Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

older entries

What? No mention of Wilheim Reich? Is it possible the connections are unobserved?4.234.102.89 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

This article was listed on Votes for deletion. Consensus was to keep. It was also placed on cleanup after removal of the VfD header.

OK, so the votes were for keeping this and deleting Gary Craig. Good. Would it be OK now to expand this article a little bit? Or do we have to leave it like this? Geraldstiehler 07:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to clean up?

It's going to be hard to clean this page up when attempts to do so are removed by people such as CryptoDerk.

Removing the cleanup tag when it still needs cleanup and inserting all kinds of links doesn't help. CryptoDerk 06:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

The original author had included the list of alternative techniques, why not get rid of the whole list? I had also broken the single hard to read paragraph up into multiple paragraphs at what I thought was the original author's intent, based on the structure of the source. How is the decision to get rid of the cleanup tag made?

accuracy and neutrality dispute

Energy fields in the body store the memory of events? Eh? --Pjacobi 00:00, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It's piffle, of course. (But it survived VfD.) How about preceding each stunning claim with Proponents actually believe that... or similar? -- Hoary 10:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It seems, Hoary, that you are more stuck on the semantics than the substance of what was written. If you go to EFT's main site, www.emofree.com, it is quite plain as to the techniques still experiental stage. You rant about studies, yet do no research yourself. There are a few clinical studies on the net, how about doing some research on them?.

I have personal experience with EFT and can tell you that it defiantly works for anxiety attacks. Not only do the anxiety attack stop, but you are able to think about the issue that caused the anxiety without generating the fear and going into "fight or flight." Of course your problems do not just "go away" but you are able to deal with them with a calm, rational mind. 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Tamie

You might also point out that you're in the EFT business. Any disinterested, scientific evidence of therapeutic efficacy? -- Hoary 10:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link and an in-article reference to the only neutral, scientific study I could find online which specifically addresses EFT. Apparently part of EFT is to engage in something akin to traditional "talking therapy," consequently EFT does in fact show some positive results--but not because of the energy fields or any other features unique to EFT. I think it's good for Wikipedia to have articles on topics such as this, but it's important to reference scientific studies, not anecdotes or advertisements (which the removed text most certainly was). -- Alaren 21:01, 07 September 2005 (UTC)

I also have personal experience with the technique, and am NOT professionaly involved or have any business interests whatsoever. EFT does indeed work, and works extremely well. As I wrote below, I have been permanantly cured from many emotional ailments. While the mechanism behind it is still in question, I can definately say that simply talking about your problems will NOT have the same effect. People stay in counseling for depression their entire lives, and are never cured. And yet after a year of using this technique, I was. Research is in the early days, but I am confident that research will eventually prove what I've already known for years - EFT is the next generation of emotional healing. -- Fizfazz, November 10, 2005

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

Balanced info?

I have some experience of this technique, and could easily put a few paragraphs together. However, this is my first visit to this site (on recommendation) so feel the need to get a few guidelines and acceptance criteria sorted out first. Where do I find that stuff around here?

From "Halvibe"-

There are many users of EFT who can testify to its effects. Nothing can easily be learned when the "scientific" method is purely dependant on the profit motive. There are no funds to create a large scale scientific study of something like EFT. The validity of EFT stands out as a threat to the mainstream medical community. Therefore, the mainstream medical community will block any and all attempts to validate the method scientifically. The only real way for people to learn about this method is by the words of others. If Wikipedia would allow the testimonies of the thousands of people who have been helped by this technique to be placed here, THAT would be of real value to the people who want to know what works. To not allow that sort of input makes Wikipedia much less valuable to the public.

That's an interesting POV, Halvibe, but Wikipedia does not exist as a forum for testimonials, anecdotes, or advertising. I find it odd that you would talk about the scientific method being dependent upon the "profit motive" when in fact studies have been done which suggest EFT does exhibit positive results--not from imaginary "energy fields" but from the talking-therapy approach it borrows from mainstream psychology. While I agree that the medical community is often loathe to accept newcomers to the ranks of modern healers, that hasn't stopped antibiotics, psychology, chiroprachty, massage therapy, or any of a host of "new techniques" from becoming respected fields--once those fields brought some scientific evidence to the table. Thus far, EFT has brought nothing but the same kind of "evidence" peddled by mesmerists, snake-oil salesmen, mediums, thaumaturgists, and faith-healers throughout history. And finally, last I checked, a single session of EFT could cost as much or more than a visit to a real doctor--so the profit motive is a sword that cuts both ways and I'd be more careful about bringing it into play. For the moment I am content to let Wikipedia's rules about NPOV and citing scientific sources rule what gets posted here. Alaren 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

From "fizfazz"-

Actually, EFT is free if you learn it yourself. How do I know this? Because that's what I did! And have cured myself of depression, OCD, and even eliminated my need for glasses which I had worn for 4 years. Snake-oil salesmen? Since when has snake-oil given rise to a community of hundreds of thousands of users, many of them also Ph.D. and MDs? In fact, there is an advisory board of 14 MDs who all endorse the technique (just check out emofree.com, click on newcomers info, and look on the bottom right). And yes, EFT should be advertised, because for goodness sake, you can learn it for free, and its better by far than conventional pyschotherapy techniqes, of which I have yet to hear ONE case of someone being cured from their ailment. All it does is help people cope. I think I'll go with being cured, thank you. (11/10/05)

Congratulations, fizfazz. It sounds like you have effectively applied EFT to cure yourself of hypochondria.

Let me suggest a few things. Having a PhD or an MD just means you paid your money to a school. I know a lot of brilliant janitors and a lot of really, really stupid doctors. So I'm unconvinced by the letters. Snake-oil salesmen have given rise to many communities--the popularity of pyramid schemes and the very existence of mail fraud, email fraud, investment banking fraud, real-estate fraud, and other kinds of fraud in the world demonstrate this quite effectively. Your claim that EFT is "better by far" than conventional psychotherapy doesn't hold up to research; your claim that no one has benefitted from it is strangely in contrast with reality. You say "all it does is help people cope," and yet studies show that EFT is only about as efficacious as low-grade psychotherapy in helping people with anything.

I'm sorry you needed a psychological crutch like EFT to help you overcome your problems, but if you think it should be advertised, by all means, please advertise it. Just realize that, like I said before, this is not the place for it.

Must you be so rude? If you don't believe in EFT (or do), that is no reason to verbally disparage those with whom you disagree. Of course the controversy and doubts surrounding EFT ought to be reported in addition to a description of what it is and how it is believed to work, but can we not stay above personal attacks? -Paperflowergirl

This article reads like an advertisement brochure. It mentions the EFT website numerous times as well as the "free EFT manual". At times it sounds like an infomercial. The article does not inspire confidence in the EFT procedure nor wikipedia because it is clear the claims are being made without much objective scientific testing. -Lukas8

The irony is that even if fizfazz were as pathetic as the anonymous writer believed, the remark about hypochondria above could still be interpreted as an endorsement of EFT! Man with two legs 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. You are exactly right, since Hypochondria is a serious condition and there are millions of people suffering from it without getting relief from the conventional main-stream approaches. 84.190.172.20 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo science or proto science?

Hi,

I'd like to point out that just because a theory has not been proved yet, and it is not understood why it works, is no reason to call it pseudo science.

Here are some specific points I would like to raise:

• EFT is a simple to try procedure. The scientifically minded skeptics can try it out for free and assess whether or not it works. They may not be able to reach any definite conclusion but the veracity of the claims can be judged, at least to some extent, by each of us.

So far, I have not seen any posting on the EFT site that definitively rejects EFT. This, of course, may be because such postings are not put up, but if one of us finds that EFT is completely ineffective, why doesn't he/she write it up?

• The theory as to why EFT works (if it does) is not known, even the EFT website admits that they do not understand. It may be that the energy meridians have nothing to do with it, or it may happen that the statements have nothing to do with it. Yes, that means we need more control studies. So those who are in a position to do them should do them!! But in the meantime, evidence at the personal level conitnues to be valuable evidence, albeit not as reliable as a control study. And I seen no harm in people trying it out, even if what is operating is only a placebo effect. Who loses? It is free, and it's not gonna harm.

• Yes, it has not been validated scientifically. But everything that is up on Wikipedia does not need to be scientifically validated. Read the criteria for what kind of articles should be put up on Wikipedia.

• The so called scientific validation with control experiments does not really prove anything. If the energy meridian theory seems preposterous, is it any less preposterous that a tablet that we eat can cure us of headaches, and colds, and fevers? In fact, the chemical mechanism by which these things work is hardly well understood, even now, after it has been accepted by the medical community. The only reason why we do not find it absurd is that we have seen it since childhood.

In fact, the whole mechanism of life is so mysterious that it is best not to call anything preposterous without trying it out. Just as it is best not to accept anything as correct before trying it out.

To sum it up, I think that putting up the article on Wikipedia is best. This way, a large number of people become aware of EFT. Only when more people become aware will any progress be made towards validating or falsifying it.

A final point. If the article has only words of praise for EFT, that does not necessarily imply that it is not balanced. It may well be balanced from the viewpoint of the person who wrote it, who has only seen positive effects. If you are aware of any negative effects, then you are free to edit the article and add those in. Of course, this is modulo the assumption that you first try it out.

Okay, you seem calm and well reasoned, let me see what you have to say to this. First, you claim you would "like to point out that just because a theory has not been proved yet, and it is not understood why it works, is no reason to call it pseudo science."

You're absolutely right.

Then you say this: "The so called scientific validation with control experiments does not really prove anything." Again you are correct, although you don't seem to understand why. Technically, all science can effectively do is disprove things. That is what the scientific method is good for, and the scientific method has completely disproven everything that is unique to the TFT and EFT forms of therapy. And that is why it's appropriately labeled pseudoscience: anyone who presents it as "scientific" either does not understand what scientific really means, or is intentionally distorting the definition.

So here's the thing. If you have experience with EFT, please contribute to the article. Please contribute factually, as I have made it my personal mission (for my personal reasons) to swiftly and brutally enforce NPOV on this page. Factually does not include anecdotes about how EFT miraculously healed you. Factually does not mean you get to quote made-up statistics from webpages where EFT and EFT materials are peddled. Factually means, if you've got a study you can quote, do so. It means if you know what the "magical energy points" are and what they supposedly correspond to, you can say, "EFT adherents believe such and such" where "such and such" is whatever tripe you've been suckered into believing. But organize it properly, keep it NPOV, no anecdotes, no statements that sound factual when in fact they're just crazy opinions and faith-based assertions.

But by all means, contribute! Alaren 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you point me to a study that has "completely disproven" anything about EFT and TFT. 84.190.172.20 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A good scientific study was done, so why not base the article around that

The Waite/Holder study showed that the EFT technique was effective in reducing Phobias. The study was designed to see if the location of tapping was important. It showed that it was not important where, because all tested locations of tapping were effective --even just tapping the hands against a doll. So the proposed theory might not be correct, but the technique does work. People should be able to read about a technique that works for whatever reason. The theory can be adjusted to conform to the facts with future studies. Just caveat the text appropriately.

