be on Wikipedia? Michael614 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are very general guidelines at WP:EL. My objection was not that a link can be found by Google. It was that the link adds no encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and links - we need to sort out what is reliable, verifiable, neutral content and use that. Wikipedia does not aim to replace Google as a compendium of all possibly interesting links relating to a topic - hence we should be a bit more selective about what links we include, and justify them based on adding encyclopedic information to the article. We should also have a clear idea of why the link cannot be incoroporated into the article as a source, rather than as an external link. That was my point. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I hadn't seen that guide before - it helps! I will look for some suitable links and look at incorporating the research info as sources. Michael614 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic Technique or Quack approach?

Gary Craig is not a licensed psychologist and the research is not convincing...my personal point of view is that he is just a great online marketer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.5.85 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

accuracy of entries

I have studied and used EFT and similar methodologies from the field of Energy Psychology, begun 30 years ago by Roger Callihan, PhD and barely recognize the entries as accurate descriptions. How is it that clearly biased and derogatory comments are left posted when objective entries are disallowed? The Skeptical Inquirer is hardly an authoritative source for adjudicating the viability of subject matter clearly unintelligible to them. To include nearly slanderous mistatements as purportedly objective descriptive matter calls into question the entire usability of the GNU project as it cannot become denigrated to the level of blog commentary by hacks with a bone to pick.

I would propose that accurate descriptions of EFT be posted without bias and the clearly biased commentary by detractors be deleted. Specifically, it is highly unordinary for critical commentaries to be part of the description of any entry. These need to be deleted. All references to EFT being a pseudoscience need to be deleted as qualification as some sort of legitimate scientific inquiry has never been required of similar methodologies and EFT makes no claims to be a derivative of scientific method. Detractors are not allowed to post similar spurious commentaries as part of descriptive entries on radical behaviorism, for example, despite the fact that critics were so prolific that an entirely new school of psychology grew out of their disagreements: Humanistic Psychology.

I can cite my own credentials in the field of mental health and psychology and would suggest that critical comments about EFT and similar subject matter be accompanied by adequate field experience or expertise before they are accepted as being authoritative. Greywolfin (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base its content on the credentials of its contributors (if you're looking for such a place, I would recommend Citizendium). Instead, content must have first been published by a reliable source, i.e. a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides credentials the greater issue is the consistency that sources with zero credibility are cited as if they had any basis other than a mention of slanderous statements. That violates NPOV in every conceivable definition. The fact that anyone with any degree of expertise is roundly edited for neutrality while extremely biased critique remains defeats the purpose of having reliable information. 148.78.68.142 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia doesn't use "credibility" to determine whether a shource should or should not be used. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the guideline that we do use. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the definition of "credibility" being employed here is a bit idiosyncratic. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's fascinating to me is that the opinionated beliefs of purportedly scientifically minded detractors are weighted heavily as justification for denigrating anyone with any direct knowledge of or experience in a field of study. Attacking information from persons with credentials on the basis that ignorance counts more is about the most absurd position statement imaginable. These edits are telling me that wikipedia as a truly open source project has failed miserably. It's becoming no better than a blog site wherein the most persistently aggressive editors post their grafitti. Greywolfin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator oversight

I posted the following as requesting Administrator review of systematic violations of Wikipedia intent and policy: Members of a group identifying themselves as "Wikipedia Rational Skepticism Project" have targeted a number of articles, including "Energy Psychology" "Thought Field Therapy" and "Emotional Freedom Techniques" with specious rewrites of objective data. By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV as their revisions of entries are entirely biased with an agenda of debunking with no more claim to adequate expertise than active disbelief in a topic. Consistently entries from experienced sources with expertise on the subjects in question are deleted on the basis of NPOV and replaced with pejorative labels like "pseudoscience". A quick scan of the history of "Emotional Freedom Techniques" edits and comments gives ample evidence of these abuses.

The primary reference given by this group for justifying their skeptical comments is "The Skeptical Inquirer" a splinter group magazine with an agenda of promoting disparaging opinions via pejorative labeling. Attempts to elevate such publications to equal status with professional journals and authoritative writings by experts in a given field must be confronted as a thinly disguised campaign to use Wikipedia for commercial gain--specifically promotion of an organization actively soliciting members and selling subscriptions.

