Dr. Sandro de Rosa, EFT

[William Smith]

Dr. de Rosa told us in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54242) thread, that he would like to provide evidence for EFT.

[William Smith]

An application would almost certainly be accepted by the JREF. Again, omly JREF Staff can confirm this: challenge@randi.org

Have you done any tests with EFT, Dr. de Rosa?

[Sandro de Rosa]

An application would almost certainly be accepted by the JREF. Again, omly JREF Staff can confirm this: challenge@randi.org

Have you done any tests with EFT, Dr. de Rosa?

Hi, the only "tests" I have done are on myself, (which is what convinced me absolutely: years of an anxiety disorder wiped away in a couple of sessions, and after 10 years it has never presented again) my family, my friends, my acquaintances, and finally my patients over more than 10 years and with an approximate success rate on various complaints, some of the most extraordinary ones are reported on the EFT website (emofree). I am also developing an expert system so that no "mystical" energy can be involved, and as little "bedside manner" placebo as possible. The reason I put tests in quotes is because these were obviously not formal tests but treatments without controls as I do not belong to a research organisation for this purpose. Now I know the claim sounds tall, but given time and opportunity I'm sure I can replicate similar performance under controlled laboratory conditions with bona-fide test cases. The only cases I have had to work a lot on and in some cases have not completed are Panic Attacks and Depression, but that's because I need to improve there, I think. Other practitioners have done better than me there, it seems. I might just contact the email address you gave, you see if I do win the challenge, which I have a great chance of doing, that means that EFT will have to be officially recognised which AFAIC means being able to free millions of people from their emotional chains. I think you would agree with me, in that case that it would be $1M well spent in the service of our fellow man. But that can also be done with academic research I I could find a psychology researcher who had enough guts to do that. If Prof. Patrick Callahan (discoverer of TFT, EFT's forebear) is having a hard time, it looks like JREF might be the unwitting benefactor of very many people. After all a valid cure even if it does not appear science-based, is more important than a valid Tarot reader, don'tyou think? Out on the fringes there are things like Sodium Chlorite used to cure malaria in three African nations that will never be FDA approved though because that costs a fortune and it's not patentable because its discoverer Jim Humble has released his protocol to the public domain so no drug company can profit from it. Skeptics are necessary but they must behave like skeptics, not fanatic naysayers who just have to give an explanation for everything, even if the explanation sounds stranger than the claim. It is easy and unfair, as part of an organisation or school of thought, to say "prove it" to their unprepared victims of which maybe 1 in 1000 actually have something to contribute but are prevented from so doing because so much energy is wasted in their character assassination rather than honestly investigating and helping them to manifest possible truths they might be harbouring. So I was quite pleased whe you opened this thread, but I am wary of it attempting, forgive me if it isn't, to be a trap. I have no fear of such a possible trap but such games do so weary me, you understand. In Italy a lot of things are not at all what they seem, indeed they are the opposite. So please do bear with me.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, the only "tests" I have done are on myself, (which is what convinced me absolutely: years of an anxiety disorder wiped away in a couple of sessions, and after 10 years it has never presented again) my family, my friends, my acquaintances, and finally my patients over more than 10 years and with an approximate success rate on various complaints, some of the most extraordinary ones are reported on the EFT website (emofree).

I am also developing an expert system so that no "mystical" energy can be involved, and as little "bedside manner" placebo as possible. The reason I put tests in quotes is because these were obviously not formal tests but treatments without controls as I do not belong to a research organisation for this purpose.

Now I know the claim sounds tall, but given time and opportunity I'm sure I can replicate similar performance under controlled laboratory conditions with bona-fide test cases. The only cases I have had to work a lot on and in some cases have not completed are Panic Attacks and Depression, but that's because I need to improve there, I think.

Other practitioners have done better than me there, it seems. I might just contact the email address you gave, you see if I do win the challenge, which I have a great chance of doing, that means that EFT will have to be officially recognised which AFAIC means being able to free millions of people from their emotional chains. I think you would agree with me, in that case that it would be $1M well spent in the service of our fellow man.

But that can also be done with academic research I I could find a psychology researcher who had enough guts to do that. If Prof. Patrick Callahan (discoverer of TFT, EFT's forebear) is having a hard time, it looks like JREF might be the unwitting benefactor of very many people. After all a valid cure even if it does not appear science-based, is more important than a valid Tarot reader, don'tyou think?