I think expansion is both appropriate and in this case desireable. I'd especially like to see more actual studies, since the ones we do have all pretty much discredit this monstrous hoax of a therapy. Explansion is good, but all previous attempts have grossly violated NPOV, made outrageous, unverifiable, untestable claims, and otherwise compromised the mission of Wikipedia. If you think you can appropriately caveat the text, I invite you to do so. Alaren 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did the latest expansions, I approve. The article stays neutral and factual, but is now more informative. Thank you. Alaren 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Alaren... I look forward to making more expansions in the future. SweetP112 18:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was in therapy for OCD with three different practitioners. The first was a quack (who "had" a PhD, btw -- from an online, design-your-own doctoral degree program [I found this out after I'd paid her for a year]), and the other two were experienced OCD counselors (with actual PhDs). That intro was so I could say that the first "therapist" recommended EMDR (eye-movement therapy) for the OCD. We tried it once, and it made my eyes hurt and I felt like an idiot, so never again. When I started seeing a therapist with OCD experience, I didn't particularly care for the treatment he said was standard - Exposure and Response Prevention. So I asked him about EMDR. I give him credit for not laughing outright, but what he said that seems relevant is this:

Nobody has ever been able to prove where, exactly, memory resides in the brain, so it's not possible to link certain eye movements with either retention or release of certain memories. But he said some people may get relief from certain traumatic memories or anxieties or phobias because what is actually occurring is an exposure. An exposure is confronting a fear (traumatic memory, phobia, etc) in a safe and controlled manner. Even for a phobia, often simply thinking about the feared thing is an exposure. The eye movements of EMDR are only acting as a soothing, calming agent during the exposure. Repeated EMDR treatments actually mean repeated exposures, and hence, improvement in managing the phobia.

Finally, the connection -- from what I've been reading about EFT, much the same thing could be happening. In conjunction with the talk therapy, the "tapping" of EFT might be acting as the calming agent during what is basically an exposure (mental exposure) -- to past hurts/traumas, or to phobias or anxiety-producing things/events. This might be where the benefits arise that some people have had with EFT. This theory is reinforced by the study showing that WHERE the tapping occurs doesn't seem to matter. --Pokezon 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi People, I'm sick of seeing these pseudo-scientific skeptics being cited as scientific research. I'm sure they are, sort of, but not in respected journals, so I've altered the page, as you've suggested to include the Journal of Clinical Psychology's citation. I'm new here so I hope the link works OK. I've also altered your words around the TFT reference. There's a TFT page in wiki - that's where that reference belongs, not on the EFT page. Keep it factual. I also have treated myself and a number of friends and relatives with EFT, getting great results all round. Having seen the Waite Holder study I can see why the three groups got results - they were all using EFT. It would have been SO much better if someone who knew EFT had been involved with that study. Goes to show just because its in a journal doesn't mean its good research. Pokezon - the talking part of EFT is not exposure any more than the tapping is soothing. If the memory is disturbing, EFT's method is to take it slowly and not traumatise anyone by actually saying the real problem until it can be done painlessly. And once you know how to do it you don't need to physically tap. Peace to you all, Hazel--HazelR 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hazel, re your allegation that Waite and Holder was not published in a "respected journal" this is not correct. The Waite and Holder study was indeed published in a respected peer reviewed journal, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice that is listed in the PsychInfo database -- it is a very mainstream, reputable journal. The study was specifically on EFT, not TFT, so I don't understand why you would say it deserves to be in the TFT article rather than the EFT article (it was also appropriate for the TFT article because it also tested their theory that includes meridians). The three groups were not all doing EFT. One of the groups tapped on sham points and the other tapped on an inanimate object. This article is about EFT and published in a peer reviewed journal so it deserves to be cited and I added it along with the reference. --MonicaPignotti 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has added in a note that the Journal of Clinical Psychology is the only one indexed in Medline. This is misleading and seems to me to be a subtle way to imply that the other journals are not legitimate which is not correct, since the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice is indexed in PsychInfo, which is the top database for psychological oriented journal articles. I added that in.--MonicaPignotti 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the recent expansion

Many thanks to Vipul (and a couple of anonymous contributors) for the recent expansion of this article. However, the current article (23:31, 16 January 2006) leaves a lot to be desired and there still remains a lot of cleaning up to do. Here are my ideas on some of the areas that need to be cleaned up:

• (from Theories of the energy system) "EFT combines in it the ideas of biocomputer programming and NLP with the energy centers concept of acupressure." Huh? What is biocomputer programming? How is EFT similar to NLP (I am knowledgeable about NLP and I fail to see the similarity)? Why is the phrase "energy centers" used when this phrase is never used in any official EFT materials? More justification needs to be provided for this sentence if it is to remain in the article.

• (from The Volcano Technique) Why is there a section for this technique? This is not considered an official EFT technique like e.g. "Chasing The Pain", "Tearless Trauma", or "Borrowing Benefits", and there is little or no evidence that this technique has been adopted by any EFT practitioners other than the originator of the technique (Rebecca Marina). I propose that this section be removed.

• (from Sites of EFT Practitioners) Presumably there is some Wikipedia policy that prevents people from adding links for purely commercial reasons. Can anyone provide a reference to this policy? For example, Carol Look and Tam Llewllyn are two of the most well known and respected practitioners in the EFT community. But neither one of their respective websites has much, if any, reference material. Their websites exist mostly for commercial purposes (note that Carol Look has a small amount of reference material on her site in the way of newsletter archives). Should these links be kept? I'm worried that we will end up with dozens of links to individual practitioner websites that won't serve any purpose other than commercial promotion, which presumably is contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia.

There's a lot more I would like to comment on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

SweetP112 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found the Wikipedia policy that discusses the guidelines for determining what links are acceptable in the external links section: Wikipedia:External links. I have added the {Cleanup-spam} tag to the External links section in the main article. SweetP112 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Hi, I definitely plan to edit and wikify the article in the near future. I'm not really an expert in these issues and expanded the article only because nobody else seemed willing. Your points are very valid and I'll have a careful look at the various changes you have suggested. Right now, I'm a little budy with some other work. I'll get back to you some time after Sunday.

Thanks for your feedback

User:vipul 20 January 2006

I took out the following sentence from the Differences from TFT section: "EFT bypasses all this by tapping on all the points, and repeating the entire procedure a few times to cover all possible tapping orders as well." Where is the evidence that the comprehensive algorithm used in EFT is designed "to cover all possible tapping orders?" The article "The Evolution of EFT From TFT" at http://www.emofree.com/articles/scien-i.htm clearly indicates that the order of tapping points is considered irrelevant.

SweetP112 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed or changed the following lines from the "Controversy" section:

Here are some of the specific criticisms, the refutations, and the current positions.

Unnecessary explanation.

The EFT Research page contains links to researches that they claim validate the method, at least in part. On the other hand, there are studies which seem to negate the importance of the tapping process, such as the Waite & Holder study.

The page is linked elsewhere. No need to link it here. Maybe link the actual research?

The current position is not known. There are, however, plans of large scale studies that, in a few year's time, will determine the scientific validity of the claims.

Please cite these "large scale studies."

For those who use it on a regular basis, skepticism seems to fall away as results are realized.

Completely inappropriate and violates NPOV.

However, the following features of cures brought about by EFT are often used by proponents to show that the other factors, without the aid of tapping would not have been so effective:

• The speed of EFT: The effects of EFT are almost instantaneous, and may take at most a day to settle in. These effects, if borne out, are thus quicker even than those of many oral drugs! This also precludes the possibility of a mistaken association of cure with having performed EFT.
• The permanence of EFT: Many symptoms cured via EFT have not returned at all, according to claims made on the website by people who have applied EFT.
• The versatility of EFT: The fact that EFT based methods apply to a wide variety of problems, both of a physical and an emotional origin, indicates that the method at work cannot be working purely on a psychological level.

All three of these "features" are doubted and anecdotal--see controversy subtopic number one. No need to multiply entities here.

In short, this is a great expansion. I appreciate that the people who buy into this quackery have given us a largely NPOV description of what EFT is and what EFT asserts. It's a much better article now. But I'm still the only contributor who has cited an actual study, instead of throwing around "studies" or "pending studies." I don't see any need for the "controversy" section to become an apologetic for EFT. The controversy exists for a reason, and I have removed the lines that attempt to dismiss the controversy as "not that controversial." Alaren 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed these links:

• Caroline Dubois's website
• Hypnogenics website
• Tam Llewllyn's website
• Carol Look's website on EFT and abundance
• EFT Practitioners in Australia (David Lake and Steve Wells)
• Maryam Webster's EFT Training site (link to a quick summary of EFT)

I didn't see anything on these pages that isn't listed here or on the official website. Wikipedia is not a place to sell your wares. This article is enough free advertising for Gary just by existing. I also fixed the citations in the Controversy section. Alaren 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you know it's quackery? I guess this is because of your exhaustive study of it? Citation needed

I personally have no experience of the subject, probably like yourself, however I'm not as omniscient as you, so am unable to make a judgement without trying it for myself.-SKEPTIC??-220.244.16.58 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried it and there is no doubt that it works because the effects are often immediate and dramatic. Personally I don't believe Craig's explanation of why it works (my view of science is strongly Western), but my experience and the published studies show that EFT does work. Sceptics would do well to try it before forming strong opinions because it is free and does not take long. I think the concept of the body's energy field, like a lot of Eastern mysticism, may be valuable as a metaphor rather than an engineering concept. Chi energy may not exist, but our brains are wired up so that chi FEELS like it exists which makes it a useful concept in healing. --Man with two legs 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Man with two legs - I appreciate your input. I'm the previous commenter. I hope you realise that both paragraphs were mine. I was outraged by the use of the word quackery. When it comes to mental 'issues' I can't see how anecdotal evidence can be dismissed. "I feel better because of EFT", "Oh you can't - it's pseudoscience!" WTF?? -SKEPTIC??

Thanks. I can see both sides of this point. There are many scientists who think "if I don't know the explanation then it can't be true" but there are also many charlatans out there selling desperate people remedies that don't work or do harm. It is quite a trick to be both open and rigorous. To his credit, Alaren is not trying to deny EFT a fair hearing even if though he seems to believe it is rubbish. --Man with two legs 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SKEPTIC??, Man with two legs, thanks for your comments. SKEPTIC??, your problem here is that you are misplacing the burden of proof. Furthermore, it is disconcerting that you ask me for citations when I am one of the few people who has actually done research and cited genuine academic studies in this article. I am familiar with EFT both in my personal life and as an academic subject. I am confident that it is quackery and the scientific method is on my side here.

There is a reason academics dismiss anecdotal evidence. There is not much room for anecdotal evidence in provable, reproducable results. Anecdotal evidence does not prove or disprove anything. What people have in EFT is not knowledge, but faith. And while faith is perfectly viable as a personal philosophy, the existential or theological merits of EFT are not the scientific merits of EFT. A philosophy or religion or otherwise unproven methodology masquerading as medical science is quackery.

