Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 5

Question about Primary Source in Mechanism Section
In the Mechanism section, you use a primary source (ref 7). Though the title of that article includes the word "assessment," this is not a literature review but a primary study. You have rejected many other studies on the grounds that they are primary sources. Why is it okay for you to use this one? --Charlottechloe (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer on this. --Charlottechloe (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bakker review discusses the primary study as a strong study, so I am sourcing it to the secondary review, Bakker. Yobol (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Change in Opening Section Paragraph 3
The first sentence in paragraph 3 of the opening section is in violation of NPOV. I request that you attribute the statement, to read as follows: "According to Gary Bakker, EFT has no benefit as a therapy." --Charlottechloe (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have rewrote the sentence to better summarize source. We will not in-text attribute to Bakker, because all reliable sources say it does not work better than placebo or any psychological techniques that are used with the tapping. See WP:ASSERT. Yobol (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change. Please add "established" to this sentence, so it would read: "EFT has no established benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo…" --Charlottechloe (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to qualify that sentence. Yobol (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are citing research. Saying "established" is a more scientific way to state it. Scientists are careful in their wording. Most would not use such general language. --Charlottechloe (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources cited don't use that word in describing EFT, so I see no reason to, either. Yobol (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is blatant special pleading, as if to assert that at some point the scientific consensus will change. That is unlikely to happen, and if anything the trend is the other way: initial interest has waned and the scientific consensus is now settled, EFT is not something new, it's a well understood psychological intervention (distraction therapy) combined with pseudoscience (acupuncture points). Unless and until the proponents of EFT manage to provide anatomical evidence for the existence of meridians, this is how it is likely to rest forever. As far as science goes, there is nothing left to explain other than why apparently intelligent people still persist in believing vitalistic nonsense in the 21st Century. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I agree, but this article is not written in an encyclopedia type fashion. Zee788 — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the style is fine -- but then I fairly often find the whining for "encyclopedia type style" which infests the talk pages of Wikipedia to be silly. The magisterial style achieved by, e.g., Britannica was the result of accuracy, authority, and good grammar, not of any stupid search for an imaginary "Britannica style." Similarly this article has good sound style because it is well considered and sound in both fact and judgement.

DavidLJ (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Supporting Effectiveness of EFT
I would like to bring to you attention an article published by the APA which clearly shows research supporting the effectiveness of EFT. I will acknowledge that many people are skeptical but I would think that at least the contrary opinion should be acknowledged. The abstract can be found at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2012-22644-001. I do not think the subject is quite as black and white as the author claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Harry Hayward (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please look through the archives of this talk page to see the many times articles by David Feinstein have been suggested as sources for "effectiveness" here. Quite simply, such articles cannot be used as a reliable, 3rd party, independent source for this, since he is an active, financially interested, advocate of this fringe theory. See WP:MEDRS, which details the requirements here for reliable sources. However, do note that Feinstein's claims are, in fact, already discussed, in the "Reception" section of the article. Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused by the assertion that EFT is not effective and not used by professionals. It has become a widely accepted tool to be used in psychotherapy. As to it being no better than a placebo, as long as it resolved the psychological trauma then I would assume that is effective enough. Maybe I just do not understand your criteria for proof of effectiveness. Similarly, since almost all authors stand to gain financially from their therapeutic techniques, I'm not sure why Feinstein's work is any more suspect than any other person doing research on a product or methodology who gains financially from that product or methodology. I'm also a little unclear as to how Feinstein is gaining financially since the technique is in the public domain. Dpowell7299 (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Confusion is awful. It can all be dispelled from a simple reading of this talkpage, its archives, and the article. If, after you've done that, you still have some doubts, supported by reliable sources {WP:MEDRS), feel free to post back here, and someone will try to help you further. Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Text Addition to Opening Section Paragraph 2
In the sentence “Advocates claim that the technique may be used to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, and as a simple form of self-administered therapy,” please insert "including PTSD" after "disorders," with a new footnote. The sentence would thus read: “Advocates claim that the technique may be used to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, including PTSD,[1] and as a simple form of self-administered therapy.”[2] Here is the new footnote: Newhouse, Eric. (2012). “PTSD energy therapies: Energy therapies can defuse bad memories.” Psychology Today, February 13, 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/invisible-wounds/201202/ptsd-energy-therapies. Note that Eric Newhouse is not an EFT practitioner or trainer but rather a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and author of the book Faces of Combat: PTSD and TBI. --Charlottechloe (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer on this request. --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead is already clear that EFT advocates present claims of effectiveness against a wide range of disorders, none of which are supported by scientific evidence. There would be no benefit to the article to begin to list these many unsupported claims by name, as though one such claim were more or less significant than others, even if the reference was acceptable for such a thing. So no, I don't believe we should add this, or anything similar for other specific claims. The existing sentence is perfectly clear. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised the issue of PTSD because, contrary to your statement, there is a body of research on the use of EFT for this disorder. For the entry not to refer to recent research leaves it out of date. And the reference I’m giving you is a legitimate secondary source, not a primary research source. I repeat my request for its inclusion. --Charlottechloe (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PTSD is clearly falls into "a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders"; as such, it is not "out of date" to not include a specific mention of it. As there is no MEDRS compliant sources that has found EFT as an effective treatment for anything, I agree with Begoon that singling PTSD out is not an improement. A "blog" by a journalist on psychology today is not a MEDRS compliant source. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By "out of date," I was referring to the EFT page not citing any of the recent research on EFT. I was not referring to PTSD alone. I raised this in response to the incorrect statement by Begoon that there is no scientific evidence. There are dozens of new research studies, published in sources recognized by MEDRS. These include at least 7 double-blind randomized controlled (scientific gold standard) trials. I have given you a reliable secondary source for this evidence. As I said, the author of this secondary source could only be considered a qualified source. When I have raised objections to the sources you allow, such as the newspaper column by Burkeman, which is the equivalent of a blog, you have said those sources are fine. I hold to my request as a way of referring to at least some of the research. What's the big deal? Let's add PTSD. --Charlottechloe (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are no good studies showing it is efficacious, per our guidelines. Primary studies do not meet MEDRS, blogs by journalist do not meet MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A blog by a journalist is only an online version of a newspaper opinion column. Newhouse's blog is not a personal blog but rather a blog for Psychology Today. You are applying WP rules selectively. One of my first requests for changes on this page was to eliminate footnote 2 because it cites Oliver Burkeman's column in the Guardian--an opinion piece with little substance. This was refused. If you accept Burkeman (and the Guardian), why not Newhouse (and Psychology Today) who is far better qualified as a source via personal and professional experience? --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response to the above. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref to Burkeman has already been removed. Blogs do not meed WP:MEDRS in general, no matter the format or platform. Yobol (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Horribly biased
Claims EFT is KNOWN to be ineffective. This is slander. Lack of scientific proof of efficacy does not mean scientific proof of lack of efficacy! And science doesn't have all the answers --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Slander" it's not, and the content seems well sourced. Science may not have all the answers but we summarize what it has to say anyway.  04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We should strive for neutrality. Tone of argument and claims made read like "Skeptics' Dictionary", not Wikipedia. --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We do indeed strive for neutrality - check the archives of this talk page to see the huge amount of discussion there has been here in order to reach the present, neutral, well supported article. The article reflects the current views in reliable sources and scholarship (WP:MEDRS). Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to fringe and unsupported views - see WP:GEVAL. If the mainstream, scientifically supported view of a fringe idea is healthy skepticism, or the idea has no reliable support, then that is what a reader of an encyclopedia article should learn from it. This is especially important in medical related articles, where misleading the reader could be particularly problematical. If you're aware, though, of any reliable sources, not covered here, which could be used to improve the article, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here is a reliable source that meets the MEDRS criteria. I request that you replace paragraph 2 of Research Quality with this: “In a 2014 review of existing research, psychiatrist Daniel J. Benor, MD, states: ‘Research confirms that many of the EP [energy psychology] methods are helpful for dealing with stress …, anxieties …, phobias …, PTSD …, pains …, food cravings.’; 17 of the 25 studies cited were of EFT." Add footnote: McCaslin is not a qualified source (details in my April 15, 2014 post re Request for Change in Research Section). Benor is, and offers an up-to-date review of the literature. --Charlottechloe (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet another article, written by someone who makes money from promoting EFT, this time published in a journal by the publisher . No, I do not think we will be adding this, as it is not reliable per WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * let's not get our panties twisted - almost everybody practicing medicine and publishing on medicine makes money doing so (well most people anyways) this stuff usually cuts both ways.--基 (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr. Benor is a psychiatrist. One of the methods he uses in his practice is EFT. I maintain that saying he makes money from EFT is equivalent to saying psychiatrists make money from the pharmaceuticals they dispense. Why then are studies of prescription drugs acceptable and Benor's review of EFT literature is not? --Charlottechloe (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that we have independent sources to evaluate pharmaceuticals (independent evaluation by sources like Cochrane review or the WHO/CDC etc), and we have no independent sources that do not stand to make money off a WP:FRINGE therapy. You have, of course, ignored the fact that this study was published by a predatory publisher and therefore fails MEDRS and therefore cannot be used as a source to say EFT works. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 2013 review
Not sure why this ref was removed  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the reason why I removed it is stated in the comment = it does not follow WP: Lead section
 * "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" summarize is the same thing as elaborate.


