Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 3
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I have reverted a very large (+8,030 bytes) change by X-mass and would like to hear their reasoning here. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with the content of the change by doing so, but seeking to ensure that a consensus version is preserved (or arrived at). -- Brangifer (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
lets take the origonal opening paragraph
"Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a psychotherapeutic alternative medicine tool based on a theory that negative emotions are caused by disturbances in the body's energy field and that tapping on the meridians while thinking of a negative emotion alters the body's energy field, restoring it to "balance." There are two studies which appear to show positive outcomes from use of the techniques, with other studies emerging. Critics have described the theory behind EFT as pseudoscientific and have suggested that any utility stems from its more traditional cognitive components, such as distraction from negative thoughts, rather than from manipulation of "energy meridians"."
so it says that there are both postive and negtive studies about the field, it cites reseach into the field and also cites the challehges to those idea
the current opening paragraph says this
"Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a form of counseling intervention that draws on various theories of alternative medicine including acupuncture, neuro-linguistic programming and Thought Field Therapy. During an EFT session, the client will focus on a specific issue while tapping on so-called "end points of the body's energy meridians".[1]
There is no plausible mechanism to explain how EFT could work and the specifics of EFT have been described as unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific.[3] There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist.[4] A controlled study of EFT suggested that its benefits were due to placebo effects, desensitization and distraction rather than the mechanisms proposed by its practitioners.[5]"
so despit ther being two studies that suggest their may be a plausable explanation this has been ignored and replaced with a unilateral and single voiced attack on the subject with the line "There is no plausible mechanism to explain how EFT could work" the whole article is shaped in that vein.
Further one there is the ongoing attack which says that all of this can be put down to the palcebo effect, despite the fact that if you actually look at the research on placebo effect the chocrane meat-analysis shows that the placebo effect is highly variable and simply does not exist in a wide area of cases. YET the singular attack on alternative therapies is that they can be explained by the placebo effect. Their is a claim that it is untestable, which actually is highly testable take a hundred and fifty give fifty of them CBT, give fifty of them of them CBT with random prods in the arm and fifty of them with CBT plus EFT - compare the results after 10 sessions. If you want to blind the process thats doable, double blind pretty much impossible.
My issue is with balance of the article the origonal piece recognised that their were many schood of thought and avarierty of hypothesis, te currrent artical projects one very sided view and claims itself to be the truth based on references from its school of thought. I would like see balance not partiality in wikipedia X-mass (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it was sourced to Review of General Psychology. While published by the APA, they claim on their site "Manuscripts are of particular interest to Review of General Psychology when they provide a provocative challenge to customary or prevailing views; intellectual risk-taking is encouraged." Based on that I find the source lacking as WP isn't supposed to be on the cutting edge, but rather is supposed to represent mainstream views. Further, the author himself David Feinstein PhD seems to be heavily involved with so-called "energy medicine," a WP:FRINGE theory. The source itself may not have actually been published yet, as it mentions prepublication on the eftuniverse.com site (which will almost always be unreliable, btw). Lastly, the journal has a low impact factor of only 1.417. SÆdontalk 00:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It does appear that the article, while available from the author, has not yet been published in Review of General Psychology. Perhaps that's reason enough to exclude the article for now. However, when/if published, I would find the rationale for exclusion unreasonable, insofar as the article in question (a 2012 review of 50 research studies) seems to have a scope that renders it far more significant than the one research article (a single 2003 study) currently being cited in the WP article. Rhwentworth (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It strikes me that the NPOV of this article could be improved:
First, it needs more on what EFT is and what the (alleged) benefits are. At present it launches into criticisms and evidence against so quickly, then anybody seeking information about what it actually is doesn't find that info.
Second, the NPOV would suggest that it includes both evidence for an evidence against. At present most of the evidence in the article is evidence against, and even where it mentions a favourable study, the study is instantly dismissed.
How about adopting a structure similar to the NLP page? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming) So something along these lines?
1) History and founding 2) Techniques and practices 3) Applications 4) Scientific evaluation 4.1) Empirical validity 4.2) Scientific criticism
A structure like this would allow readers to understand what EFT is all about before getting into the arguments about evidence. It also gives space for both sides of the argument?
IanH2 (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you, your explanations are helpful. Reading WP:NPOV, it seems the key bit is this
"Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
... and the key question is whether EFT fits into the "generally considered pseudoscience" category or the "questionable science" category? The EFT article at the moment dismisses EFT so emphatically that this would be appropriate only if it fell into the first category not the second.