That doesn't even necessarily mean I'm right; if scientific inquiry discovers a way to measure these "Chi" fields or careful studies uncover a way to reliably reproduce the effects of EFT, well, that would be great. But it does not fall on me to disprove EFT when EFT has yet to prove itself. Quackery it is, and so quackery I shall call it. Personally I think the article as written is a decent explanation of what EFT is, and what it is not, and that's good enough for me. Alaren 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of effectiveness needs some work because the section Anecdotal nature of claims is just wrong. There are studies that DO show it works even if there remain questions over the details. Also, if you have seen Craig's DVDs, the evidence there is so dramatic that it cannot be explained away. For example, at the US Government Veterans_Administration, a traumatised Vietnam veteran who had a height phobia was not cured by 16 years of therapy but after a brief EFT treatment he was able to go to the top of the fire escape and lean over the edge and joke about it. You can see his friends confirming they'd never seen him up there. A man clearly able to do something he was previously afraid to do is quantifiable and not anecdotal. The DVDs show several examples of people clearly doing things they were previously too terrified to do. I think IF it works and WHY it works are two very different matters. At some point, I might get round to correcting that section with proper citations. --Man with two legs 12:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The isue of effectiveness now has one decent reserach article cited which shows that EFT DOES work. Yes, Man with two Legs, there is SO much evidence it works, its only skeptics who won't try it and see. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Spoken by a woman who's regaining her sight using EFT and Bates Method - two topics blasted on wikipedia!--HazelR 13:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Following your useful edits to Controversy, I have further edited that section and added details taken from the DVDs. These examples each show an unambiguous behavioural change immediately following EFT and are therefore not anecdotal evidence. --Man with two legs 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the section (which I'd intended to post here but pressed control-c by mistake instead of control-v) that stated that EFT is suitable for events with a crescendo of no more than 5 minutes and that happened at least 5 years ago, because I know of no places where that is stated (certainly not on the www.emofree.com web site), because i don't believe it to be true and because (the only really valid reason) it is pure PoV.

As for my view on EFT, I believe it works, because I have used it many times effectively to "cure" phobias and other issues, including physical issues. However, that is obviously anecdotal and my PoV and has nothing to do with the scientific method. I would note that many things that are now accepted as verified scientific fact (like the existence of germs, the atom, flight, the earth being round) were once called pseudoscience (or the old term for it heresy).

Just because something hasn't been proved or disproved yet doesn't make it pseudoscience - it makes it an unverified theory. Some unverified theories will be proven correct, some will be disproved. There are two seperate issues to be proved or disproved with EFT. One is "does it work?" the other is "it works because..."

The former is easier to prove than the latter and some of the studies, albeit flawed, seem to lean towards showing that it does work (as does my personal experience). The latter is harder - but less relevent, even though people have seemed to hone on this one as if to say "if it doesn't work that way it can't work at all and it doesn't work that way' - a somewhat circular argument.

In fact, most people who use or believe in EFT don't state categorically that it works the way Gary Craig says it does - and Gary Craig himself has often said he's more interested in effectiveness than method and he'll be delighted if someone can prove it works in a different way to that which he's postulated.

He and many other "energy practitioners" have investigated other forms of related therapy that use different tapping points, that use holding rather than tapping or that don't involve tapping at all. The consensus appears to be that tapping is a useful but not necessarily essential part of it. So yes, it is quite likely that it is partly, of not entirely, a "talking therapy". So what? As someone who believes that EFT works and has a place in therapy, I don't really give a toss about how it works as long as it does. I don't need to know how electricity works to turn my tv on.

And when it comes to effectiveness, based on a great deal of anecdotal evidence (and at what volume does anecdotal evidence become valid, if ever?), my personal experience, a few studies (albeit badly set up) and Gary Craig's videos it does appear to work much more quickly than any other "talking therapy" of which I'm aware (with the possible exception of NLP - another 'pseudoscience').

For the purposes of Wikipedia I agree that scientific proof is desirable, if not always practical. For the purposes of therapy, people with phobias, addictions, ptsd, etc. don't really care whether the energy fields exist or not, whether they run in meridians or not, what sequence tapping should be done in, whether they really need to tap or how many studies have been done on it - they just want their own personal "anecdotal" experience of feeling better. From their perspective it doesn't matter whether it's the placebo effect, hypnosis (which has never been scientifically proved either - nor for that matter has the existence of Freud's Id, Ego and Super-Id, which I guess qualifies them for pseudoscience too) or whatever as long as it works and the change lasts. On that basis I'd label EFT a worthwhile tool that is worth trying and that is highly unlikely to hurt. If it works as claimed (ie quickly and effectively) - great. If it dosn't work quickly, at least the client isn't up for thousands of dollars in bills like the clients of "accepted" therapise like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Freudian Psychotherapy, which all stress that they take a long time (ie cost a lot) and might not work and many of which which are based on unverifiable theories (eg Freud, Jung). Cheers, Steve Hall

I have once again repaired the "Controversy" section that everyone insists on turning into a "there is no controversy" section.

First, Man with Two Legs, maybe you should understand what anecdotal evidence is before you try to argue against it. Your comments clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp of the term "anecdotal evidence." Anecdotal evidence is stories. Examples. Individual results. The list of "empirical" proof you give above is not empirical proof, it is anecdotal evidence. All of the examples on Gary Craig's marketing tripe are anecdotal, not empirical. They prove nothing. They are easily attributed to the placebo effect and the methods EFT borrows from real, actual, clinical psychotherapy. I have restored the anecdotal evidence portion of controversy and included a link to Anecdotal evidence on Wikipedia. Read it. Understand it. Stop trying to say "there is no controversy" when obviously you are wrong.

I never used the word "empirical" and I never claimed "there is no controversy" so kindly do not put words into my mouth. I stated specific, clear examples of people being able to do things following EFT that they were not able to do before. Regarding anecdotal evidence, "I felt better" is anecdotal while "I did something I could not do before" is measurable.

On the placebo effect, anything that uses the placebo effect to heal is a good thing no matter why it works and in any case, no one really knows how the placebo effect works or what it is. EFT and other placebo-type effects show that we do not have much understanding of the relationship between mind and body. If you think EFT works through the placebo effect, you are saying that it DOES work. The bit you have not grasped is that, for whatever reason, it works astonishingly well.

As for Craig's marketing, the examples I gave are on the DVDs you see after you have bought them or had a set given to you (which is allowed by the licence as long as they are not sold) so it is not marketing because the sale is already made. When telling someone how to do something, it is natural to show it working. What other form of illustration is possible?

I get the impression that you are so annoyed about people accepting the new-age, weird-stuff explanation of HOW it works, which is probably nonsense, that you are losing sight of the fact that it DOES work. I would prefer it if you could see my point on this because you and I are on the same side. I despise the quackery out there as much as you do, and your attempt at honest attack on it is a good thing. But it is not helpful to attempt to destroy the useful bit of it along with the rubbish. As it happens, I have a science degree from Cambridge and I have my own Western-type theory about how EFT works, but I am not currently in a position to test it and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. This is why all my postings on EFT are about IF it works and not HOW. --Man with two legs 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Second, I have avoided inserting remarks into the sections that "explain" EFT because I don't feel that is my place. This whole article is a detailed foray into a fantasy world. And that's okay, but please don't dice up the "controversy" section because it questions your faith in this chicanery. The controversy section is not for you, how's that? If you believe in the power of EFT, don't touch the controversy section. Make sure the rest of the article accurately portrays your ridiculous viewpoints. But don't think you need to "fix" the controversy section just because it doesn't cast EFT in a positive light. That's not what the controversy section is for.

Finally, I moved the "pro-EFT" study out of the controversy section.

If you would like to edit the controversy section more, please just don't. You wouldn't like it if I edited the rest of the article with phrases like "according to EFT marketers" and "for a fee, of course" even though both would be accurate in a lot of spots. Tempting as it may be to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for our individual beliefs, NPOV should be maintained. I'm doing my best to respect that. Please do the same and stop "fixing" the controversy section. Alaren 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the bits I put in could go somewhere else rather than in controversy, but I would prefer a tidy up that left those things in because they are relevant. I would be interested in your comments on them; I really don't understand why you are not as impressed with those results as I am. Have you actually seen the DVDs? --Man with two legs 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen rather a lot on EFT. I'd prefer not to get into it too much; suffice it to say that a member of my family spent a great deal of money and convinced herself for several months that she was being "healed," when in fact the treatments were not doing anything for her. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force; human beings would rather change their beliefs and reject empirical evidence than believe that they have made a foolish mistake. But eventually this family member realized what was occurring--there was no cure taking place. Just a lot of money changing hands, and some talking-therapy style stuff coupled with some useless mysticism.

Some people need that mysticism. Some people can't feel "properly healed" without magic words and special energies and mumbo-jumbo. Snake-oil salesmen have known this for centuries. The human mind is an amazing thing, and sometimes convincing someone that they are healed is all it takes to truly heal them. However in most cases, what this means is that their problems were not empirically real in the first place--they were subjectively real. I only minored in psychology at the University level so I am not an expert on this process, but I'm about the closest thing to it that has shown up here regularly.

EFT does result in success. Sometimes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and EFT borrows liberally from empirically verified processes like "talking therapy," so it is not as broken as some so-called "energy therapies." But the scientific community has certain standards for proof, and EFT does not meet those standards. I do not believe EFT can meet those standards, but you know what? It doesn't matter what I think, since Gary Craig is making enough money from EFT that "empirical proof" is probably nowhere on his list of priorities.

Regarding "tidying up," I did move the one study. The rest of the comments were pretty off-topic I think. This page should not be a "point, counterpoint" on EFT. EFT makes its claims, and to maintain NPOV we include the controversy section so that empirical objections to EFT's claims can be aired. And then we're done. You can put the controversy section first. You can put the controversy section last. You can strengthen the rest of the article if you think it will help against opposing viewpoints. But it seems like every few weeks, someone new has decided to "fix" the controversy section to basically imply that "there really isn't any valid controversy." This violates NPOV and I will continue to fix it when it occurs. Alaren 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point. Personally, I was able to use it effectively at zero cost and bought the DVDs afterwards. You can do EFT on yourself very cheaply and do not need to pay anyone once you have learned how. EFT can be a cheap and effective treatment where there is a psychological component to a person's pain (which is often) but does not cure anything purely physical. Problems fixed by EFT can come back if the underlying cause is not fixed. A specific example of this is in treating Chronic Fatigue Syndrome where EFT achieves spectacular results that usually do not last. EFT is at its best when dealing with irrational fears that are not part of your self-image (such as fear of spiders), where it works very well. Personally, I would not advise anyone to pay for EFT except the first session after which they can do it themselves. Was Craig personally connected with your relative? --Man with two legs 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think Gary Craig is making *any* money off of EFT? He sells the DVDs sets at cost, gives away the ebook and the website information for free, and doesn't charge for therapy sessions. I think Gary Craig is the last person you can accuse of being in it for the money. You might not believe in EFT, fair enough, but I don't think there's any just cause for doubting Craig's motives... SweetP112 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a "believer" in the effectiveness of EFT and a big supporter of Gary Craig, but I have no doubt that he is making a pretty decent living out of it. And what's wrong with that? Do psychologists and psychiatrists offer CBT or drugs for free? I think they too make a decent living out of helping people.

If Alaren thinks that making money disqualifies someone from being believed (which, to be fair, he doesn't say) then it wouldn't leave much - including Nobel prize winners. However I will pick up Alaren up on including very biased PoV on his comments. He doesn't believe in EFT - fair enough. No reason he should. But to summarily dismiss it as snakeoil because one relative spent some money on it and didn't get help (even though he/she thought he/she did) smacks of extreme anecdotal evidence and bias. Even though I use EFT and have helped people get over phobias and other issues with it (and yes, I did charge money on some occasions, by no means all) I accept that as yet there is no scientific studies that prove it works. Does this mean it doesn't work or just that no studies have been done? Time will tell.