Out on the fringes there are things like Sodium Chlorite used to cure malaria in three African nations that will never be FDA approved though because that costs a fortune and it's not patentable because its discoverer Jim Humble has released his protocol to the public domain so no drug company can profit from it.

Skeptics are necessary but they must behave like skeptics, not fanatic naysayers who just have to give an explanation for everything, even if the explanation sounds stranger than the claim.

It is easy and unfair, as part of an organisation or school of thought, to say "prove it" to their unprepared victims of which maybe 1 in 1000 actually have something to contribute but are prevented from so doing because so much energy is wasted in their character assassination rather than honestly investigating and helping them to manifest possible truths they might be harbouring.

So I was quite pleased whe you opened this thread, but I am wary of it attempting, forgive me if it isn't, to be a trap. I have no fear of such a possible trap but such games do so weary me, you understand.

In Italy a lot of things are not at all what they seem, indeed they are the opposite. So please do bear with me.

(Inserted some paragraph marks for readability.)

You said:

Now I know the claim sounds tall, but given time and opportunity I'm sure I can replicate similar performance under controlled laboratory conditions with bona-fide test cases.

Very good. How much time would you need? Could you outline what you would require, in order to conduct a controlled test?

Let me make some recommendations, because what you have in mind for a test is probably along the lines of a long-term medical trial:

For the purposes of the MDC, it's best to focus on very simple claims. A claim like "I can cure cancer" is probably beyond the scope of the MDC, since the MDC is geared towards formal long-term medical trials (which would be expensive, besides, and we'd want to avoid that, given that you are responsible for paying all of the applicable costs).

Also, you want to go for objective claims. "I can claim whether a person is depressed" isn't a good claim -- again, you'd need a really large test in order to weed out (or, at least, minimize the impact of) people who are lying or in denial. It's too subjective. Unfortunately, this presents a difficulty for EFT testing, because EFT is all about emotion (insofar as I can tell by reading online about it).

But if you have a claim such as "I can detect the presence of a person's energy field" (since EFT is about manipulating the alleged energy field of a person), there are probably several simple protocols that can be developed that would be good for the MDC.

Can you detect people's energy fields? Do you have to be able to touch them to do so? If not, do you have to be able to see the people in order to detect their fields, or is it something you'd be able to detect, say, blindfolded or if the person was under a sheet or behind a piece of cardboard? If you don't have to touch them, exactly how close do you have to get to them before you start to sense their energy fields?

[Jackalgirl]

BTW for a discussion of Jim Humble and his miracle elixir that cures everything, see this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116017) (rather than derailing this one).

[SimpleIrony]

I've had a quick look at emofree.com, and one test comes to mind:

The site claims that there have been several cases where allergies have been healed or alleviated within minutes. It seems to me that if ten people were demonstrated to have allergies via a skin prick test and three or more of them were shown not to have the same allergic reactions a couple of hours later, after one or more sessions of EFT, that would definitely suggest a positive effect. Any condition that could be confirmed with a blood test would certainly fit in this category.

Hmm... that would be way too expensive wouldn't it? I wasn't thinking about the cost when I first started typing...

Can you diagnose problems with EFT? That might be a less expensive way to go.

[Jackalgirl]

I've had a quick look at emofree.com, and one test comes to mind:

The site claims that there have been several cases where allergies have been healed or alleviated within minutes. It seems to me that if ten people were demonstrated to have allergies via a skin prick test and three or more of them were shown not to have the same allergic reactions a couple of hours later, after one or more sessions of EFT, that would definitely suggest a positive effect. Any condition that could be confirmed with a blood test would certainly fit in this category.

Hmm... that would be way to expensive wouldn't it? I wasn't thinking about the cost when I first started typing...

Can you diagnose problems with EFT? That might be a less expensive way to go.

I think it's actually a very good protocol suggestion though, as you point out, it probably would be fairly expensive. But I don't think you'd necessarily need that many people, which will make it a bit less expensive.

Still, I maintain that the better thing to do is to test the base objective claims of EFT. For example, there's a claim that EFT works by manipulating the subject's energy field through tapping at certain meridians (if I understand correctly, and my source [Wikipedia, always rreca crapshoot] is correct). The basic objective claim here is that there is an energy field. That might be easier to test than to do a full medical-type test.