I agree that research studies are the best way to resolve this - and it looks like there's been a lot of talk on these pages already about this. You state "Almost all the RSs that mention EFT are negative", which is not my understanding. A couple of questions:
- One, what about this study: http://www.energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=203? The website says it was published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. The measured biochemical change would imply there's a bit more going on than pure suggestion and the placebo effect.
- Second, you say "almost all the RSs that mention EFT are negative". In your view, which are the most significant negative studies?
IanH2 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice that User:Famousdog has reverted my edits that added more information on existing meta-reviews, including the Feinstein review as well as another critique of the Feinstein review. Famousdog's edit summary says "Sorry, Feinstein has a COI and this has been demonstrated in RSs. There is little point citing his work. It is clearly biased." In fact, my edits clearly stated Feinstein's conflict of interest, and added a reference for an additional critical review by Thyer and Pignotti.
Famousdog says that Feinstein's work "is clearly biased." While Feinstein's conflict of interest is a matter of record (already noted in the article), whether or not this biases his results is a matter of judgment that I think is beyond the scope of Wikipedia editors. I read through the conflict of interest (medicine) page on Wikipedia, and it doesn't mention the conflict of interest of sources, only that of editors. The MEDRS page has guidelines, but these guidelines refer to the journal where the paper was published, and the type of study (whether it's a primary study or a meta-study).
Feinstein's paper was published in the same APA journal as the critical reviews, and so was his response. To me, it seems that this journal meets the criteria of MEDRS. Further, both the original paper and the reviews were meta-studies of controlled trials of EFT. Thus, I submit that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the guidelines indicate a similar treatment of Feinstein's meta-review and McCaslin's critique. If one is includable, so is the other.
Moreover, I think that McCaslin's critical review doesn't make sense outside of the context of mentioning Feinstein's original review, because it's primarily structured as a critique of Feinstein's review, not as a stand-alone assessment of EFT.
In light of this, I intend to revert the edits back assuming no further objections are raised in the next few days. Vipul (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A 2008 review by Feinstein suggested that existing research on EFT sufficed to qualify it as a "probably efficacious" treatment based on the standards of the American Psychological Association.[7]A 2009 review by McCaslin critiqued Feinstein's review and found "methodological flaws" in the studies cited by Feinstein that reported successes for EFT and the related Tapas Acupressure Technique. The review also criticized Feinstein for omitting the Waite and Holder study. The review concluded that positive results may be "attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation."[8] Another review by Thyer and Pignotti was similarly critical of Feinstein's review.[9] Feinstein, who has practiced and written books about EFT, was also criticised by the reviewers for not disclosing his conflict of interest. Feinstein responded to both critiques in the same journal issue.[10]
Vipul (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Half of the references are to non-peer-reviewed skeptical articles or mainstream press articles, write-ups and editorial pieces including a piece in The Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic's Dictionary, and The Guardian. The Skeptical Inquirer piece is also mentioned in the research section even though I think it doesn't meet MEDRS criteria. I think this is a very high percentage for a topic where references should ostensibly be to reliable medical sources or to sources that describe or demonstrate a broad professional or popular consensus. I'm not arguing for removal of the links, but I think that they should be removed from the introduction and the "Research" section and may be put in a separate section on "Skeptic's responses."Vipul (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
For what little it's worth: I don't know anything about EFT and have no thoughts or feelings about it one way or another. I've only seen a couple videos on YT. I have also never spoken on or edited a WP article. My curiosity about EFT brought me to this article and on first read it comes off negatively biased. I agree with IanH2 that the format he suggested would be the best presentation of what little factual information there appears to be about EFT. After reading the entire talk page, it appears that would be the only fair way to present both sides of the argument of validity. In any case I thought it might be useful to hear from an outsider that the article doesn't read neutral at all. 24.22.34.98 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an edit that summarizes my complaints with this article.
The current article does not allow for the supportive evidence to be included, and instead issues a derogatory, blanket condemnation. My issue is with the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques
vs. the edits I attempted to make previously, which all involve high quality reviews: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533282956&oldid=533180950
If you look across articles like this, you will see a similar pattern, of ideologues of a persuasion against this content banding together and censoring information they don't like. I believe that pseudoskepticism has hijacked this, and related pages.
