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.
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.
“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.