[SimpleIrony]

Still, I maintain that the better thing to do is to test the base objective claims of EFT. For example, there's a claim that EFT works by manipulating the subject's energy field through tapping at certain meridians (if I understand correctly, and my source [Wikipedia, always rreca crapshoot] is correct). The basic objective claim here is that there is an energy field. That might be easier to test than to do a full medical-type test.

I can see where you are going with this protocol. It's like the study on therapeutic touch, by L Rosa, E Rosa, L Sarner and S Barrett. In that case, the person claiming to detect the energy field was asked to identify which of their hands should be experiencing the energy field.

That would work well in this case, as long as the energy fields could be detected without the Dr. de Rosa touching the test subjects. If he isn't able to do that, then how can we tell if he is successful in identifying meridians or energy fields.

If it is possible for Dr. de Rosa to sense meridians or energy fields without having to touch a person, that would certainly be an easier and more cost effective test.

[Sandro de Rosa]

(Inserted some paragraph marks for readability.)

You said:



Very good. How much time would you need? Could you outline what you would require, in order to conduct a controlled test?

Let me make some recommendations, because what you have in mind for a test is probably along the lines of a long-term medical trial:

For the purposes of the MDC, it's best to focus on very simple claims. A claim like "I can cure cancer" is probably beyond the scope of the MDC, since the MDC is geared towards formal long-term medical trials (which would be expensive, besides, and we'd want to avoid that, given that you are responsible for paying all of the applicable costs).

Also, you want to go for objective claims. "I can claim whether a person is depressed" isn't a good claim -- again, you'd need a really large test in order to weed out (or, at least, minimize the impact of) people who are lying or in denial. It's too subjective. Unfortunately, this presents a difficulty for EFT testing, because EFT is all about emotion (insofar as I can tell by reading online about it).

But if you have a claim such as "I can detect the presence of a person's energy field" (since EFT is about manipulating the alleged energy field of a person), there are probably several simple protocols that can be developed that would be good for the MDC.

Can you detect people's energy fields? Do you have to be able to touch them to do so? If not, do you have to be able to see the people in order to detect their fields, or is it something you'd be able to detect, say, blindfolded or if the person was under a sheet or behind a piece of cardboard? If you don't have to touch them, exactly how close do you have to get to them before you start to sense their energy fields?

Wow! Is that electrical, mechanical, magnetic, electomagnetic including heat, or gravitational energy? There are all sorts of instuments that can measure those things but I don't think they have a role here, except in the polygraph. I am a physician not an illusionist. Maybe Randi can do those things you asked me... I have to say that I don't need to touch them to treat them, though my experience tells me that hitting the right points in beginners gets better results than if they tap themselves, because it is not a transfer of some mysterious wooey fluid. You know times have changed, here in Italy we are even taught acupuncture if we want, and guess what, the public health staff (specialist anaesthetists) that teach it have found an explanation for the effects of acupuncture, they attribute it to reflex-arcs. You know what?

They might even be right! Hey imagine if all that wooey crap about the dragon gate of heavenly wotsit in the kidney meridian that goes everywhere but the kidney is actually true and can be mapped like Fritz Albert Popp claims and documents, and that mapping is actually a form of reflex-arcs, maybe the woo is in the explanation and not the substance! Something to reflect over. I never cease to be amazed at the human body and mind...

Anyway, I don't want to waste my or anyone else's time with less than solid verification. I am as curious as you as to how this turns out with the MDC. You see, whatever happens there, I am still working on an academic study that can be replicated inside the isntitutional circuit. MDC is a bit of fun, if serious fun, it still is not "scientific" enough for me as money is involved and that can be an obstacle. E.g. maybe JREF is actually doing a publicity stunt and has no intention and may do everything in it's power to not pay. Not because it loses the money, assuming I am proven right, but the whoel structure could fall apart once they have had to admit it. JREFis a belief system much like a religious movement which "believes" something that can never be proven, I.E. paranormal is inexistent and only rational thought is "correct" thought, you see, if it does exist it might manifest in a million years. If on the other hand it manifests tomorrow, that'll be like the Pope saying that the Devil is inexistent, without the Devil, what power can a church sway over it's followers? So as you believe that the Devil does not exist, once you can prove it to the world scientifically enough to convince everyone on the planet, well the churches would fall apart, would they not? They will do everything in their power to blot your thought out and you will do the same to them, but niether is trying to get at the absolute truth because you are mutually too busy trying to defend a position, not seek the truth. So whatever I do with the MDC I will watch JREF like a hawk at very close quarters and if I find anything that warrants whistle blowing, I shall blow the whistle as the game has to be played on a level playing field. I shall study the rules and if there are any that I need explaining I shall question them, and their application at all stages and will only actually apply once I am completely satifsied of the answers. I'm sure a true unprejudiced skeptic would agree with that.