Opposition as been made that one of the people who wrote one of the reviews, which are published in the American Psychological Association's journals, is an "advocate", as if that is supposed to dismiss his publications. In the wikipedia policy covering "righting great wrongs", it is noted that one articles have been published in mainstream journals advancing a controversial position, those articles warrant inclusion. Two reviews showing efficacy have been published in mainstream journals. My sources are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, and supersede the dismissive articles that are not in peer-reviewed journals - these articles being from Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine, in quality. Additionally, high quality reviews, like Cochrane reviews, demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture, which the treatment is based on. To me, the failure to include them is unwarranted, and this is just another example of a group of ideologues getting together using bully tactics, engaging in censorship.Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article needs to be payed for, but it can be read here: innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/mechanisms.pdfIt mentions EFT as a modality being evaluated with relevant statements and references on pp. 4, 5, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, & 26.
The whole framework of procedures is mentioned (p. 5) as "a common though unconventional procedure that is appearing in a variety of clinical formats, with "Thought Field Therapy" (TFT), the "Tapas Acupressure Technique" (TAT), and the "Emotional Freedom Techniques" (EFT) being among the most widely practiced." Hence this review is applicable for all of those entries.Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."[2]"
I don't know what article improvement this long post is supposed to be in support of, and absent any explanation, WP:NOTAFORUM seems relevant. Zad68
04:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of that is to change this article back to this revision: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=532708739&oldid=532703880Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)We are citing a number of sources to challenge and/or defend the existence of acupuncture points, meridians, etc. This work is much better left to the respective pages on those topics. EFT does not involve acupuncture per se. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted a massive change that deleted sources, apparently without concensus. The inserted source did appear to have some credibility, but it is very recent, only published last month. Wikipedia has wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait to see if it holds up to the considered evaluation of other experts. In the near term, it should at most supplement existing sources, not supplant them. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand the omission of PRnewswire. The other sources are entirely in line with wikipedia's Right Great Wrongs and WP:MEDRS policy.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
These are the two main citations, and they fit WP:MEDRS - http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021171, http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0028602These are the other relevant citations, and they fit MEDRS: - http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's take them one at a time. Feinstein (2010) is a review article and has been cited a moderate number of times. You're using this to support the statement "efficacy for this modality". What was the efficacy? How was it measured? What was the modality? Do you have a copy of this paper? GaramondLethe 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)The papers need to be purchased, but copies of both are located here: http://innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/mechanisms.pdf, http://innersource.net/ep/images/stories/downloads/Acupoint_Stimulation_Research_Review.pdfPottinger's cats (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
04:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Zad68
05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Getting back to the peer-reviewed literature.... I have in hand (well, onscreen) Pignotti & Thyer's Some comments on "Energy Psychology... that lists the several negative studies Feinstein neglected to mention. I think this (rather than my long editorial below) is sufficient to prevent mentioning of Feinstein's work here (unless both are mentioned together). I'm happy to email a pdf to whomever would like a copy. I'll try adding the sham studies tomorrow, but with the paper deadlines that might get pushed back a day. GaramondLethe 09:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel like the work being done on this article is somewhat derailed by the argument over whether or not EFT "works", and various editors' needs to align themselves around that question and make edits accordingly. I suppose that has its place. But currently, we are missing some very basic elements on the page. Who uses this practice? Under what circumstances? Is it commercial or not? What is it supposed to treat? What are the basic protocols and ontologies involved? I think it is premature to start debunking and/or defending something until the article has given a decent description of what it is we're talking about. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
asked why I rolled my eyes when I saw and EFT experiment on basketball free throws in a review article. A complete answer would take an essay (and I may work this up into essay form). Note: This section is only tangentially related to the article and will be drawn from my experience, expertise and opinion. As such none of this information is intended to be used in determining what should be in the article. For amusement purposes only.
I make my living as a scientist, which still seems a strange thing to say after ten years of grad school and a three-year postdoc. I also have a serious interest in philosophy of science and how it informs pseudoscience, pathological science and the theories of crackpots. I also have a very practical interest in the anatomy and taxonomy of just-plain-bad science, both as a peer-reviewer and as someone whose results are peer-reviewed by others.