Anyway, if, as an EFT adherent, I can accept that it has yet to be proven or disproven, can Alvaren accept the same or is he going to continue to disparage it with throw-away lines like "This whole article is a detailed foray into a fantasy world" and "Gary Craig's marketing tripe" based on one bit of anecdotal evidence?

Back to making money. EFT is becoming widespread largely due to Gary Craig's brilliant marketing (as opposed to TFT, from which EFT was derived and which has expanded much more slowly due to the originator's - Roger Callaghan's -very different marketing strategy).

It's the Microsoft marketing strategy compared to the IBM PC. Gary Craig gives away masses of information and free stuff that anyone can use to learnn EFT and then sells advanced information at a very reasonable price. Result - lots and lots of people learn about it, try it, but his CDs and tell others. EFT becomes very well known, with millions of people using it and Gary makes a very good living while helping spread the word and help people. (And whether it works or not, I absolutely believe Gary Craig sincerely believes it works and is trying to help people). While Roger Callahagn keeps everything cose to his chest, makes everyone sign non-disclosure agreements and charges a heap of money. Result - he makes a nice living but TFT is not nearly as widespread or well known as EFT. Gary Craig - make a little bit of money from a lot of people and help them - is that such a bad model? Even if EFT doesn't work (which I think it does) it doesn't hurt anyone - it certainly hurts/kills a lot less than prescription drugs that have been through a whole battery of scientific tests. Cheers, Steve Hall.

I will continue to disparage EFT because I believe it has been sufficiently disproven and because that is how I feel about EFT. Yes, there is some anecdotal experience there, but instead of basing my ideas on one anecdotal experience (as most EFT adherents do), I went out and did the research, which confirmed my suspicions. I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks, but that's the beautiful difference between the "comments" section and the main article. I have not injected my opinion into the main article and I've asked others to refrain from doing the same. I will express my opinion freely here, the same as you.

Somewhat off-topic, I happen to actually be about as skeptical of the medical industry as of EFT. The difference is that you can speak about medical science without necessarily discussing the pharmaceutical, psychological, insurance, or hospital industries. My primary focus in studying psychology at the University level was on research demonstrating how much of modern psychology is unproven, insufficiently tested, or otherwise geared more toward making money than to helping people. Science is a beautiful thing, but when it gets tainted by faith or greed, it takes a very ugly turn. Making money doesn't necessarily disqualify someone from being believed, but it should certainly arouse your suspicion!

With EFT, there is very little "disinterested scientific inquiry" to rely upon (though I think the wiki community has done reasonably well in assembling that information here). Consequently NPOV is tough to maintain from either side, but as the article stands I think we've managed to come together to produce something valuable despite our differences. That's the spirit of Wikipedia and the spirit of NPOV. Not every contributor to this article fully understands or subscribes to that spirit, but that's why we have this discussion page. Alaren 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alaren, We disagree on the value of EFT, but hopefully in a civilised way. I hope my ad hominem attacks aren't too offensive and as you say, this is the place for disagreements. I share your sceptism in some areas so I'd be interested to know what "the research" was that confirmed your suspicions.

Without wishing to be any more provocative than normal, if you come from a background of University studies to debunk much of modern psychology (and I'd agree with you on many, but not all of your contentions) AND have a relative who you believe was fooled by EFT, then it is not unlikely you'll get what you look for - evidence that EFT doesn't work. I'm not implying conscious bias, but we all tend to find what we're looking for, so if you're looking for ways to disprove EFT I'm sure you could find them, just as the Flat Earth Society finds ways to disprove that the world is round and WD & HO Wills can find ways to say smoking doesn't kill you.

Let me ask you a question - in fact two. One, did you really set out in your research to objectively test the merits of EFT, or did you set out to disprove that it works? And two, what exactly did this research consist of?

You state "instead of basing my ideas on one anecdotal experience (as most EFT adherents do". In fact I think you'll find that most EFT adherents base their belief on multiple pieces of anecdotal evidence as well as substantial personal experiences. There is certainly a very large amount of anecdotal evidence that EFT can work - this doesn't prove it works but at what stage does massive anecdotal evidence become believable? Never?

You say you will continue to disparage EFT and of course that is your right. I'm not as brave as you - I can't say with absolute certainty that EFT is scientifically proven. You seem to feel certain it's scientifically disproven and I disagree with you on that. I do, however, agree that this is still controversial so the controversy section should stay.

If you'd like help with your problem in believing things you can't see, drop me a line and I'll be happy to do some EFT with you. Cheers, Steve

Change made. I have removed the words "this study did not involve human subjects and" from the anecdotal evidence paragraph near the end, for the very good reason that the Wells, etc article DID use human subjects. The topic was diminishing the fear of small animals, but it was fear of the animals in humans, not fear in the small animals. I'd have thought that was obvious but what do I know? Steve Hall

spam in Links section

Dear folks, I dont know if there are official guidelines, but I certainly see the spam added from time to time.

I have removed the tag {{Cleanup-spam}} but I have removed spam on several occasions.

Why dont we discuss what is and is not spam here, so we can clean up easily?

The web site of Gary Craig, although commercial, is the source, with lots of free stuff, anecdotal evidence, and free streaming video.

Personally I dont think all the present links need to be there. Lets just link to research, associations like AMET Etc (the ACEP is missing) and no further

any thoughts?

Ben Meijer 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I nominated this article for deletion under WP:FRINGE. The central problem here is a lack of references. To be notable, per WP:FRINGE, "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication." I can find exactly one (1) PubMed hit for "emotional freedom techniques", to a small study which examined its utility for "small animal phobia". The remainder of the references in this article are to non-peer-reviewed and promotional websites. It's just not possible to build an WP:NPOV, non-promotional article on a scientific theory with no peer-reviewed evidence base, and it fails WP:N on this basis. If the idea becomes the subject of more peer-reviewed literature, or is referenced more extensively in mainstream publication, then it could be reconsidered, but at present it seems there just isn't enough there to build a good Wikipedia article. MastCell 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An angle on the meaning of referenced extensively: it could be interpreted as meaning one full article (as opposed to a passing mention) which the referred EFT article is. I maintain that the one cast iron reference you refer to is enough. And that is before wading through the heated debates above.

Also, I think you might consider this fact for your own edification: EFT does work in at least some cases. It is astonishingly quick and effective in eliminating phobias that are not critical to a person's self image.

Man with two legs 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether EFT works or not. The published paper suggests it does, at least in certain situations. But something can work, and still not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I think that's the situation here. One paper is not "referenced extensively". A good, balanced article requires multiple independent and reliable sources; those do not exist here. If more is published in the peer-reviewed literature, then it might warrant an article, but we can't have an article on every idea/hypothesis/system that has 1 PubMed reference behind it - and that's why WP:FRINGE sets the bar at "referenced extensively" in the peer-reviewed literature. MastCell 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. If you want to eliminate daft theories that have zero PubMed references and only 3 hits on Google, then I might well agree with you, but there is a huge difference between that and something with any PubMed references at all, that gets 1,390,000 hits, and which people want to know about.

The same paragraph in WP:FRINGE also says ...establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents. I think that 1,390,000 Google hits shows that the group of adherents is not small and that count alone makes it notable enough to justify having an article in Wikipedia.

As for multiple independent, reliable sources, there is no shortage of sources about what EFT is. The controversy is entirely about if and how it works.

Man with two legs 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then where are these sources? The article's been around forever, yet essentially all of the citations come from EFT's "small group of adherents." In a best-case scenario, the article needs a complete rewrite to utilize independent sources, but I've not seen evidence that these exist. Further, as it's presented as a scientifically based idea, the lack of a peer-reviewed research base is a killer in terms of notability. MastCell 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, you are verging on WP:WIKILAWYERING.

1. Regarding "small", which part of "not" did you not understand?

2. It is not presented as scientifically based, it is presented as based on traditional Chinese medicine but happens to be supported by at least one scientific study that demonstrates the results while remaining silent on the mechanism.

3. Sources: since one organisation has developed and promoted this treatment, that is an adequate citation as to what EFT claimes to be. EFT is notable because there are large numbers of other organisations promoting the same treatment.

4. Your stating "Lack of peer-reviewed research" is at odds with your own identification of a PubMed reference. For a branch of alternative medicine, much of which is pure hogwash, one peer-reviewed scientific reference makes it unusually notable and even more so because the results were positive.

Another point: this article is probably the only thing on the net that is readily accessable and which has input from people who are not uncritical supporters of EFT. People doing a Google search will find loads of commercial sites saying how wonderful EFT is AND this lone Wikipedia article which includes criticism. In addition, the discussion page is a useful resource for desperate people who might be duped by exagerated claims made for EFT because it describes how EFT sometimes does not work. Deleting this article would be a disservice to vulnerable people as well as a perversion of Wikipedia policies.

Man with two legs 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that MastCell's views are more appropriate for concerns about asserting EFT as a scientific therapy with several WP:RS references, now at this time. MC's concerns about deletion and notability might be better addressed in reviewing this as a newsworthy phenomenon where notability might be in the eyes of various journalists, from Forbes/WSJ/Wash Post to alternative coverage perhaps Mercola etc. Advocates should cough up other WP:RS coverage, and less assertion as current WP science.

Gary Craig's name appears a little overutilized for a non-biographic article. The amount of "how-to-coverage" is not encyclopedic. Although if I were interested, this information might be handy, the two sections moved here (below), go beyond mere description of the subject area, they should be moved offsite and perhaps linked with by reference.

I have moved these two sections here, by reference with diffs, for convienent discussion: Subtleties in the application of EFT and The EFT application procedure. I strongly recommend that these sections be trimmed and NPOV summarized by -3/4 line length.--I'clast 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the how-to and other detailed information should be summarized, and I think outside sites which are linked already contain most of those details. I think that if independent sources could be produced, that would go a long way toward establishing notability. Those sources could be popular press, but then the article needs to indicate that this is a theory notable for its popular appeal rather than scientific basis (e.g. WP:RS: "Avoid citing the popular press on scientific matters"). But at least it would establish notability - right now I think that's lacking. MastCell 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

QW

MC, this QW reference I would have preferred to have given a pass here for several reasons, if I could justify it to myself at all. (1) EFT is specifically mentioned in only one line in a general introductory way, no new information there. (2) Even the TFT treament is a small and only a (last) fraction of the page. (3) The other Barrett related publication, at the CSICOP site, seems to much more ably cover the general TFT/EFT area. (4) If one or two references need to be salvaged from the QW TFT references, I would advise that over the general opinion piece but I think WP should try to focus on specific EFT references with TFT as background to perhaps fill perceived gaps. Sorry, I just find this QW reference to have very low critical content and is pretty much just an applied label by a known partisan, where the QW presence as a WP link farm issue is already a problem (I AGF and am not accusing, I am citing an emergent problem).--I'clast 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, no offense taken. I agree with you about the low content from QW; I inserted it primarily because it's one of the best known "skeptic" sites, and is critical of EFT (albeit very briefly). But I think what you're saying makes sense - I agree that the other criticism is more detailed, and - this may be hard to believe given all that's gone on - I really don't have any strong feelings or allegiance to Quackwatch. So let's leave it out. MastCell 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

What about?

Regarding the quality of the source of the research? How would the following be rated?

http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/v8/SixTraumaImprints.pdf In traumatology

http://www.emofree.com/Research/rowe-study.htm in Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal more info : http://www.psychologicalpublishing.com/ccpj/contents/v2_i3.htm

Kind Regards,

Ben Meijer 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear 217...