 * @ Doc James : I have one more question - the article has been semi protected by yourself - is that correct ?--基 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:LEAD is a particularly puzzling reason to remove the material. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, including points raised in the article such as the reception, and removal of the material creates, rather than fixes, as a WP:LEAD problem by removing material that needs to be summarized in the lead to give an accurate summary of the article. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable sources
Why are Quackwatch and Skeptical Enquirer used as sources in an article that deals with mental health. A health related article whatever our opinions about what is being described and its perceived usefulness falls under MEDRS. Either our health related articles fall under MEDRS or they don't but consistency is necessary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

I'd add that unless there is some good reason for using these sources in this article they should be removed. Using such sources does not lend credibility to our articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

The more I look the more surprised I am. Why was this article protected by an admin who is clearly involved in editing the article? That seems highly irregular per WP. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC))


 * you have been around long enough, littleolive, that you must know the answer you are going to get verbatim by now. Three main answers: 1) Mainstream scientists don't devote much of their energy to investigating FRINGE-y ideas; 2) journals don't readily accept manuscripts with negative results (which is the most likely outcome of most fringe ideas) which is why mainstream scientists don't spend time on them - they are unlikely to be able to publish and they need to; 3) QW and SE are well established publications im which fringe ideas are discussed by mainstream scientists, and we use them all the time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, WP:PARITY is the relevant guideline here. Both these sources are "notable" (not in the Wiki sense but in the general sense) skeptical sources, and are clearly in-text attributed. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Guys you're wrong in my opinion. I've been around long enough to see what's going on, on this article. QW and SI are not compliant per MEDRS, the overriding principle on an health related article. Simple. And Doc James should not be protecting an article he his editing.Simple. We don't get to skew the rules to suit a POV on an article and that's what I see here. I have no opinion of this "technique" But the article is and sounds absurd on an encyclopedia that purports to support good mainstream science. Now I have to think what to do . Maybe nothing. But please do  not  suggest I should accept what is going on here because it goes on all over Wikipedia. The article is rubbish because it depends on such sources. And frankly any reader with an iota of intelligence will turn away as soon as these sources appear on their screens. If you want to describe a technique that is not useful, well, you're shooting yourselves in the foot.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Which exact statements in the article are you concerned are Wikipedia making health claims based on sources failing WP:MEDRS? Also you haven't addressed the point raised regarding why it's unreasonable to expect authoritative academic sources to cover this topic seriously, which is often why we use sources like QW and SI, with in-line attribution.
 * (edit conflict) As others have noted, WP:PARITY was designed to cover exactly this sort of situation. And really, it's just common sense. It's pointless (or WP:POINTy) to demand WP:MEDRS-top-quality sources in an article about an obscure, arguably pseudoscientific fringe subject. For these sorts of subjects, both Quackwatch and the Skeptical Inquirer are reasonably well-established as reliable-but-opinionated sources, and they are cited here with proper in-text attribution. As for the article protection, it's been semi'd for a long time and I think it would be reasonable to unprotect it, probably through a request at WP:RFPP. Your complaints about James (whom you forgot to notify, incidentally) would have to pursued in other venues. MastCell Talk 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding: I reviewed the editing history of both the article and the Talk page and I did not see Doc James significantly involved in the content in the time leading up to the article protection.  He's made a few edits and comments since then, though.   18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest unprotecting; I'm saying an involved admin, any involvemnt in a contentious article should not be protecting. Does anyone disagree with that? Are there other admins on WP who could have protected this article? I apologize to James for not notifying him ; I have been discussed in many conversations and never notified  so did  not realize this was necessary unless in an AN/AN/arbitration environment. Further James has made it clear he does not welcome me on his talk page. I did not mean to slight anyone here. I'm afraid there is a gross inconsistency in the use of MEDRS on Wikipedia dependent on who refers to it and how they feel about the topic. I stand by my comments; the article reads like rubbish and in no way sounds academic/scientific. Since there is an obvious consensus to use QW and SD and I didn't expect anything else, I leave you to it. I was voicing a concern which I still have but frankly Its not worth a fight. Best wishes all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

Zad. Doc was editing this article. Significant is a subjective call. I respect that you think its fine. I don't. There are lots of uninvolved here admins on WP. I am suggesting that in general QW and SD should not be used anywhere in this article. Their use in my mind lowers the standard of the article. Would the article be stronger excluding those sources and depending on the other sources in the article. I think so. Frankly as soon as someone starts to go after my actions in a more personal way as happened with Mastcell above I have no desire to be around or to discuss further. I think the article as is, is a mistake. Just an opinion. Best to you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * So, just to be clear&mdash;it's cool for you to use this forum to question James' actions, but if someone questions your actions (even very mildly, as I did above) then you depart in a wounded huff? Actually, don't bother answering that. MastCell Talk 19:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mastcell your description of my actions is consistent with every comment you address to me... "wounded huff" is just so consistent, an attempt to insult personally, and seems silly. I answered in general but since there is agreement here on the sources I see no need to get in a fuss about them. I don't have to agree and I most certainly don't have to fight several editors to try and convince them of my position.
 * I am not an admin and I didn't take an action that I consider questionable. I did not insult James personally; I questioned an admin action. As in life, and as a professional, I reserve the right to disagree and also to leave this to others. Walking away when I see no recourse for action is simply a non-comabative way of dealing with a situation. I wish you well.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * If you don't want to make things "personal", avoiding making vague accusations like "I see what's going on, on this article," declaring the work of others as "rubbish" just because you don't agree with a source or two they use, or declaring the article unsuitable for readers "with an iota of intelligence" would probably be a good place to start. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * reverts and follows with a protection. Cleary some think this is insignificant and maybe it is. I don't agree. The article is slanted in a pejorative way, given the sources. It doesn't read as neutral That's my comment and what I meant. I did not make a personal comment about anyone and that comment did not refer to James. In have an opinion about the article. That's not personal either and an insult to individuals. This is Wikipedia and the times that I have seen general comments about articles as someone discussed that article as it stands are more than numerous. Discussion of articles and how they read is commonplace and insults to all who over time have edited cannot be what is meant or we could never improve an article. Apologies if what i said was taken in a personal way. That's not what i said or meant. I wish you the best in this and leave you to it given I've explained as best I can.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * "Now, don't take this personally, but this article you are writing is rubbish and not fit to be read by anyone with an iota of intelligence." Cough. Yobol (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not what I said, or meant, and you are not fairly  quoting.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