Rather than explain my reaction to what I thought the paper would be based on the summary I'm going to jump ahead and discuss the paper itself. This is very close to the process I use when I do anonymous peer review for scientific submissions. Here is the citation:
and the url:
Let's start with the journal. The ResearchGate description does not provide an impact factor for this journal. This is a very bad sign: this tells me that nobody is citing what this journal is publishing and, as (most) scientists aren't stupid, nobody is going to publish good work here because no one will read it.
The explanation as to why this is is easy enough. This journal publishes...
There are journals devoted to motor control and there are journals devoted to philosophy, and if you have a good piece of research in either motor control or philosophy you're not going to send it to a journal that publishes both. If you're wondering how they stay in business, publishing a paper there costs you $800. That's not out of line for open-access publishing, but note the economic hole they're in: if they aren't getting good manuscripts and they start rejecting bad manuscripts, they'll fold.
Moving on to the article proper: was this paper bad enough to deserve this journal?
The subjects are college basketball players. After warming up and shooting ten free throws they were taken individually into a room for 15 minutes and were either given EFT or "received an inspirational reading of tips and techniques from a former college basketball coach, Rick Pitino". Both groups then performed another ten free throws. The EFT group improved their accuracy by 20.8%. The control group declined by 16.6%.
I'd like you to stop a minute and think about those results and how they were obtained. Do you buy it?
Here's what comes to my mind.
1) If EFT really did improve free throw performance by even 5%, every serious basketball player in American from junior high school on up would be using it. A real 20% increase would have a Nobel prize attached.
2) Note that the initial shots that progress was measured against occurred first. Could the additional practice explain the effect? To determine this we would have to had a control group that had a similar experience to the EFT group. Instead, the control group was probably bored to tears and massively demotivated.
3) Instead, if the control group had had a highly personal, supportive conversation with an attentive, caring stranger and performed some meaningless activities, and the EFT group still did better, then maybe we might have something.
4) Alternatively, would the control group have done even worse if they hadn't been read to for 15 minutes? I doubt it.
5) Why shoot only ten free throws? Why not fifty? Why not a hundred and fifty and stagger when the treatment was given, looking at the 20 shots before and after the treatment to judge the effect?
I think we can say with confidence that the only thing we learned from this study is not to read Rick Pitino's books to your b-ball players during halftime.
Frankly, a high school student after finishing a semester of psychology class could have come up with a better experimental design. I can believe the authors were sincere and either misguided or undertrained. I have a much harder time thinking up an excuse for the (unpaid) reviewers. This paper shouldn't have been published, period.
Now let's return to the review article that cited this paper. That author put all of the reviewed papers into tiers, and the highest tier was peer-reviewed, randomized studies. This paper was in that tier. In this field, this paper is the best evidence.
A final note to Pottinger's cats: I want to make sure to tell you that you did everything right. You found a peer-reviewed article that reviewed other peer-review articles and had been cited since it had been published. If you haven't spent a significant portion of your adult life in graduate school that's all I can expect you to do.
And a final note to Zad68
: Free throws are notoriously hard to study, as is any activity that combines attention, discipline, physical strength and hand-eye coordination. And at the end of that complicated process you end up with a binary variable. As experiments go it's sexy and will draw a headline, but there are just so many potential confounding variables there that you'd need a season-long study for an entire league to control for them. And so when I saw they were reporting an improvement, I just laughed.
To anyone who is still reading, thanks.
GaramondLethe 07:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll just give a case history - I used EFT to cure a nasty bout of insomnia one night, and extended application greatly reduced severe social anxiety. But here are your sources: (before that though - regarding use in sports, see the following:
numbered and reformatted for review. GaramondLethe 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
1) http://golfweek.com/news/2006/mar/25/2006-golfers-tap-psychology-fyg/.
2) also, for another trial, see p. 13: http://thencp.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fidelity-Spring-20126.pdf) see also, of greater relevance:
3) http://www.varkstaden.se/pdf_filer/EFT_article.pdf,
4) http://www.lifescriptcounseling.com/research/dinter.pdf,
5) http://tmt.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/12/1534765611426788.abstract,
6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22986277,
7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22708146,
8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19913760,
9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23141789,
10) (comparison with cognitive behavioral therapy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563510),
11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12945061 (other, related studies not in review:
12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128040,
13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388769)
Here is another interesting study - while not meeting WP:MEDRS, it is still of interest for readers: http://eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2470:preliminary-report-of-the-first-large-scale-study-of-energy-psychology&catid=39:research-studies&Itemid=2073Pottinger's cats (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your personal experience: from a practical perspective, you're doing the right thing. You found something that worked for you, and rather than pester the universe with questions like "Ok, can I repeat this? And exactly how did this happen? And how do I know I'm not fooling myself?" you instead got up on and got on with your life. That's a great strategy for day-to-day living, and I use it myself. But the rules change if I want to make a statement as to why this works, or that it will work for others. (I don't have to explain my lucky penny, but if I go into the business of selling lucky pennies I'm going to have some explaining to do.) So I'm not interested in trying to convince you that your interpretation of your experience is wrong. That's none of my business. Published, ostensibly peer-reviewed studies, on the other hand....