The polygraph, now that's a fascinating piece of equipment that can be used to measure autonomous nervous system action and therefore an objective measure of emotion, maybe, I don't know if it's scientific enough, but many legal systems use them, so that could be an option and I suppose you need to measure a physiological change against a control stimulus to get some physiological proof of change following treatment. That may probably be better than Heart Rate Variability because it is so old and well known in all its aspects. How does that sound to start with?

EDIT

I think I'd need about 10 1 hour uninterrupted sessions per subject to be comfortable, though most might just need 1 or 2 and once the instruments give satisfying results before the 10th session then the remaining ones can be dispensed with. If no measurable satisying results are obtained at the end of the 10 sessions, then that would be considered a negative result for that subject. I think phobics are good subjects as they can be presented with standardised phobia stimuli quite easily.

I think attempting this on cancer is pretty foolhardy and unneccesary, as I have never done it for that application and have little inclination to do so now, and there are some ethical issues involved (to prove that EFT can do anything for cancer means avoiding chemotherapy), something that I personally will not advise nor request, whatever my clinical opinions are of such treatment. Reverse of the coin, as cancer *cure* is also a stochastic event, and it will be expected that the subject be under chemotherapy, any possible EFT cures could be explained away much to the satisfaction of the drug companies.(Read: I hope you don't think I'm a complete idiot, I know physicians aren't always the most scientifically minded professionals (alas!), but please save the patronsing for the crack pots, woo artists, flakes, acrobats and the truly deluded narcissists, even if you think I might be any of the above. Of course such prejudice would reflect very badly on you indeed and your currently presumed scientific rectitude).

Er by the way if I get a zero emotional response backed up by polygraph data using the same phobic stimulus presented to the subject in the same way before and after the test, do I get brownie points? Sorry just having a little harmless fun there. I promise to be more serious as we go on, after all we are dealing with a very important issue. I don't care if you think if EFT is paranormal or not, as I said, i think it is not, but if I can get that past your obstacle course (believe me science is easier than "skeptence" to work with) then we will all have done a great service to humanity and you would agree with me in that instance. I know, we have to get there first....

[SimpleIrony]

Wow! Is that electrical, mechanical, magnetic, electomagnetic including heat, or gravitational energy? There are all sorts of instuments that can measure those things but I don't think they have a role here, except in the polygraph.

How about we try a different approach. How about instead of taunting those that are tying to help you develop some sort of a protocol, you tell us exactly what you think it is you can do.

I don't need to touch them to treat them, though my experience tells me that hitting the right points in beginners gets better results than if they tap themselves, because it is not a transfer of some mysterious wooey fluid.

What can you treat people for, and how can we verify what you are doing?


Anyway, I don't want to waste my or anyone else's time with less than solid verification.

That's good.

I am as curious as you as to how this turns out with the MDC. You see, whatever happens there, I am still working on an academic study that can be replicated inside the isntitutional circuit. MDC is a bit of fun, if serious fun, it still is not "scientific" enough for me as money is involved and that can be an obstacle. E.g. maybe JREF is actually doing a publicity stunt and has no intention and may do everything in it's power to not pay.

It's always possible, but fairly unlikely. What is more unlikely is that people don't have the powers that they think they do.

Not because it loses the money, assuming I am proven right, but the whoel structure could fall apart once they have had to admit it. JREFis a belief system much like a religious movement which "believes" something that can never be proven...

You haven't done much research on the JREF it seems. You will notice that time and time again James Randi has commented that we can not say that these things are impossible, only that no one has yet to demonstrate them in proper testing conditions.

If you can demonstrate some ability in proper testing conditions, many of us would be over joyed at the discovery. Like you said, in your earlier post, if this treatment is effective it would be a great boon to science. Of course, if it can't be demonstrated, it's somewhat less of a boon.

So whatever I do with the MDC I will watch JREF like a hawk at very close quarters and if I find anything that warrants whistle blowing, I shall blow the whistle as the game has to be played on a level playing field.