please enough already, all around. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology
I want to apologize for my comments in calling this article rubbish. I had read an off-line article about the article and came to see what the fuss was about. I am also frustrated by the uneven use of MEDRS on Wikipedia a guide which I very much support. The use of two non MEDRS sources seemed glaring to me and seemed to colour the article. I did not mean to insult those who have worked hard on any part of this article, but realize now the comment I made did. There was no good reason to use the word rubbish, in any event. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
 * that is very gracious of you. thank you. sorry for your frustration. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yobol (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

is this page meant to be ironic?
I have no vested interest in this topic - I looked it up after seeing EFT mentioned on a television program, but this page reads like a bad joke...

There are several phrases which make no logical sense whatsoever, the two most glaring of which are;

"EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect" - In plain English this means that it is actually effective (albeit as a placebo), while at the same time there is the claim that it "has no benefit".

"...an expert panel of psychologists rated EFT on a scale...with 3.0 meaning "possibly discredited" and a 4.0 meaning "probably discredited"."

- again, this idea blurs the boundaries of logical sense, either something has been discredited or it has not, the idea that a team of experts?!? would suggest it may be possibly or probably discredited in plain English translates as - we are making a guess at how the imagined (scientific?) community might view it, if such a consensus were actually to exist in the real world.

In short - this page has obviously been the battleground between at least two editors - both of which seem to have taken unreasonably biased views.

It has been established that EFT is an alternative, holistic therapy and is therefore not supported by the scientific community. It has also been established that it is effective as a placebo and therefore meets every requirement of a "psychological therapy" in the broad sense of the term.

Given that the imagination cannot be "truly established" and yet has an effect on psychic "reality", this would seem to be a moot point in exactly the same way as the imagined accreditation by a group of so-called experts! 82.6.93.136 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, there is no logical problem withe sentence, any effects are merely placebo and no more. Efficacy in medical science is generally considered only if there is an effect beyond placebo. Otherwise there is no need to go through EFT, we could just give a sugar pill and be done with it. There is also no logical issues with the Delphi poll study; experts in the field can have a wide range of opinion on how discredited it is, so reporting that is not a logical inconsistency.  Do you have any suggestions to change this article based on reliable sourcing? Yobol (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As you say yourself, "Efficacy in medical science is generally considered only if there is an effect beyond placebo." - therefore the entire discussion has no place concerning a therapy that makes no claims to medical science. Equally, "a wide range of opinion on how discredited it is", is as you rightly say, opinion, and therefore not scientific either.

The discussion of whether certain "psychological" theories and practices are scientific has no place on this page and should therefore be located elsewhere. EFT has not been scientifically proven above and beyond a placebo effect, and as far as I can tell, it has no need to be on the basis that it presents itself as an alternative to medical science. 82.6.93.136 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, EFT does indeed make unequivocal medical claims, including those of pain reduction, weight loss and improved mental health, so discussion of it as a therapy with proposed medical effects is appropriate here.  23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, all the relevant information is included on the page - the various techniques used, the effectiveness of already established therapies which are included in EFT, and the dubious claims specific to EFT concerning energy meridians as a significant contributory factor over and above the already established techniques such as distraction, breathing therapy, and systematic desensitization - the issue I am highlighting is the unclear layout of these points resulting from such a polemical style.

It has been established that the theory of EFT has not yet been satisfactorily proven to be included in the body of medical science. It had also been established that some of the techniques used in EFT do have efficacy for reasons other than those given by its proponents. Perhaps separating the discussions of theory and practice may help to make this clearer? 82.6.93.136 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is double-blind experiments showing this technique is effective
As mentioned above 21 articles have been published on the subject in Pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=emotional+Freedom+Technique

Making claim that this technique is a "pseudoscience" and that EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect is simply not accurate.

Interestingly EMDR which is a very similar technique does not get tagged as pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing. Both techniques apparently work in similar ways, but redirecting the attention of the patient from his painful feelings.

Wikipedia editors should leave science topics to scientist, instead of making bold claims without reviewing the relevant literature.

70.90.169.220 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Arnaud Delorme, PhD

Semi protection
Do people feel that this article should be un semi protected? Expecially with this being recently published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that is the wrong question - the question is : was there a reason the reason to protect the article since February 2013 and how does that reflect on wikipedia?--基 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the editing in the weeks leading up to the article's protection and there's justification for the protection. How does that reflect on Wikipedia?  It reflects on Wikipedia by highlighting the fact that Wikipedia editors are volunteers with a finite amount of time and energy to deal with WP:SPAs and spammers... I don't think it reflects badly on Wikipedia.  Any IP editor can create an account, get auto-confirmed, and make edits.  Any IP editor can suggest good-quality edits that use reliable sourcing and respect Wikipedia's content policies, and see their suggestions implemented.  This article is subject to WP:ARBPS arbitration remedies, it's a really bad place for new editors who haven't learned the ropes yet to make lots of mistakes.  And as Doc James pointed out there is off-Wiki activity pointing to the editing of this article, protection is intended to prevent disruption and things like that support the continued use of protection for the purpose of preventing disruption.   20:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, semi protection is justified due to the persistent and chronic nature of the off-wiki promotional campaign to change this article. A review of the editing history on this page shows numerous new accounts who have disrupted this article before semiprotection was placed. Yobol (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "semi protection is justified due to the persistent and chronic nature of the off-wiki promotional campaign to change this article" no it is not ... the reasons to protect pages are rather concise and a "off-wiki promotional campaign" is not exactly part of it ;) - nice try though. I think most of this is actually homemade. None of Non-English articles seems to have similar "problems". 基 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * see the policy here; and if you want to appeal the protection, the place to do it is: Requests_for_page_protection. Please let us know if you file there. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection >> exactly my point  - and  no thank you - you seem to enjoy playing your little war against the evil oppressors of truth too much ;). If you want the "vandalism" to stop - just remove the provocative name calling (pseudo% ... placebo ... hodgepodge) and replace it with facts ("the therapeutic effect is disputed" - or "there is no study that shows ...") - at least in the Lead section. But I am certainly not going to do that for you. 基 (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is widely characterized as pseudoscience, we need to summarize it appropriately as pseudoscience in the lead per WP:LEAD. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * EFT is literally the definition of pseudoscience ;) --基 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that, but we seem to be headed off a tangent of the purpose of this section...Yobol (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say it needs protection. It just popped up on the Special:PendingChanges list which is what brought me here. I tried doing a Cleanup edit to remove what I considered some POV editing only to have it reverted and an WP:EDITWAR warning put on my Talk page. I know nothing about the subject and really don't care about either, but if its truly BS, then somebody should have the integrity to nominate it for deletion and be able to defend their stance. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:MEDRS? I'm supposing not, since you were battling to have a health claim sourced to primary research ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not and will admit that I stay away from medical (mainstream or otherwise) articles. I wasn't battling for anything. I accepted a Pending changes edit that at face value looked like it was a good faith attempt to improve the content and writing of the article. I did not check the source, but WP:Reviewer guidelines do not require me to as Reviewers are not held responsible for edits they accept. As a WP:Guild of Copy Editors member, I then decided to do some formatting and layout cleanup.


