Frequently Asked Questions

 
 

Are you covered by MSP or other insurance?

 
Oh, how I wish it were the case! Unfortunately, Emotional Freedom Techniques and coaching aren’t yet covered by MSP. There is some forward movement to have EFT covered in some parts of the world – if you’re in the States and a veteran, Veteran’s Affairs has approved treatment with EFT.

 

Is this like counselling or therapy?

 
Yes and, in some important ways, no. I respect your confidentiality, autonomy and inner wisdom the same way that other counsellors and therapists do.
 
But I have some tools and an approach that, in my opinion, get you there faster than talk therapy. I shake your tree.
 
For example, when you say to me, “I’m so stuck in this area of my life!” I don’t just ask you “What do you think you should do?” and let you ruminate. If you knew, you wouldn’t have come in and seen me!
 
You’re seeing me because you want to get off the hamster wheel in your head, so I’m definitely not going to send you back there to spin around a few more times in front of me.
 
Instead, I compassionately point you toward your blocks. And I give you the tools to overcome them. Often, these blocks originate in childhood experiences, and that’s where we might direct part of our tapping sessions. With tapping, we can make breakthroughs in how you think and feel about things that can take many months (or years) of talk therapy to achieve.
 
It’s also important to note I’m not a licensed health care professional. I don’t provide licensed forms of therapy, counselling or other such treatments. It’s a good idea to also connect with one of those folks if you need that kind of help.

 

I’ve tried a lot of things and nothing’s worked. How do I know this will be different?

 
You’re feeling so stuck, and if you just knew what was going to break you out of this rut, you would do it. But you have so little energy left to spend, and there’s a zillion therapists, yoga classes, and healing modalities to choose between.
 
You just want to know which is actually going to be worth your time, because you don’t have the energy or the money to waste spending weeks shopping around.
 
Yup, I’ve been there, and I’ve tried “everything.” What I can tell you is that EFT is hands-down the most effective treatment for our negative emotions and stuckness that I’ve ever come across.
 
There are over 100 peer-reviewed clinical studies to back it up as well – so that’s a really good track record that sets EFT apart from a lot of other treatments out there, if you’re concerned about stepping into alternative medicine.
 
And the other part of the equation is you. Are you ready for change in your life? If you keep trying to get there with many different teachers or modalities, but can’t get unstuck, ask yourself if you’re willing to go through the dip. If you’re ready and willing to look under the hood, then I’m here to work with you, and support that amazing journey.

 

Is EFT for real or is it pseudoscience? I don’t know if I can trust what I’m reading.

 
Short answer: yes, it’s definitely for real, and there’s a body of peer-reviewed literature published in major scientific journals to support that. And we don’t totally understand how it works yet, but they’re doing studies so hold on. 😉
 
Some of us interpret our world from the reference point of energy, and others from the scientific method. Oftentimes it’s both. I get the different approaches, and happily EFT works within both of them.
 
Long answer: If you’ve checked out the Wikipedia article on EFT, you’ll read that EFT is pseudoscience and doesn’t have support among clinical psychologists. So what gives?
 
The Wikipedia entry for EFT (and numerous other alternative and complimentary medicine entries) is tightly policed by a group of editors who share a common world view. They support this worldview with content from sources like the Skeptical Enquirer, and not from peer-reviewed studies. Skepticism is good – and to be honest I probably never would have tried EFT if I hadn’t been totally hoodwinked into it – but this is something beyond skepticism.
 
The existing body of research on EFT includes numerous meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials that solidly demonstrate EFT’s effectiveness. The research shows EFT is as good, or better, than cognitive behaviour therapy, and other standards of care. Many clinical psychologists and other licensed healthcare practitioners have adopted it as part of their practice.
 
Wikipedia’s own rules about health-related topics are supposed to prioritize the inclusion of high-quality research (like meta-analyses published in reputable journals) as sources, but in the case of the EFT article, they violate their own rules and simply omit almost all of the existing research. When anyone tries to update the article, the edits are suppressed.
 
Why not just report on the science? Contrary to popular belief, not just anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Controversial topics are hotly contested, with folks fighting over the content sometimes for hours a day. Yes, it’s bad. But instead of just having completely unqualified people writing the articles, imagine you also have pharmaceutical companies, major corporations, and PR departments spending hours and hours fighting over the content that affects their bottom line on a huge number of health-related topics. Yup.
 
EFT Universe has covered the problems with the EFT entry here. They write,

“Review articles are permitted by Wikipedia’s rules, but the skeptics disallow any mention of review articles written by experts, claiming they have a conflict of interest (never mind that such conflicts have cleared the rigorous standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) and other journals), while posting excerpts of partisan review articles by critics not trained in these methods.
 
Wikipedia allows the reader to peer behind the entry to the history of additions and deletions to the article, and the skeptical editors are perfectly clear, in these discussions, about their worldview. When new studies are published in peer-reviewed medical or psychology journals, the editors state that they should not be included in the Wikipedia article, since this might lend credibility to EFT which in their eyes it does not have. This circular reasoning prevents normal updates to the entry.”

 
Another article covering this issues explains:

“Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, left the organization due to concerns about its integrity. He states: “In some fields and some topics, there are groups who ‘squat’ on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache-made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings” [source]

 
Want to read what should be the real Wikipedia entry on EFT? Here’s one that gives a science-based look at tapping.