And so you should. If there is something going on underhanded it should be exposed. Proper testing conditions should be... proper.


The polygraph, now that's a fascinating piece of equipment that can be used to measure autonomous nervous system action and therefore an objective measure of emotion, maybe, I don't know if it's scientific enough, but many legal systems use them, so that could be an option and I suppose you need to measure a physiological change against a control stimulus to get some physiological proof of change following treatment. That may probably be better than Heart Rate Variability because it is so old and well known in all its aspects. How does that sound to start with?

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you are intending to measure with a polygraph.

Edit: Oops, I see you added something. I am about to go read it. My apologies if you have already explained what it is you intend to do.

[SimpleIrony]

I think I'd need about 10 1 hour uninterrupted sessions per subject to be comfortable, though most might just need 1 or 2 and once the instruments give satisfying results before the 10th session then the remaining ones can be dispensed with. If no measurable satisying results are obtained at the end of the 10 sessions, then that would be considered a negative result for that subject. I think phobics are good subjects as they can be presented with standardised phobia stimuli quite easily.

This theoretically could work, but the test subjects would have to be compared both to a placebo and a control group for it to be a valid result. We would naturally expect some decrease in the phobia through simple habituation to the stimulus, especially after ten times.

Are you, personally, able to use EFT to relieve physical problems such as allergies? The emofree.com website suggests that it works on allergies, but of course, it wouldn't be a fair test if you haven't had success with that.

I had been thinking the test I suggested was too expensive, but compared to having 30 people polygraphed up to 10 times, and being exposed to frightening stimuli, it is starting to seem like a bargain.

[Jackalgirl]

Wow! Is that electrical, mechanical, magnetic, electomagnetic including heat, or gravitational energy?

You tell me. The descriptions of EFT I've read claim that there is a human energy field that can be manipulated by tapping on the body's "meridians". Is this not a true characterization of EFT? If not, what precisely is the operating mechanism of EFT?

I have to say that I don't need to touch them to treat them, though my experience tells me that hitting the right points in beginners gets better results than if they tap themselves, because it is not a transfer of some mysterious wooey fluid.

Okay, so how does it work?

You know times have changed, here in Italy we are even taught acupuncture if we want, and guess what, the public health staff (specialist anaesthetists) that teach it have found an explanation for the effects of acupuncture, they attribute it to reflex-arcs. You know what?

They might even be right!

If I am not mistaken, acupuncture claims to work via the mechanism of correcting the flow of a person's chi, which (again, if I am not mistaken) is another way of saying "human energy field".

Are you claiming that there is a human energy field, the manipulation of which is what allows you to provide results to your patients? If not, by what mechanism are you providing relief?

<snip>

The polygraph, now that's a fascinating piece of equipment that can be used to measure autonomous nervous system action and therefore an objective measure of emotion, maybe, I don't know if it's scientific enough, but many legal systems use them, so that could be an option and I suppose you need to measure a physiological change against a control stimulus to get some physiological proof of change following treatment. That may probably be better than Heart Rate Variability because it is so old and well known in all its aspects. How does that sound to start with?

Not good, I'm afraid. I am pretty certain that the JREF will not accept a protocol that makes use of a polygraph. Polygraphs can be tricked. I don't speak for the JREF (you'd have to ask them via challenge@randi.org), but I am pretty sure that this will not fly.


I think I'd need about 10 1 hour uninterrupted sessions per subject to be comfortable, though most might just need 1 or 2 and once the instruments give satisfying results before the 10th session then the remaining ones can be dispensed with. If no measurable satisying results are obtained at the end of the 10 sessions, then that would be considered a negative result for that subject.

Measurable by what means? Subjective measurements (such as the patient saying "Yes, I feel better") will most likely not be accepted. And polygraph measurements probably won't be acceptable either.


I think attempting this on cancer is pretty foolhardy and unneccesary, as I have never done it for that application and have little inclination to do so now, and there are some ethical issues involved (to prove that EFT can do anything for cancer means avoiding chemotherapy), something that I personally will not advise nor request, whatever my clinical opinions are of such treatment.