 * You then reverted the edit with the Summary "not better". Granted, you actually put an Edit summary, but it wasn't terribly enlightening as to your reasoning or any Policy you had in mind. I then restored it and came here to discuss it since I am User the advocating for a certain change. Since no one without a copy of the book can actually verify what you are claiming or trying to substantiate, here we are.


 * Next step would be maybe a third opinion or dispute resolution, but to be honest I could care less. I'll say the same thing to you that I said to, if this article is BS, then nominate it for deletion. If its not, either write it neutrally and dispassionately or step away if you can't. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not meet MEDRS and therefore should not be used here, as a primary study. I am confused as to why you keep referring to a "book", when the cited source is a journal article. I see no issues of neutrality here, as the vast majority of reliable sources state it is little more than placebo constructed on a bed of pseudoscientific hokum. We do not delete Wikipedia articles because they are "BS", and we already dispassionately state what reliable sources say already, so I fail to see what the issue here is. Yobol (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * still baffled that scalhotrod things the edit i reverted was OK... it change content supported by the source to content that directly contradicts the source; it was a tendentious edit and my edit note when i reverted it said so. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pretend this page is neutral
I made some very reasonable edits to this page to reflect new research and eliminate the obvious bias against EFT, and now those changes have been undone.

This page now has empirical statements that can't possibly be supported, e.g. "EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques that may be provided in addition to the purported "energy" technique." There are reams of evidence that this claim is false, but even if were true, it would be impossible to know. Science simply does not tell you "x has no benefit." This is an unfalsifiable claim.

EFT is used to treat many ailments and has been proven to be effective; this fact is tacitly admitted by the page when it attributes these benefits to known mechanisms ("...placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques"). Whether the benefits derive from the placebo effect and other known mechanisms is a side issue. For example, look at the page for ECT (Electroconvulsive Therapy). It states:

"Despite decades of research, the exact mechanism of action of ECT remains elusive.

In other words, ECT has been widely used for many years despite the fact that its mechanism was unknown. Does that qualify ECT as "pseudoscience" as well?

The way the rebuttals to the empirical evidence for EFT are handled is laughable, i.e. use of a single source to multiple studies showing positive effects, and use of passive voice ("was also criticized") to hide the tenuousness of the rebuttal. Additionally, every study cited against EFT is left to stand on its own, while those showing effectiveness of EFT are followed up with a rebuttal, giving the con side the "last word" in every case.

There are unsupported statements ("Their work, however, is flawed and hence unreliable") and negative results that are offered as negation of hypothesis ("high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective.") There are citations of the "Skeptical Inquirer" as authoritative. There's a citation of a 10-year-old poll of psychologists calling EFT "discredited."

Beyond all these flaws, however, there's the simple fact that we've got an encyclopedia article that is 70% claims that the topic is bullshit. Why? What is the point? Is this an encyclopedia article or a religious tract? Is the Wikipedia article on life on other planets comprised 70% of skeptics telling us there definitely is not life on other planets? Or would that be not only wrong, but hilariously inappropriate? Is the article on Vishnu made up of 70% arguments that there is no Vishnu and that nobody should believe in Vishnu and that believing in Vishnu is irresponsible and dangerous? Or is the article on Vishnu actually concerned with, oh, I don't know, maybe explaining what is known about Vishnu?

If you want to see a fairer way of handling a controversial topic like this, check out the article on chiropractic, e.g.:

There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain.[9][10] Generally, the research carried out into the effectiveness of chiropractic has been of poor quality.[86][87] There is a wide range of ways to measure treatment outcomes.[88] Chiropractic care, like all medical treatment, benefits from the placebo response.[89] It is difficult to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), as experts often disagree about whether a proposed placebo actually has no effect.[90] The efficacy of maintenance care in chiropractic is unknown.[13]

Blanket claims are not made. Statements are qualified and supported by multiple sources. The placebo effect is noted, but not in a disparaging way. Et cetera. Personally, I'm a big believer in chiropractic; I know for a fact that it's relieved me from a great deal of pain. Yet despite this personal bias, I can read the Wikipedia article on chiropractic and feel like (1) My intelligence is not being insulted; (2) There is an effort to avoid unsupported claims and blanket generalizations; (3) I'm not being preached at; and, most importantly, (4) The authors are making a genuine effort to educate me about the topic. None of those are true with this article. This article is somebody's emotion-driven grudge against methods of treatment he or she is personally opposed to on irrational grounds. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia.

PriyaQuandry (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)PriyaQuandry
 * We reflect what good sources say - please see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE for two relevant policies here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're exactly right, Priya, but you're wasting your breath. 209.117.8.178 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)HelenChicago

The main source cited "The Skeptical Inquirer" is a magazine, not a credible journal.
I believe any content on this page derived form The Skeptical Inquirer should be removed. Pubmed has at least "18 randomised control trials published in peer reviewed journals" on the topic of EFT which can be used to provide content to this article.
 * I count 8, three of which may be RCTs. The issue is zero are review articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation: I don't like it. Sorry about that, come back when serious reality-based sources give credence to EFT. The thing about pseudoscience is that it tends to be covered primarily in journals devoted to pseudoscience, of which Skeptical Inquirer is probably the most prominent. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is double-blind experiments showing this technique is effective
As mentioned above 21 articles have been published on the subject in Pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=emotional+Freedom+Technique

Making claim that this technique is a "pseudoscience" and that EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect is simply not accurate.

Interestingly EMDR which is a very similar technique does not get tagged as pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing. Both techniques apparently work in similar ways, but redirecting the attention of the patient from his painful feelings.

Wikipedia editors should leave science topics to scientist, instead of making bold claims without reviewing the relevant literature.

70.90.169.220 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Arnaud Delorme, PhD

Bolding
Have removed this bold.

Our guideline is here WP:BOLD which states we bold synonyms not all redirects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is this person a "But insignificant or minor redirects can skip this" or not? So maybe Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't pretend this page is neutral
I made some very reasonable edits to this page to reflect new research and eliminate the obvious bias against EFT, and now those changes have been undone.

This page now has empirical statements that can't possibly be supported, e.g. "EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques that may be provided in addition to the purported "energy" technique." There are reams of evidence that this claim is false, but even if were true, it would be impossible to know. Science simply does not tell you "x has no benefit." This is an unfalsifiable claim.

EFT is used to treat many ailments and has been proven to be effective; this fact is tacitly admitted by the page when it attributes these benefits to known mechanisms ("...placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques"). Whether the benefits derive from the placebo effect and other known mechanisms is a side issue. For example, look at the page for ECT (Electroconvulsive Therapy). It states:

"Despite decades of research, the exact mechanism of action of ECT remains elusive.