Row over Rowe

I reinserted Rowe.

What in heavens name is SA-45? The article does not explain, the reference does not explain. If I remove it from the text, what is left is a load of blah-blah. This is no info, it's bogus.)

You may not know what a SA-45 is, and you may not uderstand the significance of peer reviewed, or what has been written. Care to explain how this puts you in a position to judge and remove?

Kind Regards, Ben Meijer 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right: I don't know. But I make an effort to know. And you know how? I read an encyclopedia. Ah, look here, this IS an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to help me a bit. But help is on the way, because apparently you know what SA-45 is. So why don't you write a piece of text that explains. Make this encyclopedia informative, instead of overloading us with incomprehesible humbug. I'm teasing you, of course. I know that you probably don't know what it means, either. So why don't you take it. Rewrite your text. Wikipedia is here to inform us, not to confuse us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.234.175 (talk • contribs).

I agree. There needs to be some description of what kind of test the SA-45 is in order to make that section more understandable. WatchAndObserve 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a link to SA-45, and that you created this particular article, so everything looks okay now.

But does it?
Unfortunately, your contribution consists mainly of copy-paste sentences from two copyrighted websites, [1] and [2]. So you are violating the one and most important Wikipedia-rule that "you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

If this is your usual way of adding value to Wikipedia then people better review your previous contributions as well. Not very good, mr Meijer, committing plagiarism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.234.252 (talk • contribs).

"claims" and "intends"

The use of the word CLAIMS is laden with POV. The intention is clear, so please lets stay on track and use the word intends. Faith healers intend, tradiotional therapy intends, doctors intend....

And so does EFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.244.42 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 May 2007

Are you denying that EFT practitioners "claim" to heal? I think they might argue with that. "Claim" is a word. Words in themselves are neutral. Its what the reader brings that matters. "Intend" is not synonomous with "claim" and would be a poor substitution for it. "EFT claims to heal" is a completely different statement from "EFT intends to heal". What other option is there? Just saying "EFT heals"? I think some people might object. Famousdog 14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the use of the word "claims". WatchAndObserve 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the UTube video and I think there is a divergence between what might be taken as a consensus position that a tapping routine might be able to have impact on psychological issues, albeit via distraction or displacement, and some of the more alarming claims by such as restoring eye sight and curing MS (from the web site You can also use it for everything from the common cold to cancer.). I would guess that mainstream psychologists, though not in agreement with the theory would agree that what is a fairly lengthy learnt routine (I've had a full routine demonstrated to be which has a sequence of 20 or more actions, including singing a happy song and rolling eyes, making a positive statement) can have a useful distraction or disassociation. I guess that the danger of this article is that it supports to a limited extent the phobia angle (which I find plausible) but this might be extrapolated to actual physical effects (which I find implausible). I think the article needs to be a lot clearer that the claims bit is wider than the psychological issues that I can be comfortable with. I guess it is a bit like hypnotism that most people accept as a valid and demonstrable process, but are more sceptical as to what it can achieve, or acupuncture where we might be sceptical of the underlying pseudo-science but can conceive that the stimulation of needles can have positive physical effects.

I suspect in the attempt to be NPOV, some of the extreme claims have been removed, yet they are out there. Having spoken to a practitioner, I would suspect that there is a divergence in the EFT community about what is sensible to claim, but these claims are made and that they are made is verifiable. Spenny 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel there is a big difference between CLAIM and INTEND.

from EMDR Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapeutic approach developed by Francine Shapiro[1] to resolve symptoms resulting from exposure to a traumatic or distressing event, such as rape.

Summarized: EMDR is INTENDED to....

Hypnotherapy Hypnotherapy is often applied in order to modify a subject's behavior, emotional content, and attitudes, as well as a wide range of conditions including dysfunctional habits, anxiety, stress-related illness, pain management, and personal development.

Summary: Intention

Cognitive Therapy Cognitive therapy seeks to identify and change "distorted" or "unrealistic" ways of thinking, and therefore to influence emotion and behaviour.

Summary: intention

Interpersonal Therapy Interpersonal therapy (IPT) is a form of psychotherapy used to treat a variety of mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, bulimia nervosa, and communication disorders.

Summary: is used to treat (effectiveness implied?))

psychotherapy Psychotherapy is an interpersonal, relational intervention used by trained psychotherapists to aid clients in problems of living.

I like the INTERVENTION, I dont like used to aid, as this implies 100% effectiveness??

Chiropractic Chiropractic (from Greek chiros and praktikos meaning "done by hand") is a health care profession whose purpose is to diagnose and treat mechanical disorders of the spine and musculoskeletal system with the intention of affecting the nervous system and improving health.[1] It

Summary: (purpose = ) Intend.

Faith Healing Faith healing, also called divine healing or spiritual healing, is the use of spiritual means in treating disease, It is purportedly a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological.

Purport Strongly POV. The condemnation can be felt.

Interventions are INTENDED, practitioners (all sorts) CLAIM. The effectiveness and criticism should, in my POV, be in a seperate section.

Greetings

62.36.54.67 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Several very pro-EFT edits have been made recently by anonymous users with the following IP addresses: 213.202.149.160, 60.231.4.76, 124.179.213.126 and 62.36.54.15. Between them they have only made contributions to the EFT page and Weight loss. Two of them have referred to works by Gillian Tarawhiti, an EFT practitioner. I encourage these user(s) to sign up for a wikipedia account rather than lurking in this manner. Famousdog 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A Form of Meditation

It seems to be a form of yoga/meditation. Even tapping a doll is like tapping ones fingers with the doll. This brings focus to ones body like in yoga/meditation mindfullness which relieves stress. I noticed an instructor - magnustapping - on YouTube (there's a credible reasearch source) who mentioned "it actually works if you just imagine tapping - as long as your attention is drawn to the right points". John Kabat's body scan meditation calls for focusing on sensations in different parts of body to achieve a meditative effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.174.117 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Recent POV of http://bmsa-int.com/ is that EFT is merely a form of brief multi sensory activation intervention, and challenge all sorts of alternative theories on how it works and why, and instead refer to postulate neurochemical explanations. What the dont do, is link the EFT intervention to the meridian energy explanation. See also http://www.energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=27

In this light, can we just call EFT a therpeutic intervention technique that intends to desensitize. Considering there is now a pretty solid scientic explanation next to the alternative explanation, lets separate the fact (what is done, how, tap where, say what) from POV (whys) in the explanation of what it is and how it works. There are several alternative and a pretty good western scientific explanation.

Kind Regards 82.173.212.103 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Special pleading

I removed the following example of special pleading by Siddha.powers:

However, supporters of the therapy argue that debating whether EFT's efficacy is grounded in western psychological understanding or the old school Chinese acupuncture meridian system is irrelevant at this point, and for two very clear reasons:

1) Research is still being conducted to determine how the body's physiological processes respond to EFT interventions.

2) We can still use EFT as an effective health intervention while scientists continue to explore and determine exactly how it works.