Very good. I am in complete agreement that trying something like this, while it might make a medical study, isn't really appropriate for the MDC. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought that's your claim; I'd hoped I was clear that it was an hypothetical situation ("a claim like" was meant to address a hypothetical claim. Had I thought you were claiming to cure cancer, I would have said, "your claim to be able to cure cancer"). Cancer's off the table, then, which is good, as it would end up being a fairly costly and time-consuming trial that probably (as I said) wouldn't really be appropriate for the MDC anyway.

<snip more stuff>

Er by the way if I get a zero emotional response backed up by polygraph data using the same phobic stimulus presented to the subject in the same way before and after the test, do I get brownie points?

Again, I think you should drop the idea of using a polygraph altogether. It would be far, far, far simpler to claim the central idea of EFT: for example, if it really does claim that there is a human energy field, and if an EFT practitioner such as yourself is adept at being able to detect it, and if you do not need to touch the person to detect it, then your claim (and the corresponding protocol) could be extremely simple and self-evident. Which is what you should shoot for insofar as the MDC is concerned.

Let me give you an example claim and protocol that I think would probably be acceptable to JREF, based on the assumption that all of the answers to the "ifs" I just wrote out are "yes":

Claim: I claim to be able to detect the presence, or absence, of a human being by means of detecting the presence, or absence, of that persons' human energy field.
Protocol:
- Participants: Claimant, target, and one observer each for claimant and target.
- Materials: One six-sided die, one opaque screen seven feet by six feet in dimensions made of thick cardboard, two hand-held radio with the ability to send a fixed-frequency key tone, held by the observers in each team. The cardboard should be thick enough that a shadow cast on one side of it is not visible on the other side. Three rooms: the claimant-team holding room, the target-team holding room, and the actual test room, in which the screen is located. Sufficient video cameras to tape the proceedings. Lighting provided in such a manner as shadows are cast towards the claimant's side of the screen. Duct tape. Clipboard, paper and pen for each observer. Music player, set up in the test room. This shall continuously play music at a level of at least 65dB*. Watches for the observers, capable of synchronization.
- Setup: the screen shall be set up in the test room. Duct tape shall be utilized to seal the bottom edge of the screen to the floor on both sides of the screen; this shall be done to prevent light leak-through. The screen should be set up directly opposite the entry into the test room from the claimant-team's holding room. Observers shall synchronize their watches.
- Process: claimant team and target team shall repair to their respective holding areas. Claimant's observer sends a single key-tone via the radio when the claimant has indicated that she is ready to begin the test. At this point, the target team's observer shall roll the 6-sided die. The target and observer key their radio (via a single tone) at the top of the next minute. The observer records which result was obtained. If the roll resulted in an even number, they then position themselves behind the screen, with the target directly behind the screen in the center and the observer somewhat farther beyond than that. If the roll resulted in an odd number, they stay in the holding room. At the bottom of the next minute, the claimant team enters the test room. The claimant may approach the screen and utilize her EFT to determine whether there is a person behind the screen. Claimant may not use aural clues, or visual clues (such as by looking around the screen). If the target or target's observer inadvertently make a noise (such as by coughing), that attempt is rendered null (and will be repeated). When claimant has made her determination, her observer records the result. The claimant team returns to their holding room and the observer sends a single key tone to the target team when the claimant indicates that she is ready for the next attempt.
- This process is repeated for 10 attempts. If the claimant is successful in determining the presence/absence of the target 9 out of 10 times, the test is considered a success. If the claimant is successful in determining the presence/absence of the target 8 or less times out of 10, the test is considered a failure.
- Should it be determined that the claimant engaged in any kind of trickery or cheating to obtain positive results, the entire test will be considered a failure.

*You'd think that a sonar tech would know more about sound theory, but I honestly don't know how loud a sound has to be in order to be relatively secure that sounds like the opening/closing of doors and the natural sounds of a person (shuffling, breathing) are covered. I know that 80dB is the threshhold of damage. Someone with better actual knowledge about sonics, please chime in here.

[Uncayimmy]

*You'd think that a sonar tech would know more about sound theory, but I honestly don't know how loud a sound has to be in order to be relatively secure that sounds like the opening/closing of doors and the natural sounds of a person (shuffling, breathing) are covered. I know that 80dB is the threshhold of damage. Someone with better actual knowledge about sonics, please chime in here.

I do not believe that 80dB SPL is the threshold for damage except perhaps for long term exposure. The pain threshold is reportedly around 120dB SPL. Remember also that sound pressure levels follow the inverse square law when it comes to distance, so when you play a sound at some dB level, you need to specify the distance. Off hand I'd say that pink noise in closed back headphones would suffice.

