Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 6

Bias
The article is obviously biased, and cherrypicks old journal articles to confirm biases of editors. In some cases there are obvious lies. For instance: "However, a 2020 article titled "The current status of energy psychology: Extraordinary claims with less than ordinary evidence" reported that EFT has no useful effect as a therapy beyond the placebo effect." Even if you look at the link below you see that it's not a 2020 article, but rather a one from 2013. There is also a rejoinder to this article, which is not mentioned ( doi 10.9769/EPJ.2014.6.1.DF ). Other thing is trying to downplay EFT's significance by using rhetoric stating that there is no major following of EFT, and yet in Gaudiano, Brown, and Miller (2012) (which means paper from 9 years ago) we can see that 42.3% of surveyed psychoterapists use EFT in their practice. Also, I understand that Wikipedia focuses on quoting science journals, especially in controversial subjects. In that case, why The Skeptical Enquirer, The Skeptic's Dictionary and Quackwatch are cited in multiple places? Are those science journals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.30.30 (talk • contribs)


 * The 2020 thing was a recently added error. Thanks for pointing that out, I have reverted to the version of the article before that error was introduced. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about this fragment: "EFT has no useful effect as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques that may be used with the purported "energy" technique, but proponents of EFT have published material claiming otherwise. Their work, however, is flawed and hence unreliable: high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective.[3]" - it is a direct quote from a 2013 article, and yet two paragraphs later there is information that in 2016 there was a systemic review which saw EFT working for anxiety. One obviously contradicts the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.103.166 (talk • contribs)
 * Not really. They just found it was better than their control - but it is well known that EFT acts like distraction therapy. To show that there is any validity to the 'energy points' stuff involved in EFT, it would have to be shown to be better than plain old tapping anywhere, that's where the evidence falls apart. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 3 things here. 1) If it wouldn't matter what the tapping places be, then it still isn't 'distraction therapy', because there is no distraction therapy which would cure (by which I mean long lasting great reduction of an issue) anxiety, PTDS, depression or other issues (for all of these there are RCTs for EFT, none cited on this wiki page, except anxiety review). It could mean that there is other, not yet known, mechanism of action. But again, this does not make the technique invalid (by which I mean producing results in RCTs), 2) There has been published research of tapping on acupoints vs using something else as 'distraction' (for instance here: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2016-39089-001.html ). EFT came out favorably. 3) If it's just a 'distraction therapy', then why it increases multiple physiological markers of health ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6381429/ )? Obviously, this study isn't mentioned in the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.103.166 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't mention primary sources or single studies, see WP:MEDRS. (FYI, Church's conflict of interest on this is well known, you're not going to convince anyone on this talk page by citing him) - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How can there be more research done by researchers not invested in EFT, if article like this (which may be first thing they see when they look up the term) is written from a position actively discrediting the method (clearly not NPOV)?
 * Isn't there a vicious circle (a method is 'true' if it is published in prestigious journals; it is published in prestigious journals if reviewers and editors believe it is 'true')? The last thing here is well established: reviewers favor what they already believe ("Our research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work." https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/360 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.30.30 (talk • contribs)


 * If you've got a problem with how Wikipedia's content policies work, the place to get them changed is Village pump (policy)‎. Unless/until that happens, we can't just ignore them on this article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are obviously 2 issues here, one is how current policies work, and two, how this article is written. Even without including additional research, it clearly ignores NPOV - which is supposedly one of the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.30.30 (talk • contribs)
 * They're the same issue. WP:NPOV (particularly WP:FALSEBALANCE) says that the tone of the article should match the tone of the sources used to write it. If those sources are critical, so too will be the article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This article may be out of date with regard to studies examining the efficacy of EFT
In looking into the potential efficacy of EFT I was struck by the differences between this Wikipedia article characterizing EFT as pseudoscience with no evidence of effectiveness beyond the placebo effect and more recent studies reporting statistically significant positive effects of EFT. I'd ask that those considering the accuracy of this article review the following sources and consider these and other studies that are more recent than some of those cited by the authors of the Wikipedia article. It appears that rather than present EFT as pseudoscience with no research supporting its efficacy, it might be better to reflect that there are more recent studies that appear to show evidence for benefits from EFT for those with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. A more balanced treatment that acknowledges that although there are potential issues with some of these studies, some more recent studies are of higher quality may be more useful. Instead of presenting EFT as debunked pseudoscience, I'd suggest it be presented as a technique that is still being studied to determine its efficacy and that more research is necessary before researchers can draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of EFT. Thank you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6381429/