You gave me a pile of citations instead of the one I asked for. I'm going to hazard a guess that this is because you don't (yet?) have enough graduate school under your belt to evaluate which of these are better or worse. That's fine, but you might want to take this into account when you're thinking of adding a citation to the article.
So, here's my evaluation of the links you suggested.
1.) Golf Week isn't peer reviewed (and a golf swing is even less appropriate that free throws for a small-effect phenomena).
2.) Journal for the NCP isn't peer reviewed (it's a newsletter)
3.) Brattberg 2008: I have no difficulty believing that EFT is better than doing nothing. The more interesting questions are whether it is better than a placebo and better then current best practice. Note that this study is far, far better than the basketball study because they tested against no intervention, so at least we have an idea of how big the effect is (but not why the effect exists).
4.) Church (undated): Comparison with a no-intervention control group.
5.) Church 2011: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.
6.) Church 2012: Don't have access to this.
7.) Connolly 2011: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.
8.) Benor 2009: Sample size of 5 doesn't cut it for small-effect phenomena.
9.) Irgens 2012: Comparison with a no-intervention control group.
10.) Zhang 2011: Don't have access to this.
11.) Wells 2003: Don't have access to this.
12.) This is about accupressure, not EFT. replaced
13.) This is about accupressure, not EFT. replaced
14.) This is about accupressure, not EFT.
15.) This is about accupressure, not EFT.
16.) Does not establish that EFT or accupressure has any relationship with "energy systems in the body".
17) Does not establish that EFT or accupressure has any relationship with "energy systems in the body".
There have been much better studies done and I hope to have time to point those out to you this evening. GaramondLethe 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
12-15 were tangential, but related. They were not in the review. The sports citations were just to realize that use for that purpose is not anomalous.
regarding the items you cannot access - I think they provide an example of the better studies:
6 - Church - 2012) here it is: http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/lwwgateway/landingpage.htm;jsessionid=Q1nNsw2X2yCSyp2V7DZ6GfJ72l2xrMLMVXZrMnk6FCh5PcBx2VNt!1150561369!181195629!8091!-1?issn=0022-3018&volume=200&issue=10&spage=891
11 - Wells 2003) here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.10189/pdfPottinger's cats (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
[The studies he found] lend[] support for the efficacy of tapping while mentally attuning to an emotional difficulty. Despite the design flaws found in some of the studies, the preponderance of evidence shows energy psychology interventions to be efficacious.
This obviously makes the two meta-analyses I introduced viable then.Pottinger's cats (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I glibly engaged in a bit of argumentum verbosum. I removed the acupressure citations because they were not properly controlled. The 2 I kept were. The last is sham controlled, so it is relevant. Here are more sham controlled studies: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/sham%20acupressure
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, and http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820 are also sham controlled.
Please post your email address.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
From the rejoinder, here is Feinstein's response regarding Waite - for whatever it's worth: -
"Pignotti and Thyer (this issue) claim “selective bias” (p. 258) largely because the paper did not include two studies, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs), by Waite and Holder (2003) and by Pignotti (2005b). McCaslin (this issue) contends that the paper did “a disservice to readers” (p. 252) by not mentioning the Waite and Holder study. Both the Waite and Holder and the Pignotti studies were actually reviewed in earlier, widely circulated drafts of my paper, but later deleted for reasons discussed below. What is puzzling about the commentators’ position, however, is that the two studies, had they been included, would have actually supported the claim that tapping on the body is effective as a treatment of emotional symptoms:
...