[Jackalgirl]

I do not believe that 80dB SPL is the threshold for damage except perhaps for long term exposure. The pain threshold is reportedly around 120dB SPL. Remember also that sound pressure levels follow the inverse square law when it comes to distance, so when you play a sound at some dB level, you need to specify the distance. Off hand I'd say that pink noise in closed back headphones would suffice.

Yeah, 80dB is the threshold for damage sustained over time. But you're right; headphones would work also. They'd just have to always be on so that the claimant can't hear any audio clues. Good idea!

[Femke]

How about a sound tape with feet shuffling, clothes rustling and doors opening and closing? Would that be indistinguishable from the actual noises and therefore drown them?

[Nucular]

Noice-cancelling headphones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-cancelling_headphones)?

[Jackalgirl]

Both very good ideas, thank you! But we still don't know whether Dr. Rosa's claim involves the ability to detect a human energy field. That's really rather key. BTW, I realize that in my protocol I consistently refer to Dr. Rosa as a "she". Dr. Rosa, if you're not a "she" (as the name "Sandro" may imply), my apologies.

At any rate, I'd still be interested to see whether or not your use of EFT involves a human energy field, and whether you're able to detect its presence or absence without looking or touching. If your use of EFT does not involve a human energy field, I'd be interested in reading more about what exactly it is that you do. As you can see, what I'm trying to do is suggest a test of the basic principles, which I suspect will be much less complicated than trying to do a trial to determine effect.

Another question: if you were presented with, say, a person who'd had his appendix out, and a person who'd had her tonsils out, and a person who'd had, say, a hysterectomy, and another person who'd had bones reconnected with metal pins, would you be able to tell who's who using your EFT methodology? Would you be able to do it without touching the patient, and if the patient were covered up by a sheet or garment that obscured visual clues (such as scars)?

[Sandro de Rosa]

I think it's actually a very good protocol suggestion though, as you point out, it probably would be fairly expensive. But I don't think you'd necessarily need that many people, which will make it a bit less expensive.

Still, I maintain that the better thing to do is to test the base objective claims of EFT. For example, there's a claim that EFT works by manipulating the subject's energy field through tapping at certain meridians (if I understand correctly, and my source [Wikipedia, always rreca crapshoot] is correct). The basic objective claim here is that there is an energy field. That might be easier to test than to do a full medical-type test.
Hi, EFT is most adapted to psychological rather than physical treatment, and ANS responses by polygraph and objective phobic response testing are enough for me to prove physiological effects. I didn't claim allergy cure and many psychosomatic effects are not well "understood", whereas the phobia response is, so why choose these things, when a polygraph and phobic stimulus are more than sufficient? I don't remember saying I was born yesterday and that I adore walking into traps. If I entertain the idea of the MDC it is through the eyes of a scientist, not those of an acrobat. Please bear that in mind, even if you are prejudiced against anything you can't understand or actively try to refute without first examining for yourself (free). You know I was skeptical at first, then result after result, I understand that the effects cannot possibly be placebo, and if they were it wouldn't be totally useless in any case!

[Sandro de Rosa]

You tell me. The descriptions of EFT I've read claim that there is a human energy field that can be manipulated by tapping on the body's "meridians". Is this not a true characterization of EFT? If not, what precisely is the operating mechanism of EFT?



Okay, so how does it work?



If I am not mistaken, acupuncture claims to work via the mechanism of correcting the flow of a person's chi, which (again, if I am not mistaken) is another way of saying "human energy field".

Are you claiming that there is a human energy field, the manipulation of which is what allows you to provide results to your patients? If not, by what mechanism are you providing relief?

<snip>
]]The AIRAS post-graduate school in Padua states a theory that "meridians" may be some sort of reflex arc complex. I don't want to enter into the theory. My objective is to show you it works, AS DESCRIBED IN THE COURSE, you can explain it forever afterwards, I'm not really interested.


Not good, I'm afraid. I am pretty certain that the JREF will not accept a protocol that makes use of a polygraph. Polygraphs can be tricked. I don't speak for the JREF (you'd have to ask them via challenge@randi.org), but I am pretty sure that this will not fly.