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-51669-020

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26894319/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23364126/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:C100:9B30:F4B6:4E11:917C:6187 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first, second, and fourth links are useless for Wikipedia since they are WP:PRIMARY. The third is already used in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about how links cited in this article are apparently misused. For example, the conclusion of the paper linked to in reference 3 is that "EFT is a very simple, effective and safe technique. EFT has the potential to be a powerful tool to improve the care of palliative patients who have distressing emotions. Future research on EFT and its effect on distressing emotions in palliative populations and their families is warranted." Where this link is cited in the Wikipedia article, it does not reflect this conclusion, instead simply stating "EFT draws on various theories of alternative medicine – including acupuncture, neuro-linguistic programming, energy medicine, and Thought Field Therapy (TFT). EFT also combines elements of exposure therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and somatic stimulation". The Wikipedia article appears to reflect some bias on the part of the author(s)2601:201:C100:9B30:F4B6:4E11:917C:6187 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused about what the article says - it doesn't say that it doesn't work, it says that it doesn't work any better than any other distraction therapy. The tapping works as well as similar distractions (like the 'name all the objects in the room' method). Distraction therapy is known to be simple, effective and safe. But it has not been shown that there is any added benefit from tapping on the 'meridian points' - which are widely known to not actually exist. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

EFT - Emotional Freedom Techniques
Where the claim has been made I suggest it is nothing more than placebo, there is overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to prove that eft calms the Amygdala which is responsible to the flight, fight, freeze responses and in turn produces the release of cortisol (the stress hormone) into the body. The study done upon where the body’s energy system (Meridians) a special luminous dye was purposefully injected into a person where these meridian energy points are believed to run. The dye followed the exact route as predicted. When the dye was placed elsewhere where there is believed to be no energy points running in a specific area, the dye did nothing. Double blind experiments must include 50% placebo in clinical trials and there as an overwhelming amount of people who seem to experience the same benefits of healing as that of those who have had the actual treatment. In the UK (Birmingham) EFT was used as a therapy for 35 patients suffering either from clinical depression or psychosis. 34/35 of those patients made a full recovery back to normality in a record time. Pseudo science is believing that pharmaceutical medicine is the only answer for the body and psychology is the only answer for the mind and emotions because they forget that emotions are it the body or the mind and therefor need to be worked upon differently. EFT is one of the best modalities in which to accomplish this. 2A02:C7E:2BCB:5000:9D79:7EA:3F8F:7F92 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is interested in your opinion. See WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to change the article, you need to bring WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Information from a publication of the American Psychological Association should be considered MEDRS and should be included in the EFT article
I tried to add information to the EFT article, but it was removed, with the claim that the source was not "MEDRS". My source was the book "Promoting Mind–Body Health in Schools: Interventions for Mental Health Professionals," published by the APA.

Here is my justification for considering this source MEDRS. First, here's what wikipedia says about MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include... academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers"

Let's look at this MEDRS specification point by point, and compare it to the source I cited.
 * --"From respected publishers" - My source is a book published by the American Psychological Association. The APA is well-respected publisher, and a "national or international expert body".
 * --"written by experts in the relevant fields" - The book was edited by editors chosen by the APA. Who are you to question the selection of the APA? The chapter writers were chosen by those editors. Who are you to question the expertise of the experts chosen by the editors chosen by the APA?
 * --"academic and professional books" - This book is published by a professional (and scientific) body, who put the word "Professional" right in the title of the book. The book presents several mind-body health interventions, thought by the editors to be useful to school psychologists. The book is meant to be used by school psychologists, i.e. professionals.

Without objection, I will re-add the information from this source in one week.

Robinesque (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think we'd need something a lot better than a book that is hedging about 'initial results' to even imply that tapping on meridians is better than any other sort of distraction therapy. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie (talk)
 * ,You have not said anything to invalidate the points I made. You just gave an opinion "I think we'd need something a lot better." but you didn't prove it per MEDRS standards. I justified my position point by point according to wikipedia standards for MEDRS. I proved that the information from the book belongs in Wikipedia.


 * MEDRS doesn't say that wikipedians should pass judgement on reliable sources. MEDRS says point blank "Respect secondary sources." Please abide by MEDRS and respect this source.


 * If the APA is comfortable presenting "Initial results," then per MEDRS, that is exactly what Wikipedia is comfortable with. If you continue to object, I will check with the higher authorities at Wikipedia to determine if they consider the book sufficiently authoritative to quote.


 * You say "I think we'd need something a lot better." Who is the higher authority, you or the APA? The APA has the proof they need, and that is good enough for Wikipedia, per MEDRS. The APA's opinion of what they need trumps your position of what you need.


 * You have kept a lot of information out of this article, based on the justification that the source was not to MEDRS standards. It's time for you to show your loyalty to MEDRS standards, by letting in information that meets MEDRS standards, even though you would rather not acknowledge that EFT is not universally condemned among mental health professionals.


 * Robinesque (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MrOllie is correct, that source does not meet wp:medrs sourcing requirements. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 22:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The higher authorities are all the other higher quality sources we have. Books are lower tier sources in general, and a book that won't even make a definitive statement is even less than that. Also, this isn't 'the APA', it's a book. If and when the APA wants to make an official statement on this they will, they're not going to bury it in an obscure book about school counseling. - MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * APA did make a statement, but it is not into your believes, it won't be included as always. All the positive studies get deleted, sad for Wikipedia who was reliable source long time ago. One day the new generation will take the grip you took on it. Bye https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830718303513 2A02:A03F:66C0:AD00:D593:F6E0:3F91:F4A7 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)