It is uncited, so counts as original research, the suggestion that "research still being conducted..." renders the debate over its mechanism of action "irrelevant" is totally imbecilic (how can research progress without debate?), the suggestion is basically made that acupuncture and therefore EFT are immune from the scientific method is the usual pseudoscientific b*llsh*t and counts as special pleading, the suggestion that "Westerners" can't understand the meridian system is frankly offensive (screw you, by the way), and using a "therapy" that isn't understood and the efficacy of which is not established (despite the implicit claim in point 2 that EFT is "effective") is kind of irresponsible, isn't it? Famousdog (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your objectivity has clearly been compromised as indicated by your little emotional outburst. How can you claim to be objective about EFT when it is clear that you favor one side of the story? More to the point, how is it possible to debate whether or not EFT's healing efficacy is based on eastern energy principles or western cognitive understanding when research is still being done to determine this? In the mean time, there is no justifiable reason why EFT should not be used other than the obvious fact that it will upset critics who are more concerned with promoting Newtonian physics than letting science do its job. Siddhi.powers (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that we can still use EFT as an effective health intervention is a joke. The science so far has shown it has no greater effect then placebo, as stated in the article. Just because some newage people are still 'researching it' doesnt mean that we should ignore this evidence. It is unproven, with no scientific evidence that it works, and while they try to find evidence that it works, we shouldnt assume it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.191 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lots of little bits of bad evidence, don't add up to good evidence. So far there isn't any evidence that EFT is even effective (despite the implicit assumptions obvious above in your comment about "EFT's healing efficacy"), so why waste time discussing why a treatment of unproven effectiveness is "effective" until it is of proven effectiveness? Finally, it would be irresponsible for healthcare providers (especially public-funded ones) to offer treatements while "research is still being done to determine this", as you seem to suggest. (and as a postscript: Newtonian Physics is old hat - It's Quantum now, darling. Keep up) Famousdog (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, claims, whether "extraordinary" or "super ordinary," only require scientific evidence; or was there another form of evidence that you were referring to? Also, while EFT's effectiveness shows strong empirical support, the mechanisms behind its functionality are still unclear and are currently receiving further investigation. That's the distinction that you missed (as indicated in your response above). You see, when empirical evidence for EFT appeared (which is often the case before a treatment becomes thoroughly understood), critics lashed out and said "Well if it works then it must be because of placebo", but then further scientific research has discovered that there are physiological distinctions between those test subjects given placebo treatments and those that were given actual EFT/acupuncture treatments, which means that further research must be done to establish this. Also, let me remind you that although they are known by different names, EFT and Chinese acupuncture share the same principles. In fact, Chinese acupuncture is what Dr. Gary Craig (founder of EFT) based the EFT system on. How you missed that is completely unknown to me, but the fact that you missed it indicates that either you did not do your research properly or you have an unconscious bias which prevented you from noticing it. It is therefore suggested that you go do a little more research into EFT (with particular emphasis on its origins and principles) before you decide to add anymore of your contributions to the EFT wiki article. Siddhi.powers (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Siddhi.powers, Famousdog you are dismissing peer-reviewed scientific studies completely and saying that there is no evidence that EFT is effective, wherby there clearly is, except that it is currently unknown why positive outcomes are achieved by the "tapping". You criticised the title of a study (Dismantling Study Aimed at Clarifying Why EFT is Efficacious: An Attempt to Begin to Identify EFT’s Specific Mechanism(s) of Action), because you claim that there is no evidence that EFT is effective. I can't think of any other better method other than peer-reviewed scientific research to try prove something. EFT and other Energy Psychology techniques are still advancing, in the past notable people have made statements that turned out to be completely wrong like Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal in 1895 said "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." or the Boston post in 1865 "Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value." or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." by Ken Olson... The list goes on, you get the idea. By the way, Siddhi.powers Gary Craig has no doctorate title... OpinionPerson (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How about if we keep it purely at the encyclopedia level without debating the topic itself, eh? EFT is not currently an accepted treatment modality and has not presented any plausible rationale on which improvements could be based - this article, therefore, must not present it as such. For the purposes of this article, it is completely irrelevant whether ten years from now every medical school will teach it and base research on its theories, only that currently they do not. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that EFT is currently not an accepted treatment modality among the established health care fraternity, nor is it currently being taught in medical school, but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is that the mechanisms behind EFT currently remain unknown. But just because they remain unknown does not mean that we should ignore any evidence in support of EFT. Bare in mind, many forms of treatment have been successfully employed in western medical history prior to our acquiring a fine-grain understanding of their psycho/neuro/bio/-physiological correlates. On the other hand, there appears to be both empirical and clinical scientific evidence accumulating in support of EFT. Now, I don't know about you, but I think this evidence deserves to be mentioned in the EFT article. After all, if we did not present all of the evidence, then we would be doing a disservice to the readers of these articles. What's your view on this? Siddhi.powers (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You say we shouldnt ignore evidence that it works simply because we dont know why it works. Well, The positive results are no greater then the placebo results, i'd say thats evidence that it DOESNT work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.191 (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Using those particular sources, which didn't seem to discuss EFT directly, would be an unacceptable synthesis that violates our policies on original research. If they don't mention EFT specifically, they shouldn't be cited here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake. As mentioned previously, EFT is based on the principles of acupuncture. In fact, the actual acupoints used in EFT were acquired directly from acupoints used in acupuncture. Given that this is the case, why discriminate against those studies which involve the application of the exact same principles as those used in EFT? Siddhi.powers (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I am not making a mistake. I have already justified my edits with reference to our policies and guidelines, you have not. You must comply with them if you are going to continue editing the page. And on a substantive level, acupuncture involves the use of thin needles jabbed into the skin. This does not. Which doesn't address the fact that different schools of acupuncture use different meridian points, that sham acupuncture works just as well as "real" acupuncture, and that acupuncture doesn't involve chanting about fears. If you wish to explore how EFT and acupuncture interact, conduct a series of studies and publish them in medical journals. A wikipedia editor can then integrate it into the page. That is the only way this information will be cited here, otherwise it is a synthesis made by an editor, which is not allowed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to counter this unsubstantiated rubbish from Siddha.powers and OpinionPerson that there is "stong" empirical evidence for EFT's effectiveness. There most certainly is not. The evidence is very weak indeed, has in some cases been funded by proponents of the technique and is frequently published in really quite dubious journals. The Journal of Clinical Psychology is a quite reputable journal, albeit a clinical rather than experimental one. The Wells study published in it was funded by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology and although improvements were noted in subjective reports, these were not backed up by any changes in physiological measures. The journal Counseling and Clinical Psychology seems to be a very erratically published journal, which has all but vanished from the internet. Since the Rowe study published therein suffered from a lack of control group, I suspect its low standards are responsible for its disappearing act! The Brattberg study suffered from problems associated with subject non-compliance, relied on subjective reports and was published in Integrative Medicine whose mission statement makes it clear that they are proponents of alternative medicine. The Church study was uncontrolled and published in The International Journal of Healing and Caring. The IJHC is a self-confessed "wholistic" (i.e. alternative) medicine journal whose mission statement bangs on about aligning mind, body and spirit. When a journal unconditionally accepts the existence of an immaterial spirit, it has departed entirely from any kind of scientific debate. The one exception to this excreable publication record is the Waite and Holder study reported in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. From its mission statement and publication record, this seems a reasonably reliable journal (albeit only established in 2002). However, Waite and Holder's findings were entirely negative and they concluded that EFT only worked as a placebo/distraction. To say, therefore, that "EFT's effectiveness shows strong empirical support" (Siddha.powers) or that I am "dismissing peer-reviewed scientific studies completely" is to misrepresent both the scientific standing of EFT and myself. I am "dismissing" several of these studies for very good reasons. Natch. Famousdog (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your pointing to specific policies and guidelines in an attempt to help resolve this issue, I would like to point out to you that the polices and guidelines you refer to do not apply here. The reason is that even though certain of the studies presented do not discuss EFT directly (as you correctly pointed out), this fact is overridden on the basis that EFT is a derivative of acupuncture and is based on the same fundamental principles as acupuncture. On that account, scientific evidence in support of acupuncture (especially those which test the same acupoints) can be used in support of EFT. Your argument, therefore, is rejected and will remain rejected until you're able to come up with something more substantiative to make a fundamental distinction between EFT and acupuncture. 'Fundamental' is the key word. If you cannot make such a distinction other than name and application, then I'm afraid you will just have to accept that studies in support of acupuncture are directly in support of EFT by virtue of the fact that EFT is based on and is derived from principles used in acupuncture. As for 'chanting about fears', this is not core to the practice; stimulating acupuncture points, however, is. Siddhi.powers (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Siddhi, the policies do apply, please review WP:SYNTH. You are incorrect and consensus is against you. What applies here are wikipedia's policies, not your interpretation of what the link is between the two. If you don't agree, take it up at WP:ORN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog, what are you still doing here? I thought I told you to stay in your kennel until you can rid yourself of your obvious bias. Your ranting does nothing to further resolution to this debate. Nor does it contribute anything of real import. Can someone please put this dog on a tight leash? (chuckle). Siddhi.powers (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It still violates WP:SYNTH. SYNTH violations are pretty serious, and being incivil as well. If you keep this up, you will end up getting blocked. The policies mentioned do apply here, and doubly so because this subject is covered by our WP:FRINGE polices. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It still violates the rules even though EFT is derived from acupuncture? Show me the rule that says that. Siddhi.powers (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are emotional freedom technique and acupuncture exactly the same thing? Does emotional freedom technique involve the use of thin needles jabbed into the skin? This page is not a coatrack for acupuncture, nor is it a place to engage in original research. Multiple editors agree, please accept it and move on. This is a very standard, very mainstream application of a core policy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Siddha.powers: your attempts to bait me aside, let me give you an example of why you are totally and utterly in the wrong about acupunture and its relevance to EFT:

• Defibrillation treats life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. It consists of delivering electrical energy to the affected heart with a device called a defibrillator. This depolarizes a critical mass of the heart muscle, terminates the arrhythmia, and allows normal rhythm to be reestablished in the heart. Still with me? Right. I've developed a therapy for life-threatening cardiac conditions called "hand-wavy jump start for the heart" (HJSH). One of my hands is placed over the left precordium while the other is placed on the back, behind the heart in the region between the scapula. I then commune with the spirits, call upon the grace of the angelic host and the patient is healed. Since I put my hands in the same places used for conventional electric difibrillation, scientific evidence in support of defibrillation can be used in support of HJSH. (to paraphrase your own statement above)

Can you see anything wrong here? I hope so. Finally, don't pin all your hopes on the evidence for acupuncture being better than that for EFT. It isn't. Read Simon Singh's book Trick or Treatment. Famousdog (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox (again)

Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 1

Alternative medicine
Claims	Tapping on meridian points on the body, derived from acupuncture, can release energy blockages that cause illness.
Related fields	Acupuncture, Acupressure
Year proposed	1993
Original proponents	Gary Craig

The Energy Psychology infobox refers to an article and a subdiscipline of Psychology that, it seems, doesn't exist. The infobox is therefore quite misleading and I suggest this one to replace it. Famousdog (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

EFT and Acupuncture - Is there a fundamental difference?

According to every source I have been able to obtain, the meridian points used in EFT are directly based on those used in Chinese acupuncture. Therefore, I see no logical reason why studies involving acupuncture cannot be used in support of EFT. Siddhi.powers (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1, the studies are about acupuncture, not EFT. Acupuncture involves needles. 2, There are no standard meridian points in acupuncture (not before the 1960s and the communist party (re)invention and the American import, but those are still highly variable). 3, You need a WP:RS linking them, and then that can be added - but only studies of EFT should be included anyway. 4, To answer the question in the title, yes there is a fundamental difference - yet they are similar in that neither has been shown to be effective (better than sham or placebo). Verbal chat 12:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the only thing anyone needs to point out. Read WP:SYNTH, and stop doing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Siddhi, using acupuncture as a justification for EFT doesn't help, since there is no proven existence of acupuncture points or meridians. Claims of their existence are just as pseudoscientific as EFT. Brangifer (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, 1) acupuncture is EFT, the difference is the method of stimulation. 2) whether acupoints are stimulated by needles, tapping, light, or sound, the same principles still apply. 3) Why only studies of EFT if acupuncture and EFT are based on the same core principles? 4) need more studies to determine this. Siddhi.powers (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BullR, it is if EFT is based on and uses acupoints derived from traditional Chinese acupuncture. Why is there so much resistance to understanding this point? Siddhi.powers (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been answered already - WP:SYNTH. The two are different things and should not be combined without an explicit discussion and research piece. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would seem to cut both ways

Regards this diff, if we're not including support of acupuncture without specific mention of EFT in the text itself, it seems only fair to not include criticisms as well. I would be in favour of removing the Mann quote from the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends, criticisms of the same meridians as used in EFT would be ok I think - so long as contextualised, but we'd have to verify the sources. EFT and acupuncture are different, I agree. I'll not restore that material if a different user removes it. Verbal chat 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is (only) relevant because EFT claims to use the same acupuncture points. That brings the subject to the table where it is fair game, so a comment on the points is fair enough. Anything beyond that would be improper, but we're not doing that. For example, if we were using a discreditation of acupuncture points, which is what the quote is doing, to discredit EFT as a whole, that would be wrong. We are simply documenting that one claim of EFT is based on a fictive idea. (In theory, other aspects of EFT might be legitimate.) If EFT didn't make any claims to use acupuncture points, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Brangifer (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BR, and I would have reverted OpinionPerson per my comment above. Verbal chat 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting abstracts

I have asked here for opinions on whether quoting abstracts is a copyright problem (like 98.248.33.198 I suspect it is). However, even if the quotes have no copyvio issue, the material needs to be rewritten for a more encyclopedic style, and the section needs to be drastically trimmed. I propose making no changes at the moment, but after giving others a chance to look at the article, I think the "Benefits" section, rather than being tagged, simply needs to be deleted as it is unambiguously unreferenced promotion, and the "Studies" section needs cleaning.

Probable copyvio, and clearly inappropriate anyway. I have reverted to a previous version and done some copyediting. Some improvements may need to be reincorporated. Verbal chat 09:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good result. BTW the {{COI}} tag was probably due to the involvement of Efttraining (talk · contribs) (the user name may suggest a conflict of interest). Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation of "Discrediting" Article