Wikipedia must have effective policing of abuses to the intent of providing unbiased content in order to remain a viable informational source for readers. I'm certain there are attempts from any number of splinter groups intent upon promoting and aggressively revising their favorite targets, whether they be anti-abortionist, political religious groups, skin heads, creationists, or in this case debunkers using the trappings of science terminology to attack specific targets. To allow such systematic and organized discrediting activities to continue unchallenged threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and risks turning it into the equivalent of a messageboard for highly politicized agendas. After all if The Skeptical Inquirer can be cited as an adequate authoritative source then anything Pat Robertson preaches, Rush Limbaugh spins, or political party eschews can be referenced to justify revising legitimate article entries.

I ask administrators to review the activities of this group and effectively prohibit their disparagement of legitimate on the basis that their agenda, as stated, is to deny readers access to information that they have targeted to actively disbelieve. After all, who cares what anyone else believes and disbelieves? Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing, let alone enforcing personal opinion.

Greywolfin (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here I am, I am an administrator, your edits violated WP:UNDUE, please don't do that again. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What about responding to the content of my concern? If you do not comprehend the problem then perhaps you need to resign as an administrator. How is debunking not a violation of NPOV and UDUE and a whole host of commercial as neutrality issues? 148.78.68.142 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If something has been debunked by reasonably reliable sources, then Wikipedia will generally report that. An overly promotional or one-sided article based primarily on advertising material associated with purveyors of EFT is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm pointing out is that the Skeptical Inquirer is blatantly promoting itself, along with the related website which is membership based by including it in text rather than in the reference section. Debunking by both self description and in practice constitutes violations of neutrality as it is entirely didactic, based on highly controversial evaluations and contrary to the scientific method because it judges fact without first observing and analyzing. So what we have here is a group egregiously involved in self promoting under the guise of skepticism while aggressively attacking objective descriptions of a target on that basis. This simply becomes a competition with Wikipedia and every innocent reader the loser. Greywolfin (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that analysis is incorrect on a number of levels, and a charge of promotionalism is a bit odd given the promotional nature of EFT-affiliated sources. But you already know my opinion. If you think I'm being unreasonable, you can either try a bit harder to convince me, or solicit outside input through a third opinion or request for comment. Additionally, there is a reliable sources noticeboard where you could raise the issue of the Skeptical Inquirer in this article, though I think SI has been discussed before on that board so you may want to check the old discussions. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify listing the name of a highly controversial, heavily politicized magazine within the description of any topic on the basis of supposedly promotional nature of EFT??? Skeptical Inquirer is promoting its subscriptions AND membership in a splinter group organization in the identical manner as EFT on the internet. Greywolfin (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then all the more reason that parity of sources applies here. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Reversions

Why does MastCell believe he knows more? Why does MastCell believe the recent additions are any less sourced that the preceeding notes, which were not sourced at all? Why does MastCell believe the preceeding notes were reliable, when in fact they contain both partial and outright falsehoods? Arbitrary reversion of notes at least as well-informed, and at least as well-sourced, amounts to vandalism masquerading as righteousness. Genedoug (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)GeneDoug

I can agree with the comments of Greywolfin above. The persons making many of the comments in the article are simply misinformed. Even people within the field who make derogatory statements often do so from a lack of information, having no training and little reading in the area. It is a cheap shot to arbitrarily say that X appears to work because it is (...) fill in the blank -- hypnotism, flooding, distraction, placebo, etc. without having any data to justify that opinion.

One statement, that Gary Craig has stated that tapping on any part of the body works as well, is simply false, unsourced, unreferenced, and unjustified. Other statements were all black or white, and I (temporarily) modified them with words such as "often" "may," etc. to bring them back into the realm of fact. This was removed in favor of "always" and "never" forms, driving the statements back toward falsehood. This is what MastCell has called "reliable" sources, which fails any reasonable test of "reliable." Genedoug (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Our definition of reliable sources is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please don't use your own interpretation of the terms, as it is only going to cause communication difficulties. Also, when you see the terms "unsourced" or "unreferenced" used by seasoned editors, please consult Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand what they are talking about. You cannot simply add to Wikipedia anything you believe to be true, even if you believe it because you read it in a book. You must cite the source you are using, to attribute your statement to a reliable source. Your contributions did not cite any source, and as MastCell noted in his edit summary, your edits removed reliable sources from the article. I hope this goes some way to explaining why your contributions were reverted. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and: I'm going to assume from Genedoug's comments that he also made the edits from 70.233.232.162 (correct me if I'm wrong), which are summarized in this diff. This material is largely unencyclopedic, promotional, disparages a living person without any source ("Dr. Callahan also has a machine, about which he is secretive..."), misstates the actual basis of criticism in a fairly dramatic fashion ("[critics] can not believe anything so simple can have so great an effect so quickly..."), transparently blames the patient for any lack of effectiveness ("A patient may also deny that he had the problem to begin with, though he was complaining about it moments earlier..."), and denigrates a competing product (TFT) in a manner reminiscent of a late-night infomercial ("EFT is a fully open and accessible subject with no expensive and confidential levels, compared to TFT, which can cost $100,000 for the top level of training.") The bottom line is that Wikipedia relies on verifiable information sourced reliably; it is not a venue for promotion, advocacy, or lengthy in-universe write-ups of relatively obscure topics. MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mirror neurons