In other words, ECT has been widely used for many years despite the fact that its mechanism was unknown. Does that qualify ECT as "pseudoscience" as well?

The way the rebuttals to the empirical evidence for EFT are handled is laughable, i.e. use of a single source to multiple studies showing positive effects, and use of passive voice ("was also criticized") to hide the tenuousness of the rebuttal. Additionally, every study cited against EFT is left to stand on its own, while those showing effectiveness of EFT are followed up with a rebuttal, giving the con side the "last word" in every case.

There are unsupported statements ("Their work, however, is flawed and hence unreliable") and negative results that are offered as negation of hypothesis ("high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective.") There are citations of the "Skeptical Inquirer" as authoritative. There's a citation of a 10-year-old poll of psychologists calling EFT "discredited."

Beyond all these flaws, however, there's the simple fact that we've got an encyclopedia article that is 70% claims that the topic is bullshit. Why? What is the point? Is this an encyclopedia article or a religious tract? Is the Wikipedia article on life on other planets comprised 70% of skeptics telling us there definitely is not life on other planets? Or would that be not only wrong, but hilariously inappropriate? Is the article on Vishnu made up of 70% arguments that there is no Vishnu and that nobody should believe in Vishnu and that believing in Vishnu is irresponsible and dangerous? Or is the article on Vishnu actually concerned with, oh, I don't know, maybe explaining what is known about Vishnu?

If you want to see a fairer way of handling a controversial topic like this, check out the article on chiropractic, e.g.:

There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain.[9][10] Generally, the research carried out into the effectiveness of chiropractic has been of poor quality.[86][87] There is a wide range of ways to measure treatment outcomes.[88] Chiropractic care, like all medical treatment, benefits from the placebo response.[89] It is difficult to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), as experts often disagree about whether a proposed placebo actually has no effect.[90] The efficacy of maintenance care in chiropractic is unknown.[13]

Blanket claims are not made. Statements are qualified and supported by multiple sources. The placebo effect is noted, but not in a disparaging way. Et cetera. Personally, I'm a big believer in chiropractic; I know for a fact that it's relieved me from a great deal of pain. Yet despite this personal bias, I can read the Wikipedia article on chiropractic and feel like (1) My intelligence is not being insulted; (2) There is an effort to avoid unsupported claims and blanket generalizations; (3) I'm not being preached at; and, most importantly, (4) The authors are making a genuine effort to educate me about the topic. None of those are true with this article. This article is somebody's emotion-driven grudge against methods of treatment he or she is personally opposed to on irrational grounds. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia.

PriyaQuandry (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)PriyaQuandry
 * We reflect what good sources say - please see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE for two relevant policies here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're exactly right, Priya, but you're wasting your breath. 209.117.8.178 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)HelenChicago

Waite & Holder (2003)
Before another edit war starts, I suggest anybody wanting to add the Waite & Holder reference to this article searches the talk page archive for references to "Waite" and read all the previous discussions of why this shouldn't be in the article. I did this and found some hilarious references to the journal in which it was published, the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, as being "respected" and "mainstream". It is nothing of the sort. It is a defunct journal that ran erratically for about 5 years and was dedicated mainly to dubious claims. Does not meet WP:MEDRS by a very long way. Famous dog   (c) 11:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that advocates of Tapas acupressure place the bar way too low when assessing evidence. Wikipedia has a much higher Tapas bar. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Could we see an introduction to the area written by someone who has been trained in the history & philosophy of science and medicine
OK. That could be me - I did my masters in the field. Perhaps a link to introduction about controversy and different schools of thought within science and medicine. One of the issues is that whilst physicists like to talk about themselves as "hard" science and for example sociology as a "soft" science. The reality is the maths and physics are really hard to understand what is going on but it is as nothing to the complexity of say Biology. Science is built by humans, and humans like to be right even if they acknowledge that this is a failing.

I believe in Kuhns paradigms theory, I think Latour's work is critical to understanding what happens in the production of Science and Medical research. But speaking from a historical view: our history of medicine in the west and probably round the world is littered with different groups of medical specialist going round telling other groups of medical specialists that they are Quacks!

The problem with Skeptical Inquirer and Quackwatch is that they go after any theory that doesn't support the existing paradigm. One of the key issues is also that people believe what they were taught in school/college/university is the truth - when its really isn't! On a huge range of issues where we claim to know with certainty, turns out when you get to the core of the subject and speak to the experts on all sides in the field - that certainty becomes a lot less certain. And that's fine!

Its just important to recognize this in the introduction - stick a link into another page which explains that medicine is complex and then on this introduction that we think that on the balance of probabilities that X feels more pseudo-scientific than Y, but simply hasn't been enough research yet to prove it one way or the other. X-mass (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the future, please refrain from general discussion of life, the cosmos, or the general topic of this article. Please see WP:TPG. This page is solely for discussing changes to the associated article. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As to the specific change you propose. No.  Content in each Wikipedia article summarizes reliable sources about the topic of the article.  Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

THIS is Wiki's discussion of tapping???
This hilariously grumpy little article which doesn't say anything about tapping? which is based on something from one of those little coffee-table "Skeptic" magazine? I really don't need my mind protected. I want information. NaySay (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you like to see elaborated? Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this comment. Opinions are routinely presented as facts, and the article shows selection bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengliujian (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please present reliable sources and suggest any changes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My addition of a citation to a rejoinder to a review mentioned in the page was immediately deleted. The only time this would be acceptable would be where the sources are of radically differing quality; e.g., one was published in Nature and the other in Cosmic Energy Vibes Monthly. However, the rejoinder was published in the same journal that published both the original study and the critical view, so to keep one but not the other is a clear case of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengliujian (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also add that I received a warning accusing me of "edit warring" by "repeatedly reverting or undoing" other editors' changes. I actually made one substantial edit and did not revert anyone else's edits. I assume this was an innocent error, but would appreciate an apology. Pengliujian (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the rejoinder, but didn't say a word about its content, so the mention appeared to be needless. We could write about it, but then we would also have to write about the unfavorable coverage of it in the book 'Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology', and an protracted back and forth of 'nuh-uh' 'yuh-huh' doesn't help our readers. - MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially when one side is talking bollox. We must avoid WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GEVALis not relevant here, since both points of view are published in scientific and professional journals; the examples given there are of obviously crackpot theories that would not appear in any serious journal (flat earth etc.). I agree we should not be citing EFT sites and books (except for descriptions of how the technique is practised) but in discussion of its efficacy, anything from a reputable journal is worth citing. This includes (i) articles that claim EFT works for the reasons it says, (ii) articles that claim it works but for some other non-placebo reason (e.g., distracting the subject), (iii) articles that says it has no effect. Of course we can disagree about what constitutes a reputable journal (I tend to ignore anything with "holistic", "natural" etc. in the name, but YMMV). Pengliujian (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAICS there are zero sources that validate EFT. Every decent source says, essentially, that it's a scam. So Wikipedia does too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a few:


 * Clond, M., (2016). Emotional Freedom Techniques for Anxiety: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 204(5), 388-395. doi:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000483
 * Church, D., Feinstein, D., Palmer-Hoffman, J., Stein, P. K., & Tranguch, A. (2014). Empirically supported psychological treatments: The challenge of evaluating clinical innovations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202(10), 699-709.
 * Feinstein, D. (2012). Acupoint stimulation in treating psychological disorders: Evidence of efficacy. Review of General Psychology, 16(4), 364-380.
 * Church, D. (2013). Clinical EFT as an evidence-based practice for the treatment of psychological and physiological conditions. Psychology, 4(8), 645-654. doi:10.4236/psych.2013.48092
 * Gilomen, S. A. & Lee, C. W. (2015). The efficacy of acupoint stimulation in the treatment of psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 140-148
 * Feinstein, D. (2010). Rapid treatment of PTSD: Why psychological exposure with acupoint tapping may be effective. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(3), 385-402.
 * Varvogli, L., & Darviri, C. (2011). Stress Management Techniques: Evidence-based procedures that reduce stress and promote health. Health Science Journal, 5(2), 74-89.
 * Metcalf, O., Varker, T., Forbes, et al. (2016). Efficacy of Fifteen Emerging Interventions for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, Online first Jan 7. DOI: 10.1002/jts.2207.