Regarding http://www.srmhp.org/0201/emotional-freedom-technique.html (currently footnote #4 in article): It's simply a finding that EFT may or may not be more effective than similar techniques -- it is actually a study finding that EFT is at least somewhat effective. "The results of the present study indicate that EFT was effective in decreasing fear in a nonclinical population." Note that it might be more effective with trained EFT instructors or in a clinical population. To discredit EFT with a generalized statement in the Wikipedia article by saying that there was a "negative finding" is inaccurate according to the article being cited. The Crisses (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not "simply a finding that EFT may or may not be more effective than similar techniques". It doesn't directly compare EFT to similar techniques. It shows quite clearly that the fundamental basis for EFT (tapping on "meridians") is sufficient but not necessary for relief from distress. Tapping on a doll or randomly chosen parts of the body works just as well. Such a finding is more parsimoniously explained by simple distraction. In addition, the subjects in the experiment were a "clinical group". They had self reported phobias. In conclusion, this sounds like a pretty "negative finding" to me! Famousdog (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to introduce myself to the Community on this page. I am a newcomer to editing, so please support me in how to do this in the proper way, and show a little patience if I make a mistake. My understanding is that the page should be like an Encyclopedia journal, that helps educate the public about what this topic is about, in a balanced manner, so that they can educate themselves more about the topic. I am a trained scientist, and have been involved in research in two different medical schools. I am also a licensed Psychologist. There are 3 areas that I would like to edit on this page: 1-The initial paragraph: It does not spend much time actually describing what EFT is. It seems that the criticism would be more appropriate in the criticism section, and more time actually defining EFT. Also, I am not sure, I would like someone's help, do the citations need to be from scientific journals? It seems some editors are insisting on peer reviewed scientific journals, but then other citations are used such as Skeptical Inquirer, which is an international magazine, but according to its own wikipedia page "not a formal scientific journal." Also the Guardian is cited. Could someone clue me in about what is a verifiable source for this page? Thank-you I also would like to delete the term "pseudoscientific" which is actually not a scientific term itself. Even on the page, "Pseudoscientific" is defined as a)lack of falsifiability b) reliance on anecdotal evidence c)aggressive promotion on the Internet. A)There are double blind peer reviewed research available B)this research adds to very copious amounts of anecdotal evidence C)If aggressive marketing were the definition of "pseudoscientific" half the pharmaceutical companies would have to fit under that billing <SMILE> 2-Concerns for serious methodological flaws in the Waite Holder study, beyond what has been discussed, that need to be addressed if it is quoted. 3-A desire to post a new research study, showing a significant effect on a serious psychological disturbance, namely PTSD, using EFT, in a randomized, controlled study, published in a peer-reviewed journal. (please excuse my wordiness, I'm new to this!)Myheartsingzz (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is always a bit tricky to evaluate sources for fringe topics such as this. The normal rules for medical-related articles are in WP:MEDRS, but if we go by those rules, there are probably no acceptable sources at all, and therefore no basis for an article. If we are going to deviate from the strict rules, most of us will be strongly in favor of clearly conveying the mainstream scientific attitude, which is undoubtedly that this is pure pseudoscience. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would spend some more time reading the Wikipedia policies, especially those regarding to fringe theories. Regarding the edits you want to make, there are two studies cited already that show positive effect of EFT (Wells et al and Rowe et al), as well as one that shows a negative result (Waite & Holder). Several others have been written by, published by, or funded by dubious sources (see the Studies section). What 'methodolgical flaws' with Waite & Holder would you like to point out? And what is the 'new research study' that you want to add? Famousdog (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed the sources. The Wells article is funded by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, so I've moved the ref to the section listing those studies funded by proponents. I've also been unable to find the journal Counseling & Clinical Psychology on the web. The publisher, Psychological Publishing has no reference to it and frankly looks dodgy as f*ck. I've tagged it as a potentially unreliable source. Famousdog (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reguarding its aggressive marketing on the internet... There are youtube videos describing where to press on your body while chanting to yourself, and this supposedly heals the flu, allergies, etc. Now, in the comments there is a woman who claims it helped her, but then her depression came back later. The person who posted the video refers her to a website where she can buy products such as books and cards that will work better, and more permanent. I've also noticed on several wikipedia articles (notably the Cat Allergies article) link to paysites that sell me books on how to cure my allergies using this technique. While i do believe EFT should by all means be on wikipedia, i think peddling your magic on every remotely related article is wrong, especily since this supposedly cures anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.191 (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Crackpot Science

Throughout this article, the notion that this is psudoscience is limited to 'skeptics'. For example, they say "Skeptics have asserted", when in fact it should read "scientists have observed". The proof that this is a sham is in the very same paragraph, after it is down-played.

Also, the 'believers' have been peddling their magic across wikipedia, adding links to websites selling books, cards, and lessons on how to cure their allergies, flu and depression by pushing buttons on their third-eye. I was reading about cat allergies, and when i came to the bottom of the wikipedia article i was refered to a website where i would have to pay $49.99 for a video on how to reset my body's energy so that it is compatible with my cat's energy field. Yes, apparently the FEL D1 allergen isnt actually the cause of the allergy, its just your energy field.

I'm sorry for the sarcasim, but its frustrating to read an article about allergies and be referred to a psudoscience paysite. Psudoscience indeed has its place in wikipedia, but it should be confined to the relevent pages, and not peddled across any remotely related article as a cure, unless they have scientifically proven evidence to support their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.191 (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but WP is editable by everybody. If you don't want promotional links on articles. Just remove them. You are well within your rights to do so according to WP:PROMOTION. Those links shouldn't be there in the first place and if some editor insists on replacing them or reverting your edits, then they are in breach of WP guidelines and can be disciplined. (oh, and add new sections to the BOTTOM of a talk page, not the top ;-) Famousdog (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E-Mail from Dawson Church

Posted by OpinionPerson:

"Dear OpinionPerson,

I am astonished at the bias apparent in the Wikipedia article. For a start, it simply ignores about 3/4 of the research on EFT presented or published, which is freely available by checking the research page on www.emofree.com and other places.

This editor has posted a derogatory comment about a journal, for which he apparently has the time, while apparently not having the time to spend the two minutes it takes to verify that Counseling and Clinical Psychology changed its name to Psychology Journal about 2 years ago, and continues under the same distinguished editorial board.

The editor notes that the Wells study was funded by ACEP, and that other studies are published by integrative medicine journals, implying that these facts render the studies suspect. This is a double standard; Wikipedia does not describe the funders or journal themes of other treatments; see, for example the entries on "chemotherapy" or "cognitive behavioral therapy"; there are many other examples.

What the editors do not do is discuss the actual results of the EFT studies.

The sources Wikipedia does cite are critical articles in the Guardian and Skeptical Enquirer. Neither of these are peer-reviewed scholarly publications, and both articles are very out of date.

Wikipedia, for some reason, seems to have appointed someone to write this, and many of the other CAM entries, who has no clinical background in the methods being described, and limited interest or ability in reading, understanding, and reporting on research. Even odder, they seem to have picked a hostile and biased critic, rather like asking the Pope to write the article on "abortion."

I am reminded of Nicholas Taleb's comment in "The Black Swan" that such critics are paying you the ultimate compliment. Without the intellectual tools to discuss your research (which would make a genuine contribution to improving the field) they instead attack peripheral issues.

While many of the articles in Wikipedia are fair and accurate (I particularly admire the history and hard science articles), articles like the EFT one have led to Wikipedia being used in some university courses as required reading for students, in order to teach them to spot bias and inaccuracy.

Wikipedia has a stated goal of having the articles reflect a neutral point of view, and I hope that at some point they clean up the EFT article, and the other CAM articles, to reflect this goal.

All the best,

Dawson Church, PhD"

Posted by OpinionPerson (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope you had Church's permission to reproduce personal correspondence. I'll assume you did. Secondly, since Church starts his email with a personal attack on me, I'll answer his charges.

1) I've ignored 3/4 of the research on EFT. Care to provide citations that corroborate this and adhere to WP:MEDRS? I'm sure that myself and the other editors here can integrate them into the article.

2) Disparaging remarks about JCCP. The journal Counseling and Clinical Psychology is not listed in Thomson's Journal Citation Reports, neither is its succesor, Psychology Journal. Neither is listed on PubMed. I cannot find any back issues online or in my University Library (which has a pretty complete collection of Psychology journals). If pointing this out is derogatory, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

3) The funding issue and where pro-EFT papers are published reflects a double-standard. I'm afraid extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs - and higher than normal standards perhaps. The pro-EFT author/funding body/journal triangle does not inspire confidence on my part. Has any research into EFT been funded by a neutral body like the ESRC or NIH? Has any research with a pro-EFT conclusion made it into a journal that doesn't specialise in (and in some cases, promote) alt-med?

4) Non-discussion of results. Actually, I made many edits to this article previously attempting to discuss the findings of these papers, because I believe they speak for themselves: in that they are unimpressive, underwhelming or outright discrediting of EFT. Other editors felt that the article was providing undue weight to flakey research and the detail of the studies was removed. Tough gig.

5) Journalistic sources. You have a point. But these are freely available, widely read sources of information on a fringe topic, so I'd recommend they stay.

6) CONSPIRACY!!!! This is your most outrageous point. Wikipedia is not mean and nasty to alt-med topics because it is run by a secret cabal of anti-CAM pro-Pharma editors. It has high standards because it is edited (and editable) BY EVERYBODY. Fringe viewpoints and dodgy research do not fare well in such an environment. No-one is "appointed" to write ANYTHING. Stop crying wolf.

7) I'm thick. That's basically what you're saying isn't it? Well, I've demolished the previous 6 points, so I think I'm equipped with the the "intellectual tools" to respond to YOUR personal attacks on ME.

8) WP is so biased, universities use it to teach students to spot bias. Interesting. I work in a university and I don't know anyone who does this. Anyway, how does that relate to EFT being anything other than total pseudoscience and magical thinking??? Stop attacking WP because you can't defend your viewpoint succesfully in this environment.

9) WP articles should have a neutral POV. True. And this one does. Good thing, eh?

Famousdog (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did have Dawson Church's permission to publish his E-Mail. 2)I am sure that Dawson will be able to provide a reliable online or offline source documenting the existence of the JCCP/Psychology Journal and so the research paper it has published. 6)"No-one is "appointed" to write ANYTHING.", I'm not sure, but I guess Dawson is referring to the "WikiProject Rational Skepticism". 8) Well, I don't think that he meant ALL universities, that you work in A university does not mean that you know what is going on in ALL universities across the world. OpinionPerson (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Dawson Church:

"Hi ...,

I'll respond, point by point. Please feel free to post:

1) Firstly, I hope you had Church's permission to reproduce personal correspondence. I'll assume you did. Secondly, since Church starts his email with a personal attack on me, I'll answer his charges. 1) I've ignored 3/4 of the research on EFT. Care to provide citations that corroborate this and adhere to WP:MEDRS? I'm sure that myself and the other editors here can integrate them into the article.

• Yes, if he clicks on the research page on emofree.com, the abstracts and in some cases where copyright permits, the whole papers, are there.

2) Disparaging remarks about JCCP. The journal Counseling and Clinical Psychology is not listed in Thomson's Journal Citation Reports, neither is its succesor, Psychology Journal. Neither is listed on PubMed. I cannot find any back issues online or in my University Library (which has a pretty complete collection of Psychology journals). If pointing this out is derogatory, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

• It requires nothing more than a click on the j's home page, http://psychologicalpublishing.com

3) The funding issue and where pro-EFT papers are published reflects a double-standard. I'm afraid extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs - and higher than normal standards perhaps. The pro-EFT author/funding body/journal triangle does not inspire confidence on my part. Has any research into EFT been funded by a neutral body like the ESRC or NIH? Has any research with a pro-EFT conclusion made it into a journal that doesn't specialise in (and in some cases, promote) alt-med?

• Yes, but you have to READ the research to find this out. An author qualified to write a Wikipedia article will do so.

4) Non-discussion of results. Actually, I made many edits to this article previously attempting to discuss the findings of these papers, because I believe they speak for themselves: in that they are unimpressive, underwhelming or outright discrediting of EFT. Other editors felt that the article was providing undue weight to flakey research and the detail of the studies was removed. Tough gig.

• It is odd to refer to a statistically significant result as unimpressive. It is unusual to refer to a randomized controlled design, or a within-subjects time series trial, as unimpressive. It is odd to be unimpressed by research that makes it all the way through the peer review process, which is brutal. These oddities make me wonder if this commentator has actually gone through peer review to get even a single paper published. Researchers, and responsible commentators such as science journalists, carefully note the degree of statistical significance, the experimental design, the limitations, and the results obtained. An unbiased rewrite of the article will do the same.