The material deleted as original research is not OR, it merely clarifies to the uninitiated what mirror neurons actually do (rather than what some people WANT them to do) and points out the fallacious logic in this argument, even IF they did what is suggested. The page on mirror neurons contains many citations to disprove this particular inappropriate synthesis. Famousdog (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not cited to a source, and as such it does meet Wikipedia's definition of original research, which is why I have again removed it. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain material - that's you. Please do not restore the material again without providing a source for it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun!

It's always entertaining to watch the proponents of quackery defending it from attack, by appealing to our better instincts. I sympathise with the patient defenders of the sensible Wikipedia policies when faced with pseudomedical frauds who are trying to misuse the same policies to keep their income stream running. Ooh, did I say that? The Real Walrus (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not showing good science here. There exists a respectable peer-reviewed published article showing that it works to a measurable extent, which remains true even if you don't believe in energy fields and all that. Why it works is not clear, but that it does sometimes work is clear, so the blanket allegation of "fraud" is not justified. Man with two legs (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly somebody doesn't understand how science works. One swallow does not make a summer and "A" article does not prove a theory. Especially when there wasn't a control group. Famousdog (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts

• The background and theory sections need some kind of references.
• The background section would be better if it didn't sound quite so catty about callehan (sp) (regardless of how the editors feel about his version of this idea).
• There does need to be caution in the use of information from the skeptical inquirer, especially when there are better critiques of the material.
• does anyone know how many practicitioners there are of this treatment? and how many are licened psychologists, therapits, psychiatrists?
• The Real Walrus's comments arn't helpful.

A few thoughts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should we be so cautious about Skeptical Inquirer? Or, why more cautious than the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine or other journals of its ilk? Peer review just means someone read it, not that someone read it fairly and objectively. For that matter, why would we trust SI less than other non-journal periodicals of limited readership, like Wizard Magazine or Modern Bride? Someone stated above that Craig never made the claim that tapping anywhere was effective. Actually, he did, in an open letter on his website regarding the Waite & Holder study. See http://www.emofree.com/Research/Research-accepted/waite-holder-open-letter.htm At one point, he states that tapping on non-acupressure points stimulates acupressure points in the fingertips. I guess we should all be happy while typing! Dlmccaslin (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers as sources on science

"For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." - WP:RS Sethie (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

This article currently lacks an infobox, which is one of the criteria for attaining Good article status. I would suggest something like this:

Emotional Freedom Technique/Archive 1

Claims	Tapping on specific points on the body (corresponding to energy meridians) relieves psychological distress.
Related scientific disciplines	Energy medicine, Psychology
Year proposed	circa 1995
Original proponents	Gary Craig
Subsequent proponents	Gary Craig Other proponents
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

Obviously this will be problematic to instantiate and will result in edit wars aplenty, but this infobox template has been attached to many other articles about pseudoscientific concepts, so there is precedent here. Famousdog (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created a more relevant one (Energy Psychology, Template:Infobox Energy Psychology), this can be later included in other related articles such as Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique. OpinionPerson (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More Scientific studies need to be included

If you look at http://www.emofree.com/ArticlesCat.aspx?id=22 you will find that there are already 12 peer reviewed scientific studies published, but only 3 of them are mentioned and discussed in the Emotional Freedom Technique article here on Wikipedia. OpinionPerson (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proof of research existence:

• "The Treatment of Combat Trauma in Veterans Using EFT": http://www.susanmaloney.com/marshall.pdf
• "Veterans: Finding their way home with EFT--an observational study": http://www.susanmaloney.com/marshall.pdf
• ... OpinionPerson (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're so offended by their absence... INCLUDE THEM. That's how Wikipedia works, you know. I'm not doing your hard work for you! Famousdog (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Have these studies been published in third-party, peer-reviewed scholarly literature? If so, we should link to the published articles, rather than to a personal website. If they have not been published in the scholarly literature, then they may not be appropriate sources here per our policies (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS). MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they've, I have added one. (Church PhD, Geronilla PhD, Dinter) OpinionPerson (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The International Journal of Healing and Caring does not appear to be part of the peer-reviewed, scholarly medical literature. While I am in favor of both healing and caring, I think this source is somewhat iffy per WP:MEDRS. MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, its hard to classify EFT as medicine or rather psychology. 94.194.189.20 (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to log in. Anyway, it is still peer-reviewed research in the end.

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/submissions.html

"Research articles have always been peer reviewed. As of our May, 2005 issue, all articles are peer reviewed by the editor plus editorial panel members and/ or outside reviewers. If your research topic is an unusual one, we might ask you to suggest several potential outside reviewers."OpinionPerson (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, would studies presented at professional conferences like the ACEP (Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology) be appropriate to be included in this article? OpinionPerson (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the impact factor of these journals? Given its obvious pseudoscientific "theory", what mainstream support does it have? The sole good-quality study had a negative conclusion, while the rest are so flawed as to preclude conclusion. WP:PARITY suggests we give the most weight to the negative study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we include both negative and positive scientific studies. The negative study is not exactly so perfect, in the Waite & Holder study the authors wrote "but the tapping points were located along each participant's arm, away from the areas identified as meridian points" This is wrong because according to http://acuxo.com/meridianPictures.asp, there are meridian points located on the arm. Also EVERY acupuncture student knows this. Therefore this study is not exactly perfect as well. Gary Craig, EFT Founder mentiones the same http://www.emofree.com/Research/Research-accepted/waite-holder-open-letter.htm . OpinionPerson (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the International Journal of healing and Caring IS publishing peer-reviewed scientific studies.(http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/submissions.html) OpinionPerson (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:IGNORE shows that if a rule is preventing the inclusion of useful content, then it should be ignored. Like I said, in Wikipedia we add things from reliable sources according to Wikipedia:RS whether they are positive or negative. OpinionPerson (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The International Journal of Healing and Caring appears not to be indexed in any of the major medical indexes - PubMed, Web of Science, etc. I don't see a whole lot of citations to work appearing there. All of that suggests that it is obscure, low-impact, and that we should not assign undue weight to material appearing there. I think that work from this journal probably should be cautiously used, if at all, per the strictures of WP:MEDRS. In additon, its editor-in-chief is apparently an advocate and practitioner of Emotional Freedom Technique, which is probably a useful datum in terms of evaluating the significance of this publication. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now we have an agreement! OpinionPerson (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Undent. WP:IAR is meant to apply when ignoring rules improves wikipedia. This does not. EFT is classic altmed pseudoscience, combining the unsupported therapeutic touch "theory" with supported-by-poor-studies accupuncture points (with a soupcon of neuro-linguistic programming thrown in). It's published in low-quality journals, except for the one citation with a good methodology, which shows it's little better than basic exposure therapy. This is a fringe theory that raises considerable redflags and parity of sources applies. Claims of effectiveness should not be made for such a poorly supported approach; there are only four sources on this, only one of which is actually a proper test, and even the current discussion is heavy on those four primary sources. I'd rather stub the page to a statement that "Four investigations have occurred for EFT, three of which had poor methodologies lacking proper control groups. The one well-designed trial showed it was no better than a matched control group." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and study visibility

I'm a little concerned and would like some outside input about our handling of various studies. We seem to be collecting studies from small, non-MEDLINE-indexed, obscure alternative-medicine journals and presenting them, at length, as "proof" that this technique is scientifically valid. I think we're close to violating undue weight provisions, as well as our sourcing guidelines, by giving so much weight to these obscure and low-profile studies, some published in venues directly associated with the technique under study. We should not leave the reader with the idea that there is tremendous scientific support for this approach, since that seems to be an inaccurate impression based on available sources. Thoughts on how to proceed? MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm a bit concerned about our presentation of the Brattberg study. Buried in the avalanche of verbiage about how great EFT is, we find that half of the study participants didn't actually use the pre-designed outcome measurement forms, and instead just "wrote informally" to the study authors to say that they were feeling good. That would invalidate pretty much any scientific study right off the bat - can you imagine a trial of a new medication in which half of the study participants didn't report objective effectiveness or side effects, but merely "wrote informally" to say how they were doing? Such a study would never be published in any serious scholarly forum. We do allow, in our article, that this small shortcoming made it "impossible to illustrate the improvement curve in a graph", which seems like a very euphemistic way of saying that the results are not amenable to any systematic or scientific statistical analysis. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments MastCell, I was told by Dr Dawson Church through personal communication with him (E-Mail) to include this study in this article. He asked me to write a few points regarding this article, which I will (in a separate section on this talk page). Regading your comments about the Brattberg study, Brattberg writes:

"The study group consisted of 62 women, aged 29 to 65 (mean age 43.8, SD 8.8), 26 in the intervention group and 36 in the wait-listed/control group. Of the original 43 who were selected for the intervention group, 17 (40%) did not complete the intervention period of 8 weeks. Nine of those 17 did not even start the EFT program. Of those who completed the intervention period, the majority needed several reminders. In the wait-listed group there were 7 dropouts (16%). At study start there were no statistical differences between the groups regarding any of the measured parameters." and "Discussion Attrition and Compliance The high dropout rate (40%) for the intervention group makes it difficult to generalize the results. About half of the dropouts did not discontinue EFT training because of lack of effect; they did not even start the training. Self-reported reasons for dropout included forgetfulness, poor self-discipline, lack of motivation, and too much to do. With the aim of assessing participant compliance, the individuals were requested to send a log register form each week. About half of the subjects found this to be too difficult. Instead, some of them wrote more informally in their own words their experience of the energy tapping. Therefore it was impossible to illustrate the improvement curve in a graph. At-home instructions for daily practice with EFT apparently need to be supplemented with motivational measures, such as contact with good role models who have positive experiences of using EFT." OpinionPerson (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the paper. http://www.varkstaden.se/PDF_filer/EFT_article.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpinionPerson (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The greater concern is the reporting of a series of single studies as if they proved something. Per WP:MEDRS, single primary studies shouldn't be used to "debunk" secondary sources, or act as if it gave the same degree of proof as those sources, nor does publication in a journal make a statement true. They shouldn't be summarized at all, this is undue weight on a set of low-value, poorly-designed sources with a methodology that waves big red flags and makes extreme claims requiring extreme proof. This is a tiny subset of a way-out methodology, with no real scientific backing and several hallmarks of pseudoscience - contradicts basic knowledge of anatomy and physics, poorly designed studies, unfalsifiable, and based on testimonials rather than facts, testing or methodology. I strongly believe that the individual studies should not be replaced or effectiveness reported on until a secondary source review is published. I've brought this up at Medicine wikiproject and if that gets no response, am considering the fringe theories or POV noticeboards.

I also culled the history section - I could not tell how it was related to the page itself. If a history or background section is to be included, it should be short and clearly linked to the topic at hand. The fact that "emotional freedom technique" didn't appear in the section that I could see suggests it was not clearly linked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A few points from Dawson Church regarding this article

Hi all, Here is a summary of a few points regarding this EFT article from Dr Dawson Church, which I have received through E-Mail contact with him:

1) The Wikipedia article implies that Dan Benor isn't impartial, because he's an advocate of EFT. But he's only published one EFT study that Dawson is aware of. He has also rejected 2 other EFT studies. And he's published studies of dozens of other modalities from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to acupuncture.

2) Also, in Wikipedia articles on conventional medicine, the personal interests of journal editors are not mentioned, even though most journals are published by professional interested societies. For instance the Journal of the American Medical Association is published by the AMA; the journal Psythotherapy is published by the American Psychological Association, and so on.

3) Also, the Wikipedia article fails to mention a randomized controlled trial of EFT for Fibromyalgia, which you will find on Gary's web site. It showed remarkable results for pain, depression and anxiety, and other symptoms. (Done)

4) It is declare in the article, that the Waite and Holder study shows that EFT is no more effective than placebo tapping. What is not mentioned however is that tapping, per se, engages the finger points used in EFT. The fact that both tapping groups showed improvements can equally be interpreted as supporting the efficacy of EFT.

5) The articles uses the word "pseudoscience" in conjunction with EFT. EFT is not science, pseudo or otherwise. It is a treatment method, like Mindfulness Therapy, performance coaching, or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Science, the scientific method, is what is used to assess these therapies. The Wikipedia article seems to be ignorant of this basic distinction.