 * I've restricted the list to meta-analyses and review papers, since listing every clinical trial would take too long. I also excluded any journal which was devoted to alternative, holistic etc. medicine; these are all mainstream journals. My point is not that EFT works, let alone that it works for the reasons its advocates propose; I am in no way qualified to judge that. My point is that if a topic is seriously discussed in academic/medical journals, then it is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to dismiss one side of that argument. Pengliujian (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument is used by many POV-pushers: they say, because ${fringe-topic} is studied in journal articles (say, homeopathy or reiki) it can't be BS. Sorry, EFT is BS as our sources tell us. BS is studied in academic articles quite a lot. WP:PSCI is a core policy, not an optional extra. Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not pushing POV; in fact, I have yet to form an opinion on EFT. (I initially dismissed it as woo, but then some favourable mentions by people I respect led me to look up some of the research, which is how, in a roundabout way, I ended up here.) My point is that the article in its current state is POV, or dangerously close to it. It's true that "BS is studied in academic articles quite a lot" but that is not what we are talking about here; we are talking about studies in mainstream journals that have concluded that EFT has a measurable effect. Now these studies may be flawed, but AFAIK no one here is qualified to judge that, and even if we were, that judgement would still be POV. (To give an example from my own field, I could probably make a strong argument that Stephen Krashen's Input_hypothesis is unscientific garbage, but I wouldn't say that on the Wikipedia page - the guy's a professor, he got published, so all I could do is point out, in more tactful terms, that many linguists think his ideas are rubbish.) Pengliujian (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For most of those (particularly the Feinstein and Church papers) we don't have to judge ourselves, because later peer reviewed sources have judged them for us. See the talk page archives, some of these get brought up a lot. - MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing debate - one of the sources I cite is from 2016 - so the language used should reflect that. Blanket dismissals do not help WP's image, IMHO. But anyway, I've got a ton of conference papers to edit (and another WP article to sort out), so cannot contribute more - do as you see fit. Pengliujian (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You cite two papers from 2016. The first is from a very low impact journal and doesn't look very promising (by WP:REDFLAG we're going to need exceptionally strong sources to make any claims about EFT). I can't currently access the full paper - what specifically does it say that leads you to recommend this source as validating EFT? Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it validates EFT. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am by no means convinced that EFT is a valid technique (at least not for the reasons its leading advocates propose). My point was that the existence of a study as recently as 2016 in a fairly prestigious journal indicates that the debate has not been definitively concluded. The people who edit and peer-review for these kinds of journals aren't idiots; if something has been clearly shown to be woo, it doesn't get through. Anyway, my curiosity has been whetted enough to distract me from that pile of papers I mentioned - I don't have the full text but I'll get our library to order it and let you know if there's anything interesting. Pengliujian (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I got hold of the paper. It's a meta-analysis of 14 studies of EFT treatment for anxiety from 2003 through to 2015 that meet APA DIV12 criteria (12 studies were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria). Methodology seems pretty rigorous. Conclusion: "These data demonstrate that EFT therapy is associated with a significant treatment effect when patients are compared with baseline or compared with control conditions. There are insufficient data to demonstrate equivalence or superiority to traditional psychotherapy techniques such as CBT. However, because of its efficacy and ease of use, EFT may possess significant practical advantages to public health outcomes compared with resource-intensive approaches including CBT. Based on the positive outcomes, further studies are needed on patient satisfaction, patient preference, accessibility, cost saving, and comparison to standard of care." Regardless of our opinion on the results, its existence demonstrates that there is ongoing discussion of the effectiveness of EFT in mainstream medical journals. Pengliujian (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

if the discussion here is PMID 26749196, i have the paper and can send it to anybody who wants it. The whole thing is 5 pages long, and 1 and a half of those are citations. There is supplementary information with more detail. The entire discussion about EFT is as follows: (method) Selection of the emerging interventions was determined in consultation with five Australian trauma experts who were asked to consider the “current most popular, novel, and/or emerging interventions for the treatment of PTSD.” Trauma experts were asked to draw on their own experiences and knowledge of interventions that were frequently being drawn to the attention of government agencies and other relevant bodies for potential to fund. ...The interventions selected were acceptance and commitment therapy, acupuncture, art therapy, canine therapy, emotional freedom technique (EFT), equine therapy, mantrabased meditation (MBM), mindfulness-based stress reduction, music therapy, outdoor therapy, rewind therapy/technique, thought field therapy, traumatic incident reduction, visual kinaesthetic dissociation, and yoga. "(results section) One small-sized (N = 46) RCT with a high dropout rate and no control data at 3-month follow-up investigated the EFT compared to a delayed intervention control and found a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms (Karatzias et al., 2011)." "(discussion section)Four interventions had been tested in RCTs that met criteria for sufficient quality: acupuncture, EFT, MBM, and yoga. ...EFT was shown to improve PTSD symptoms comparably to an eye movement desensitization and reprocessing condition....Acupuncture and EFT are similar in that both involve manipulating purported meridians, through needles and fingertapping, respectively. ... Despite research showing that acupuncture can be effective in treating some conditions, the mechanisms behind the effect remain unclear (World Health Organization, 2002). Researchers have proposed that the manipulation of meridians releases neurochemicals that improves mood or reduces hyperarousal (Karatzias et al., 2011). A similar mechanism may be in play with EFT. Alternatively, the active component of EFT may be similar to established, trauma-focused treatments, in that it involves an element of exposure therapy as the individual is asked to elicit the traumatic memory, albeit much more briefly than in prolonged exposure (Karatzias et al., 2011). Whether the exposure element, meridian stimulation, a combination of these, or some other element is the active component of EFT remains unknown. Despite some promising findings, the majority of emerging interventions investigated in this review had insufficient levels of evidence supporting their efficacy."