Waite and Holder (2003) tested three tapping conditions and a no-treatment control condition on 119 college students with self-reported fear of heights. One of the tapping conditions utilized a variation of a manualized Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) protocol; one used this protocol but substituted random points on the arm for the standard EFT points; and one used this protocol while having subjects tap on a doll. Relevant background is that using the forefinger stimulates an acupuncture point (Large Intestine 1) that is sometimes used in the treatment of “mental restlessness” (Ross, 1995, p. 306) and the arm contains numerous acupuncture points, although the researchers clearly had not conceived of the doll or arm conditions as potentially activating treatment points. In any case, the three tapping conditions all resulted in significant reductions in self-reported fear (p < . 003, .001, and .001, respectively). The placebo group did not (p = .255)."
Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have read http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, and http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820 - and they support acupuncture/acupressure claims for certain conditions, disproving the statement "Evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine.".Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The overviews explicitly compare it to sham acupuncture, and find greater efficacy for traditional acupuncture. I wanted to use those three citations to controvert the "Evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine." statement.Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel that my previous edit is appropriate: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=534267114&oldid=534093398
Ernst and Singh assert that evidence has not been found for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine, from which EFT is derived.[1] However, since the publication of their work, proof has emerged that traditional forms of acupuncture are more effective than placebos in the relief of certain types of pain.[2] A Cochrane review of randomized, sham controlled trials, found that stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting and is not inferior to antiemetic drugs.[3] A multicenter, longitudinal, randomized placebo controlled clinical trial throughout one cycle of chemotherapy found that acupressure at the P6 point is a value-added technique in addition to pharmaceutical management for women undergoing treatment for breast cancer to reduce the amount and intensity of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.[4]
Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
yes - delete the Ernst reference as it stands now - at the end of Research, include the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine.Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is not about acupuncture, which has been proven efficacious in the studies mentioned. However, the Ernst reference is an obfuscation. I am removing it as a violation of Wikipedia:Coatrack.Pottinger's cats (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Good morning, Pottinger. I saw you tried to remove the rest of that cite without establishing consensus first. What I'm seeing here is that when you try to remove a citation the edit doesn't stick for more than a few hours, but when you go through the process of digging up citations and convincing other editors that you have a reasonable point, the edits you want to make actually stick. So, what's your best cite for the existence of meridians? Please don't give me 17 citations. You saw what worked with removing mention of acupuncture from the article—those are the kind of cites I'm looking for. GaramondLethe 13:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#qundefined, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=4AFC08F61A127C4552A1054D3B8F99FA.d01t02, and http://ons.metapress.com/content/f60343t4vj1713tx/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1188%2f07.ONF.813-820Pottinger's cats (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)I have other individual studies here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/therapeutic-action/acupuncture, many of which are sham controlled, but the three above are the most WP:MEDRS compliant, considering that this is a controversial subject.Pottinger's cats (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
They mention acupuncture points, but some preliminary evidence exists for meridians: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20403/abstractPottinger's cats (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the bias is more towards the Skeptical Enquirer point of view and this does not strike me as a neutral point of view for Wikipedia. This is not to criticize the Skeptical Enquirer at all, as balance and common-sense is always needed. However, this article can be improved by presenting well-written material providing the other side of the argument. This way, this page will gain the neutral point of view as per Wikipedia rules. SuzanneZacharia (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is biased and the writer clearly has their own agenda. Perhaps it should be replaced by an article written by someone who is prepared to do the research on EFT and present the facts only, so that people can make up their own minds! 82.69.93.212 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify: Is this comment directed at the article as is or at the proposed change? Jt940 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am proposing changing one sentence in the lead section to more accurately reflect the cited reference.