All these are examples of the bias against EFT present throughout the article.

According to Dawson Church, several randomized clinical trials are underway. He is in contact with most of the research teams and has seen their preliminary results, which will be published in various peer reviewed journals this year and next. The results all show significant or highly statistically significant results for EFT.

6) Finally Dawson finds most Wikipedia science entries to be excellent, and hopes that Wikipedia sticks to the same standards it applies to other fields and avoids the presence of skepticism in the article, this would quite easily produce a balanced article on EFT and point out that many questions remain unanswered, but that clinical evidence and initial research is promising.

Remember: The above points are not mine, they are Dawson's, I've just rewrote them to third person. OpinionPerson (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor" is a bit much, more accurately it is Dawson Church, PhD. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, well to me it doesn't matter. Call him Dawson Church, PhD then. OpinionPerson (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WLU, a PhD is a doctorate. Having one makes you a Doctor. Not an inverted-commas "Doctor", not an MD, but simply Doctor. Don't devalue the qualification because a few cranks choose to use it to legitimise themselves. Famousdog (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also in the emails I get from Dawson he does write: Dawson Church, PhD. I just decided to use "Doctor", because as Famousdog already said: a PhD is a doctorate. OpinionPerson (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Too short.

OK WLU, I think that in your revision: [3] you have shortened the article too much now. I would at least write a summary of the studies conducted for EFT. Instead you wrote "EFT has been the subject of 6 publications as of 2009, with no aggregate analysis of the results." If you are going to continue like this I suggest you rename the article to Criticism of Emotional Freedom Technique instead! OpinionPerson (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we do not report on individual studies, particularly not when those studies are not representative of the majority opinion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this technique, despite its apparent age, has not garnered much serious medical attention such that it can claim actual effectiveness. Length is determined by sources and weight, in this case the weight placed on the sources was excessive. The page also made extreme claims based on very poorly designed, low sample sized studies. This is not a case of "we have to fairly represent what the sources say", this is a case of the subject lacking adequate study yet claims are still made for its effectiveness. We give due weight to the scientific opinion, which is still out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur; it would not make the encyclopedia better if the article made it appear that this technique is accepted as effective by most researchers, when in fact, the opposite is the case. If most researchers would say that this is an ineffective technique, then the article should also reflect that consensus, with much less weight given to those people who think the technique is effective, and their reasons. I offer, as an example, the article on Flat Earth, which discusses the people who have supported that theory but makes it clear that the consensus of scientific opinion is that the theory is not valid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:MEDRS also says that we should summarize the content of the studies. User:WLU clearly did not do that, instead he wrote his own opinion regarding the studies and deleted everything contained in the 'Studies' section, which made the existence of that section useless. Although WP:UNDUE says that the writing perspective of this article should reflect the view of the majority of people, he did not cite any reliable sources to this majority view. Instead the article only provides a citation of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, which is a media source, shows personal opinions lacking scientific evidence and are not really reliable according to WP:RS. I agree with you FisherQueen that the article should reflect the view of the majority of people. But you as well did not cite any reliable sources regarding the ineffectiveness of this technique. I've included scientific studies that showed that the technique is effective, the article showed outdated (Year 2000) media sources lacking scientific basis. Which is stronger Scientific evidence or media? Think! OpinionPerson (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "history" section certainly had to go. Additionally, having a single paragraph talking about several different, individual studies, none of which were earth shattering ground breaking world changing (you get the point) and were not even in medline...well, I think including them at all is being generous, and since they are included a few sentences describing them should be more than sufficient. If "proved nothing" is what they add up to, then its okay if thats all the summary says. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I would dearly love to summarize on the main page my objections to the studies - their abysmal methodlogy, lack of controls, pseudoscientific background, shoddy publication record, etc. I did not. All I noted was that there was no aggregate study of EFT, which is true, and removed the remainder as undue weight. Backed by MEDRS rather clearly I believe. We should not portray this as an accepted, mainstream, proven approach, since it is an unaccepteed, fringe, unproven, poorly tested approach. The critical articles, which support the mainstream scientific opinion (i.e. no references to "meridians", magic, acupuncture or other unproven treatments) can apply due to WP:PARITY. EFT is an exceptional claim, as such, it requires high-quality sources. These are not them. As such, the claims should not be included. I don't believe we can write anything about the studies without giving them undue weight. The sole document I would give any weight to, Waite & Holder, is not published in a sufficiently reliable source that I would give it the emphasis I feel it is due. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As you already stated yourself, these are your objections and cannot be included in Wikipedia due to WP:NOTFORUM. You had however done this previously in the past. The studies that did not have a control group, have a within-subjects design where the starting point is where the subject is at the beginning of the study. This does not invalidate the results. It looks like that you do not know much about the design of scientific assessment. Regarding your claim of "pseudoscientific background", EFT is NOT science, it is a treatment technique just like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Scientific Assessment is done to ensure the efficacy of such techniques, pseudoscience means that something is pretending to be science, but in reality does not meet the requirements for science. EFT does not claim to be science, it is a treatment method. Also regarding the pseudoscientific background, Gary Craig has stated that since he made this technique available in 1994/1995, the theory stated 'The cause of all negative emotions is a disruption in the body's energy system.', he allowed anyone who has studied the technique well to give a different theory or explanation to the results achieved. [4] But nobody has given any other explanation, thus the theory has remained the same over the last 15 years, feel free to disagree with the theory if you want to. A linguistic professor at a university is having his undergraduates crawl Wikipedia to sharpen critical thinking and write reports on how biased many of the articles are. The EFT one is a good example for how biased some of the articles can be. Particularly the ones about Complementary Medicine, such as Electromagnetic Therapy where the hundreds of studies that showed statistically significant results were dismissed and the therapy classed as "not-proven" by the Wikipedia Community. If people are chosen to write articles about things they are skeptic about and believe that the topic is biased. (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism) What is the outcome? A biased article! OpinionPerson (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've made a few edits; first, I removed a lengthy recapitulation of Gary Craig's life. If this material is notable and encyclopedic, then it will be covered in independent, reliable sources. If the only available source is a promotional website directly associated with Gary Craig, then it does not appear to meet the notability/sourcing bar.