So, EFT was selected in the list because 5 "trauma experts" in Australia are aware of lobbying to fund more research about this. The authors found one shitty study and talked about it. This is not "ongoing discussion of the effectiveness of EFT in mainstream medical journals". Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No benefit beyond placebo
I've restored the previous revision, as the provided source seems to be adequate to support this claim. Rather than back-and-forth it, I wonder if consensus could be established here? Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The tone and content cited are biased. Also, you are edit warring. When I have time I will re-word that section to give it the neutral, encyclopedic tone it should have. Air (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that my one revert and then going to the talk page to attempt to establish consensus really constitute warring, but anyway... is it the Bakker reference you're concerned about? It does seem fairly solid. Basie (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Current page completely contradicts most recent studies/findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:3A01:8D90:8009:B944:461E:59BE (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Attack Article, not NPOV
I find this article to be unprofessional and unfair. Asking a panel how discredited they think something is, that is not scientific. THis is supposed to be an unbiased source of information by individuals, not pro-establishment, pro-mainstream articles written by professionals and those with a vested interest. I cam here to read the alleged benefits claimed, history, etc., not anti-science bigots who call anything they disagree with "pseudoscience." This is America, and we should have the right to alternative therapies. The fact that big pharma and anti-alternative bigots write and support such articles only makes me want to be more anti-establishment and against the "mainstream" path. 68.67.252.165 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the article references plausibility: one could ask if it is not extremely implausable that pharmaceutical corporations might supply substances that ould lead to better health. "Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians.[9]" This article is just not credible; it dismisses Acupuncture and Tai Chi? it is a reminder of medical textbooks that assured students that diet for good health was quackery; Accusations of pseudoscience is just name calling. Nowhere is there any evidence that people are not benefitting from this treatment. Is there an outcry of fraud from the people using this therapy? If so, where is your research data? Either this therapy works for some peole or it does not; that is the only area of research where results might be in the public interest. The wiki-published opinion of a person who is not an expert in the field is of no interest and is specious. This article needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.191.197 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, to clarify: it's not just America. There are editors and readers of Wikipedia from every country with access to the internet.
 * You absolutely do have the right to alternative therapies. I don't believe you have the right to make statements about the effectiveness of those therapies without being challenged. Basie (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you change the article, Anonymous Contributor? More importantly, what evidence would you provide to support those changes? Hmmm? Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Radical edit
This pair of edits, made a short time ago, was radical, unexplained by any edit summary, and removed sourced material. The pair were made by User:Volare12 (contributions). Volare12 (or anyone), please get agreement here before removing material. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not accustomed to wikipedia editing norms, but I know now. Volare12 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC) The radical edits reflected only my attempt to bring this article up-to-date with peer-reviewed research from academic journals and did not reflect any opinion or endorsement. I deleted critiques which are now out-of-date given the recent research advances of what is considered the gold standard in psychology research: randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses.Volare12 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about editing content and adding sidebar
Hello, sorry if my questions are off-base, I am new to wikipedia lingo/editing. Would it be pertinent to add references to other large proponents pushing this method to the sidebar (specifically I'm thinking Joseph Mercola, who has hundreds of videos online, hosts online seminars and sells products for EFT). Additionally, could this article be included in the alternative medicine and pseudoscience sidebar, and if so, that included here? (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Alternative_medicine_sidebar) Uninspired Username (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

New entry moved to correct place at bottom.
This article, as it is currently written, cherry-picks the evidence to present EFT as pseudoscience. Meanwhile, dozens of studies and a few meta-analyses supporting EFT go unmentioned. Even if it were acceptable to limit yourself to only the articles supporting your point, which it isn't, these articles do not permit you to draw the conclusions you have drawn in this write-up. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You cannot make a claim that EFT does nothing beyond placebo without an equivalence study demonstrating this. On the contrary, PubMed is full of peer-reviewed studies supporting the likelihood that EFT may be actually helping people. We cling to medical practices with less evidence than we have for EFT. No one is saying it is perfect evidence, but that describes most of the field of psychology. There is no utility in destroying the reputation of a field that is performing the necessary research to legitimize itself. This article needs to be rewritten as an impartial presentation of the evidence and conflicting viewpoints. These conclusions are premature and non-scientific in their approach. I would be happy to work on this, but based on responses I read below, it sounds like those in charge are more interested in propagating their viewpoints that actually dealing with the nuances of the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.113.88 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I'm not fluent in Wikipedia editing, so I hope I'm not breaking conventions or norms here. This article seems heavily biased and uses rhetoric to attempt to convince the reader of something, which seems against the spirit of Wikipedia and science in general. One example is putting things in quotes that don't need to be. It seems odd that the Skeptical Inquirer appears so predominately in that introduction, as it's not a peer-reviewed journal. The references given in the first paragraph also seem dated. The existence of "A 2016 systematic review found that EFT was effective in reducing anxiety compared to controls, but also called for more research comparing its effectiveness to that of established treatments[12]" buried at the end of the Research Quality section seems horribly out of place there, and it is more recent than any of the other citations on the page. Regardless of how "hokey" EFT seems to be, the science should speak for itself, and the science needs to be up-to-date. As a layperson, I find it hard to tease the truth out of the many articles out there, and I come to Wikipedia for what I hope is unbiased information, but this article seems to fail at that.24.77.98.62 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if the folks watching over this site are aware of this high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis from the Journal "Psychological Medicine" (Impact factor 5.6)

Mavranezouli I, Megnin-Viggars O, Daly C, Dias S, Welton NJ, Stockton S, Bhutani G, Grey N, Leach J, Greenberg N, Katona C, El-Leithy S, Pilling S. Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2020 Mar;50(4):542-555. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720000070. Epub 2020 Feb 17. PMID: 32063234.

In it, the authors first review quality of research support for psychosocial and pharmacological PTSD treatments including EFT and TFT (referred to as "combined somatic/cognitive therapy" in the article), using Cochrane risk of bias criteria (see supplemental appendix 8). Pre/Post intervention changes for EFT/TFT were found to be third highest among the 18 treatments evaluated (see Table 1), exceeded only by metacognitive therapy and EMDR, though for the former only one trial was analyzed. Pre/follow-up analysis of EFT/TFT effects was hindered because only one related study had a long enough follow-up period. Only EMDR and trauma-focused CBT were found to have effects exceeding generic counseling owing to the low number of studies on other effective treatments (four EFT/TFT studies met inclusion criteria). This would appear to meet APA Division 12 criteria for probably efficacious treatments. 68.227.65.249 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On initial reading, I don't think I would add anything to our article based on the paper's conclusions. I have no idea how APA division 12 criteria apply in Wikipedia? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Credibility - discussion about science support
Hi, the article currently states that "EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect" and "is generally characterized as pseudoscience" and "Their work, however, is flawed and hence unreliable: high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective."

However I do not believe these claims to be credible.

I have found there are at least these sources comparing EFT to other "evidence-based" therapies (CBT, NET, EMDR) and showing it has significant effect, similiar to those of those therapies.

I am linking the source to those papers I believe are high quality research: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830709002766 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744388116301451 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830711000395

I suggest we change the Research passage to: "EFT has been supported by several studies and it's effectivness is comparable to the use of another techniques in the case of treating trauma, phobias and anxiety." Is it realistic it could be changed?