The sentence currently reads: This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, and to have the advantage of being a simple, self-administered form of therapy.[1]
The proposed sentence reads: This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders. EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and that there can be improved results when utilized by an experienced EFT practitioner.[1] Petefter (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically I agree with the proposed changes. They add clarity to the process and lead sections. The disagreement I have is with calling this pseudoscience as it is a pejorative term, and implies ineffectiveness. For decades it wasn't known how aspirin and some other medications worked, but they worked, and it wasn't called pseudoscience. The fact that something cannot be proven scientifically does not make it pseudo anything in my view. It simply means it cannot be tested via scientific method yet. It also seems to me that EFT research is moving into the realm of mind/body theories (EFT impacting bodily systems simultaneously with emotional changes) that are testable theories. I put this question to experienced editors: What would it take to get this page reclassified as other than pseudoscience? TWRobinson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand what you are saying about including the claim of improved results in the lead. How about if the sentence were changed to read:This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders. EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool used by experienced EFT practitioners.Petefter (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Begoon, you've referred to "a good consensus of editors" more than once, but in approaching a month, you're the only one who has paid any attention to what is going on here, so how is this to be achieved?Jt940 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Zad68
15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)In reading the explanation of pseudoscience, I see why you are classifying it as such, based on Gary Craig's "energy theories" framework. However, there are new theories postulating changes in neural pathways based on EFT affecting brain waves and biochemistry and resulting in emotional change. My question is what would it take to get EFT re-classified out of the pseudo-science category, or is is forever deemed to this classification based on the original theory espoused by Gary Craig? TWRobinson (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose the above be written as follows:
Instructions for EFT are in the EFT manual pdf[1], described briefly in this paragraph to provide a description of the method. The basic procedure consists of the participant rating the emotional intensity of their specific issue on a Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) (a Likert scale for subjective measures of distress, calibrated 0-10), which provides a way to measure subsequent progress, then repeating a special statement called the "Setup phrase" three times while tapping the side of the hand. This is followed by tapping rounds, stimulating specific points on the body, while using a "Reminder phrase" that describes the problem being addressed. Additional "aspects" of the problem are then worked on as needed. Some practitioners of client- and/or self- EFT incorporate eye movements or other tasks. Numerous advanced techniques can also be utilized. The emotional intensity is re-scored and this process continues to be repeated with the goal of reducing and eliminating the emotional intensity of the participant's specific issue.[1]
EFT is the most frequently used technique of the Energy Psychology (EP) methodologies.[2][3][4] Energy Psychology combines established psychotherapy practices of exposure therapy and cognitive restructuring with the non-western healing tradition of acupressure. Explanatory mechanisms for this process are beginning to evolve, through the scientific process, substantiated by studies noting brain and neuro-chemistry changes that occur with the tapping. For example, with stimulation of acupressure points amygdala arousal is turned down; cortisol levels go down with EFT treatment of anxiety disorders. These may allow for changes in the neural pathways that had been the physiological basis of the psychological issues being addressed.[4]
SuzanneZacharia (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the following replace the existing article "Process" section in order to provide a fuller description:
According to the EFT manual, the basic procedure consists of the participant rating the emotional intensity of their specific issue on a Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) (a Likert scale for subjective measures of distress, calibrated 0-10), which provides a way to measure subsequent progress, then repeating a specialized "affirmation" three times while tapping the side of the hand. This is followed by tapping rounds, stimulating specific points on the body, while using a "reminder phrase" that describes the problem being addressed. Additional "aspects" of the problem are then worked on as needed. Some practitioners incorporate eye movements or other tasks. Numerous advanced techniques can also be utilized. The emotional intensity is re-scored and this process continues to be repeated with the goal of reducing and eliminating the emotional intensity of the participant's specific issue.[1]
EFT is the most frequently used technique of the Energy Psychology (EP) methodologies.[2][3][4] Energy Psychology combines established psychotherapy practices of exposure therapy and cognitive restructuring with the non-western healing tradition of acupressure. Explanatory mechanisms for this process are beginning to evolve, through the scientific process, substantiated by studies noting brain and neuro-chemistry changes that occur with the tapping. For example, with stimulation of acupressure points amygdala arousal is turned down; cortisol levels go down with EFT treatment of anxiety disorders. These may allow for changes in the neural pathways that had been the physiological basis of the psychological issues being addressed.[4]
Gary Craig states that the theory underlying this methodology is that having negative emotional issues reflects disruptions in the individual's energy system, and that the EFT process provides energetic and emotional releases.[1] This is a not a scientifically falsifiable/testable theory, although, according to Paul Lutus, the whole field of psychology is based on foundational theories which are not falsifiable/testable and are, therefore, pseudo-science.[5]
Jt940 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I am proposing changing one sentence in the lead section to more accurately reflect the cited reference.
The sentence currently reads: This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, and to have the advantage of being a simple, self-administered form of therapy.[1]
The proposed sentence reads: This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders; they say that EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool for professional EFT practitioners.[1][2][3]
1. ^ a b Craig, G.(nd). "The EFT Manual" (PDF). Retrieved 6/22/2013. {{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help)
2. ^ Craig, G. (2011). "The EFT Manual, 2nd ed". Energy Press.
3. ^ "Professional EFT? or Easy EFT!". Retrieved 6/22/2013. {{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help) Petefter (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help) Petefter (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)