Additionally, the article is once again creeping into a seriously imbalanced form of undue weight. The handful of small studies - mostly methodologically flawed, published in obscure alt-med journals, and funded and conducted by organizations which promote EFT - are being detailed at a length well in excess of the actual support for these views among experts in the field.

I don't think we're appropriately handling the Feinstein citation, either. A summary of 2,000 testimonials on a promotional website is a bit of a hard sell as scientific evidence, which is evident from the strenuous effort to editorially promote it ("peer-reviewed", "scientific analysis", Ph.D, etc). I'm not clear that this was published in the peer-reviewed literature: I've removed the citation, which was to the "American Psychological Association". There is no such journal, and searching PubMed I cannot find any article by Feinstein including the words "Energy Psychology" that would fit the bill. (There is a review from an obscure alt-med journal by Feinstein - PMID 18251321 - which confirms that he works at the Energy Medicine Institute, again not exactly strong evidence that this technique has any acceptance outside a small sphere of promoters). I'm fine with reinserting it once we have an actual, valid citation that can be verified. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MastCell. I will see if I can find reliable sources regarding the notability of Gary Craig's life. I found that the Feinstein study was published in the journal 'Psychotherapy' which is a journal of the American Psychological Association. (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/45/2/). I am contact with some of the research teams and several studies for EFT will be published this year and next. There is also a study that should be finished by September that is testing which is testing which exact mechanism of EFT is making EFT an effective treatment. (e.g. tapping or verbal content,...). The study will be blinded so it will test for placebo effect as well. I think we should leave the article as it is at the moment until we get more sources. Or do you have a better suggestion? Thank you! OpinionPerson (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

EFT at the moment is not part of mainstream psychology yet. But if you want more sources that show the effectiveness of EFT you can try the media sources which obviously show anecdotal reports of EFT being effective. I am saying this, because you argued about the anecdotal reports that can be found on the promotional EFT website. Here is a link: http://news.google.co.uk/news?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22emotional+freedom+technique%22 OpinionPerson (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that anecdotal reports are not data and are not sufficient evidence for efficacy, not that we need to find a third-party source for those anecdotes... Famousdog (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Swingle study

I removed the paragraph on this study for some very good reasons: the details fo the study are not freely available, the abstract doesn't make sense (all subjects reported improvement, yet they seem to suggest that only the subjects reporting improvement showed funky brainwaves...), the brainwave data is described (to give the abstract a nice science-y feel) but its relevance is not discussed, and finally its published in a most dubious source... Famousdog (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)