Regard, Jakub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubiom (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, by pretty much every one of our core WP:PAGs. The papers you link are not reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE for starters). Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those are pretty long articles, I will surely go throught them. Still isn't current statement "EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect" misleading when there are numerous studies showing it has significant effecience? Regards, Jakub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubiom (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could this meta analysis be a reliable source by any chance? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830716301604 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubiom (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or this systematic review? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239991731245X I am about serious discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubiom (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source is from the journal Explore which is obscure and fringey - WP:REDFLAG applies; the second source is a bit better, but basically concludes little more than Further research is needed - and it's taking Traditional Chinese medicine seriously does not suggest it is a serious piece. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it. But still given there are over 100 studies supporting EFT and several meta analyses an systematic reviews proving it to be effective; aren't those statements little misleading? "EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect" and "high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective." I am not asking for a major change. I insist giving thought a little restating of those sentences to reflect current state of things. Could something little be done about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubiom (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if there are reliable sources. A single reliable source counts; an infinity of unreliable ones are worthless. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Three of the articles you present are from Explore. This is not a reliable source, certainly not for medical articles. Also, articles from 2009 and 2011 do not "reflect the current state of things." They actually predate a lot of the criticism. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 11:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Updates are urgently needed based on new academic research found in peer-reviewed academic journals. This article is seriously skewed without these new findings. I am concerned that peer-reviewed research from academic journals is being questioned and prevented from being contributed here, while non-academic sources giving only opinions and citing magazine articles is allowed (e.g., Skeptical Inquirer, QuackWatch). I propose the following changes: Delete or change given new research findings: Update existing critiques from these sources (e.g., Skeptical Inquirer, QuackWatch) given accumulation of randomized clinical trials (commonly regarded as the gold standard in therapy research, albeit not perfect) and meta-analyses using current methodology in peer-reviewed academic journals. Add: More recent meta-analyses of clinical trials in peer-reviewed academic journals indicate large effect sizes for posttraumatic stress disorder[11] and depression[12] The acupoint stimulation component of EFT has recently been demonstrated in a meta-analysis of several randomized clinical trials to be a meaningful ingredient in the therapy. [14] 11.	Sebastian B, Nelms J (2017) The effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis. Explore (NY). 13:16–25 12.	^ Nelms JA, Castel L (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials of Clinical Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) for the treatment of depression. Explore (NY). 12:416–426 doi:10.1016/j.explore.2016.08.001 14.	^ Church, D., Stapleton, P., Yang, A., & Gallo, F. (2018). Is Tapping on acupuncture points an active ingredient in emotional freedom techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 206(10), 783-793. doi:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000878 Volare12 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got three sources here. "11" and "12" are articles in "Explore (NY)"; "14" is one in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. "Explore (NY)" is the ISO abbreviation for Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. I have no comment on J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., but Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing seems very feeble. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I will add a statement referencing the meta-analysis from the "Journal of Nervous Mental Dis." I still think it is objective and important to include the meta-analyses from EXPLORE journal since those articles summarize the most up-to-date EFT clinical research using gold-standard research practices in psychological research (i.e., randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses) . I think its fair, to your point, to add a statement about the "Explore" journal being fringe or some other phrasing indicating it comes from a journal covering topics unconventional to the dominant western scientific paradigm (or some other descriptive statement without bias).  The Explore journal's "about" section says it is "an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health." Volare12 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are usable. Time to stop the POV-push. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, please give rationale for why they are not usable. The J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. is one of the oldest independent scientific monthly journals - very well established. Also, the proposed sources used current gold standard scientific standards in psychological research (RCTs and meta-analysis). It is reasonable to add the research in descriptive language, and qualify the EXPLORE journal source in the article if you'd like, rather than suppress it out of article entirely. I don't think you are trying to suppress current research, and I assume you want this article to be accurate. Do you have ideas of how to qualify the new research in the article? See my reasonable suggestion above.  Volare12 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG since we are dealing with known pseudosciences, we'll need much much stronger sources than some backwater journal with an impact factor of 1.6 for any claims of efficacy. The source may however be used for neutral descriptions of what EFT entails. As above, the Explore journal articles are just junk and should be entirely disregarded. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Source 14 (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease) in my proposal above is not a "backwater" journal. It has been publishing since 1874 and well-established. An impact factor of 1.6 is not small beans, but also not large. For example, A top tier APA journal "Psychotherapy" has impact factor of 2.57 - not too different.  About 80% of all journals are below an impact factor of 3. As this article stands, it makes Wikipedia a less relevant and less accurate source of reliable information.  I propose we reach a compromise.  One idea is splitting the research section of this article into 1) "Critique of evidence and 2) "Current Evidence."  Or, we keep it all in one section and after each statement of randomized clinical trial or meta-analysis, you add a statement highlighting the limitation of the source journal or findings.  This is very similar to how research reviews are written: including relevant science and highlighting the limitations of the scientific methodology employed. This is reasonable, and allows this article to be brought up to date and let readers understand both what is being published and also the limitations of that research including the reputation of the source journal. Lets bring this up to date.Volare12 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Still WP:REDFLAG. Source is not usable for claims of therapeutic benefit of pseudoscience(s). Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources in the article are over ten years old and are not up to date. As has been pointed out they're not from reliable journals. If you don't want to add the new evidence because of the impact factor of the journal, at least take out the opinion pieces and make this a stronger entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.167.212 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Hi, As background, I got my BA in history of science from Princeton University, so I find this discussion of pseudoscience particularly interesting. I am not at all convinced that there is any scientific evidence for the mechanism often attributed as being the cause of EFT benefits (such as "energy" and "meridians"). That said, can an encyclopedia simply omit a randomized controlled study documenting changes in physiological markers, such as the stress hormone cortisol, which was published in the APA (American Psychological Association) journal Psychological Trauma?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. I actually took a course on pseudoscience, where we had a lot of interesting discussions. This is like wading into the "real thing"! Regards, Mackenzie Wiredforinquiry (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I was hoping this would lead to interesting discussions, but I'm new to contributing to wikipedia. It's been almost two weeks since I posted this question to the community of editors for this page. What are your thoughts? Regards, Mackenzie Wiredforinquiry (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason you have had no response to your question is that you have posted into an old thread. You should have posted your new topic at the bottom of the page where it would be easily seen by interested editors. Your reference above is the results of a RCT, a primary source which is not reliable for our purposes. see WP:RS for our normal sourcing requirements. However, and more importantly, for medical articles we have an even stricter requirement, WP:MEDRS which you should read. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy, the grumpy dog, for taking the time to point this out to me. You also welcomed me to Wikipedia as well. I thought this fit under the discussion of credibility and discussion about science support but can see differently now. I also more fully appreciate how an encyclopedia article is a different standard and must rely more on reliable secondary sources rather than primary ones. This can also help to explain some of the time delay evident in this article. Yet the latest citation I can find is for 2016 -- 5 years ago. I look forward to digging into this some more and being more apt in my contributions to Wikipedia. Wiredforinquiry (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks again, Mackenzie

I'm a research scientist and epidemiologist. I am also the editor-in-chief for the clinical guidelines in my field. I just say this to let you know that I deal in evidence quality for a living. One thing I find very strange here is the emphasis on the journal in which something is published. Almost every journal mentioned above has a peer review process and has a level of rigor accepted by the National Library of Medicine. That is how they get published in PubMed. But even if they didn't, that should not make a difference to anyone capable of assessing a research article. To determine the quality of an article, you always look to the methodologies, the study design. The journal is completely irrelevant. I have no problem with you arguing that the studies are poor. Many of them are terrible studies with findings that are blown way out of proportion. But I have run across more than a few of them that are solidly designed and found benefit to EFT. Your responses to people's legitimate critiques read like you have a major bias against anything alternative. On a guideline, this would be considered a conflict of interest and you would be asked to recuse yourself from any decisions around that topic. The problem is, you are in a position of power and you are actively holding back literature in order to strengthen your point. That is the opposite of science. Your argument about the low quality of the journal is not a scientific argument. If you are going to damage an entire field of healing, then do your due diligence. Make your entry a critique of every EFT randomized control trial on PubMED and EMBASE on the level of study design. Limit yourself to only those studies that present a true control group. Thoroughly present all the findings. Then make your argument for why all those findings should be disregarded. But please abandon this argument of journal selection. It is truly a non-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.128.67 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)