5) Journalistic sources. You have a point. But these are freely available, widely read sources of information on a fringe topic, so I'd recommend they stay.

• The Wikipedia article would benefit from a properly written critical section on the problems in energy psychology research. Good ones are to be found in several peer-reviewed sources: Feinstein's paper in the the APA journal Psychotherapy in 2008, also his "Controversies in Energy Psychology" paper in EP journal in 2009, and Baker, Carrington and Putilin's 2008 paper in Psychology J. It is through thoughtful informed criticism such as this that the field advances.

6) CONSPIRACY!!!! This is your most outrageous point. Wikipedia is not mean and nasty to alt-med topics because it is run by a secret cabal of anti-CAM pro-Pharma editors. It has high standards because it is edited (and editable) BY EVERYBODY. Fringe viewpoints and dodgy research do not fare well in such an environment. No-one is "appointed" to write ANYTHING. Stop crying wolf.

• Then I recommend that a writer with in-depth academic, clinical and research experience of EFT write the article. Feinstein, Gallo, and Baker are all well-qualified, as you will see from their papers in peer-reviewed publications.

7) I'm thick. That's basically what you're saying isn't it? Well, I've demolished the previous 6 points, so I think I'm equipped with the the "intellectual tools" to respond to YOUR personal attacks on ME. 8) WP is so biased, universities use it to teach students to spot bias. Interesting. I work in a university and I don't know anyone who does this. Anyway, how does that relate to EFT being anything other than total pseudoscience and magical thinking??? Stop attacking WP because you can't defend your viewpoint succesfully in this environment. 9) WP articles should have a neutral POV. True. And this one does. Good thing, eh? Famousdog (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Take a look at the entries for other therapies, such as Gestalt Therapy, Psychodrama, Behavior Therapy, etc, and you quickly note the difference between a well-written and objective article, and a biased and ill-informed one.
  I respond to many requests from clinicians and researchers for information about EFT every month. This week, it was a UNICEF doctor in Kosovo, and then a Canadian colonel who commands a peacekeeping contingent. They read my study in the Dec issue of Traumatology. They were, of course, unable to get any useful information from Wikipedia. So they emailed me for that information. Wikipedia could perform a real public service by providing an article on EFT written to the same standards as those for other therapeutic approaches.
  ..." Dawson

Posted by OpinionPerson (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless article

I came to this article hoping to find some basic information on EFT, like how it (allegedly) works, how it's done, some useful links, and so forth. All this article seems to contain, however, is what amounts to screaming "EFT IS NOT REAL! EFT IS NOT EFFECTIVE!" as if the whole page was written by someone with some kind of vendetta against it or something. This is not informative. Nothing wrong with having a criticism section, of course, but it would have been far more helpful for this page to contain more than just that. --75.175.35.72 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's OK to have a criticism section but this article barely says anything about EFT and just talks about criticism. (154.5.171.91 talk)

I agree. It's like it's been written by someone who has something to loose because of EFT.. 82.39.48.187 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So DO SOMETHING about it, if you're all soooo unhappy with the article as it stands, rather than bitching and whining here. That's how Wikipedia works, you know? Famousdog (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree also, this is not even an article, but just a joke. There is NOTHING AT ALL about the EFT, just criticism - and the reader has no idea why and what is being criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.124.163 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've expanded article to explain what it is, how it works, point out other therapies with a similar theoretical basis, and to add some details to the criticism, and I hope this helps to address this obviously very valid concern. User:Urbanfunky 02:01, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

(Old) Expanded Article

EFT has been tested quite a number of times, and regardless of how it works, it clearly does work better than a placebo or no-treatment group. It even works well with long-term and treatment-resistant PTSD and anxiety disorders where its efficacy can hardly be considered accidental.

I want to have a rigorously referenced, neutral article as much as the next person. That said, please do not simply revert to the previous stub version of the page. Simply make edits to add references and improve the article.

If you have issues with the current page, please list them here. I'll post some links of websites that have lots of references of studies I've read on EFT that we can add to the article.

Again, I want to provide a rigorous and fair article, for a practice that has attracted considerable interest and -- believe it or not -- actually performs very well in published studies. The fact that the current explanation of the efficacy involves energy or that it's outside of your worldview may make EFT's existence irritating, but it doesn't change the results of the studies. So, please simply allow a succinct description, and focus your attention on including well-referenced science.

How EFT works does not need to be the focus of the article, or the discussion page. Not understanding why it works neither disproves its effectiveness nor ultimately really matters. A simple explanation of how to actually try it would be an equally reasonable use of the space.

Note that I've left in all the pseudoscience arguments, which I don't agree with. They seem to be based simply on the idea that if the practice involves energies meridians it must be pseudoscience, even if you test it in studies the exact same way as testing the effects of Prozac. Many drugs we have no idea how they work.

Remember that we have a very weak theoretical basis for understanding gravitation, of all things; however, nobody disputes that gravitation is real, or that gravity deserves an article that does more than criticize the current state of gravitational physics research.

User:Urbanfunky 01:55, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't even taken a look at the article yet in its new form, but will just respond to a part of your comment:

• "Not understanding why it works neither disproves its effectiveness nor ultimately really matters."

Very true, at least the first part. Effectiveness can exist without an explanation of "why". EBM uses a number of such methods, and they are still evidence-based. I disagree that it doesn't "really matter", but in this connection you are correct. We would still seek to find out "why" and "how", so it does "matter", but it's not decisive for the question of efficacy, which is your point. You're right there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Critique of expanded article

Whew! There are lots of changes which need to be looked at carefully. I compared the current version to a previous version before Urbanfunky and his IPs (BTW, thanks for creating an account) made all these changes. I commend Urbanfunky for making clear comments and expressing concerns here, and also for making an attempt to be bold. That's the way Wikipedia works! Pretty cool.

I note that the original critical parts have been reframed with added debunking-type comments, but without sourcing. This is a violation of synthesis. You can't just do that.

There is a whole lot of explanatory text added in the beginning parts, before the criticisms, and a good article needs that. Unfortunately much of it is unsourced and uses promotional, peacock language. When it is sourced, it is sourced to EFT's own, promotional website. Even when it refers to what is claimed to be positive research in peer-reviewed journals (I don't know), the ref is still to the website. That won't do. Each claim needs its own reference that points directly to the research. (If that's not possible for some reason, then we'll have to seek a workaround method.)

There's lots of synthesis and OR in this and I fear it needs lots of work. If it were only a little bit I'd just tag it and see if it could be improved, but it violates too many policies and guidelines to allow it to stand as is, but I believe it can be improved and made into a workable improvement, so I'm going to move it to this talk page in its own section. Then I'm going to tag the problematic parts and let others seek to meet and resolve those concerns. When we have a consensus that it's good enough, it can be installed as a newer and more glorious article, and that's what we would all like to see.

Portions of the content are governed by our MEDRS guideline, and that content must have impeccable, secondary sourcing. This refers to any biomedical content or claims. Opinions and primary research won't do. We prefer secondary sources and reviews. Other parts "only" require ordinary RS, which, for opinions about EFT, can be non-peer reviewed sources, whether criticism or claims made on the website. They must still be RS, so smaller blogs that aren't noteworthy for editorial control, letters to the editor, and discussion forum comments won't do. Because this is a controversial fringe subject (because of its foundation in energy medicine, a pseudoscience topic), it is also governed by our WP:FRINGE guideline and the Pseudoscience ArbCom decisions. (I'll place template at the top of this page which has lots of information and links.) I know this may be overwhelming for a new editor, and even for some experienced ones, but that's the way it is. If it were a noncontroversial mainstream subject it would be easier. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the newer parts are now moved to below for improvement. I have added tags and notes. Now see how you can improve it. I'm willing to help, but the process of transforming a promotional brochure into an NPOV article is a learning process, so I'd like you to take the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

POV Tag

This article is in need of POV clean up for the following reasons:

• WP:NPOV prefers criticism to be mixed into appropriate sections of the text rather than creating a special subsection
• Text devoted to criticism comprises more than 50% of the entire article thereby violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV
• The article contains phrases and wording that creates POV for example, the word "claims" which is given emphasis by its location in the Infobox and which violates WP:CLAIM

I would be happy to discuss these issue one by one and address these issues in a collaborative so that the POV tag can be removed. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Best Wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. Sections named Criticism can often be renamed Critical reception or simply Reception, either of which would work for me here. Even better would be a History section including this material. Reworking thusly would likely address the weight concerns, though since this is in Category:Pseudoscience the article will necessarily present the topic as generally rejected. Part of explaining an idea is presenting it in proper context.

I do not think that the conditions at the WP:CLAIM guideline obtain for the infobox, as the field is being used merely to provide a quick explanation of the practice. I do not see any connotation of but these claims are wrong, only clear attribution of the material presented there. Theory is a loaded term, proposition does not sound right, idea is pretty nonspecific, and statement of purpose even more so. Summary might work, if someone wants to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox alternative medicine so the field can be renamed instead of discarded. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm confused. Firstly, criticism is mixed into appropriate sections of the text and occupies a special section so I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Secondly, I can't find any reference to a clause that suggests that WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV are violated by the fact that "text devoted to criticism comprises more than 50% of the entire article." In fact, WP:UNDUE states that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Suggesting that, if most of the material in reliable sources regarding EFT is critical (I'm not saying that it is, or isn't, just posing a hypothetical), then the article should be, on the whole, critical. But giving you the benefit of the doubt on this, your "50%" claim could be easily circumvented by having a slightly longer description of the process of EFT. A week or so ago, this was the case and it was seriously reduced in length by WLU. I am happy for this material to be returned to the article and sourced to the EFT Manual (in fact I thought that WLU's cutting of this was unecessary. However, I do not see this as mandated by any WP rule and as such I think the POV tag needs removed. Famousdog (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "claims" can be problematic in many articles because it carries an insinuation that others don't agree with the claimant's position - like a form of weasel wording. However, in this case it's perfectly reasonable; EFT supporters claim that EFT does X; others disagree. That's compatible with WP:CLAIM - it doesn't completely remove the word from our dictionary. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider it undue weight to have a "lavish", detailed description of the "technique" when immediately before (lead) and after (body section) it states that the "technique" could be replaced with nearly anything and be just as effective. It's like having a lengthy description of a perpetual motion machine, followed by a statement saying it doesn't work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a "lavish" increase in the description of the method itself. In fact, providing a more complete description is probably the best way to demonstrate to the reader that this is bullsh*t! If you swathe these ideas in secrecy and just say "it's bullsh*t! it's bullsh*t!" It will simply confirm their prejudices about the conspiratorial and EVIL nature of evidence-based medicine and they'll simply go and buy Gary Craig's book. Famousdog (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of the interpretations of policy that have been brought forward in this thread, but since there seems to be several editors already in the discussion, I am going to bow out and work on other projects and let the editors who are active here discuss the concerns I have described above and then gain consensus and make changes as appropriate. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, the lengthier and more detailed the description, the more it seems like there is something meaningful and important happening. In order to understand how improbable this approach is, you have to know that acupuncture points and meridians have no basis in anatomy or biology and their existence is assumed by most people with only a passing familiarity with acupuncture. Plus, the more detail there is, the closer is to being a how to manual. I trust your intentions and experience to expand it in a reasonable way, so if you think there is something important missing I'm open to seeing what you add. I'm assuming you don't want to go back to the previous amount of content, but I could probably live with something in between. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)