]]Maybe I can trick a polygraph, but what do n randomly chosen "blind" subjects care to trick it and don't you need (military élite/espionage) training for that? After all, If I'm scared silly and sweat cold if I see a rat, and don't react that way after treatment, that should really be enough, the polygraph would be just a confirmation. Much "proper" behavioural psychology is carried out by experimental observation.

Measurable by what means? Subjective measurements (such as the patient saying "Yes, I feel better") will most likely not be accepted. And polygraph measurements probably won't be acceptable either.

]]As I said trembling fear in a "blind" presumably unbiased subject with spontaneous avoidance reaction to a phobic stimulus is difficult to fake, I think, specially the cold sweat part. Heart Rate Variabililty is a technique that might be accepted also, but I have to look into the research first.

Very good. I am in complete agreement that trying something like this, while it might make a medical study, isn't really appropriate for the MDC. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought that's your claim; I'd hoped I was clear that it was an hypothetical situation ("a claim like" was meant to address a hypothetical claim. Had I thought you were claiming to cure cancer, I would have said, "your claim to be able to cure cancer"). Cancer's off the table, then, which is good, as it would end up being a fairly costly and time-consuming trial that probably (as I said) wouldn't really be appropriate for the MDC anyway.

]]Actually cancer being off the table is BAD, I wish I had a 5 minute tap cure for cancer, but I don't and I'm sorry about that. I am not rejoicing because I am not making wild claims. Believe me if I could I would. (Yes I'm sure many reading this think that curing a phobia with EFT is a wild claim and that its presumably paranormal. I just think that there are some neuronal pathways that "reorganise" when certain areas are stimulated by tapping and the problem is brought to consciuosness following the EFT algorithm)
<snip more stuff>


Again, I think you should drop the idea of using a polygraph altogether. It would be far, far, far simpler to claim the central idea of EFT: for example, if it really does claim that there is a human energy field, and if an EFT practitioner such as yourself is adept at being able to detect it, and if you do not need to touch the person to detect it, then your claim (and the corresponding protocol) could be extremely simple and self-evident. Which is what you should shoot for insofar as the MDC is concerned.

]]I can't detect any "human energy field" and I intend to prove that the method I use is more effective than placebo in curing phobic responses. After all the only way to do that in JREF's eyes is to win the money! YOU say that EFT is an energy field (granted you pick up from the founders of the EFT school of thought) I know how antibiotics work, but not how a tunneling electron microscope does, but I CAN use both technologies without understanding them.

Let me give you an example claim and protocol that I think would probably be acceptable to JREF, based on the assumption that all of the answers to the "ifs" I just wrote out are "yes":

Claim: I claim to be able to detect the presence, or absence, of a human being by means of detecting the presence, or absence, of that persons' human energy field.

]]Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I've never seen one of them, I'd never win the challenge, it would be like JREF taking candy from a baby, which it usually does. I've seen a couple of these things on TV and the applicants look like Sylvie Browne on a bad day!

Protocol:
<snip ]]as it is way off target, sounds like we're going to pull out the zener cards next, also EFT looks like its a Chubby Checker "Dingaling" in this process>

*You'd think that a sonar tech would know more about sound theory, but I honestly don't know how loud a sound has to be in order to be relatively secure that sounds like the opening/closing of doors and the natural sounds of a person (shuffling, breathing) are covered. I know that 80dB is the threshhold of damage. Someone with better actual knowledge about sonics, please chime in here.

]]See, as I said EFT is a protocol which I mainly use to obtain desensitisation to phobic stimuli very very fast. I think I need to talk to an ethologist I know to design a scientifically satisfactory test, we're wasting time here, if of course I am not just being wound up for the fun of the more extreme of you.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO QUOTE SINGLE PASSAGES SO WHERE YOU SEE ]] ABOVE IS WHERE I REPLIED INLINE

[Sandro de Rosa]

This theoretically could work, but the test subjects would have to be compared both to a placebo and a control group for it to be a valid result. We would naturally expect some decrease in the phobia through simple habituation to the stimulus, especially after ten times.

Are you, personally, able to use EFT to relieve physical problems such as allergies? The emofree.com website suggests that it works on allergies, but of course, it wouldn't be a fair test if you haven't had success with that.

I had been thinking the test I suggested was too expensive, but compared to having 30 people polygraphed up to 10 times, and being exposed to frightening stimuli, it is starting to seem like a bargain.

I think the possible habituation afforded by occasional presentation of stimulus, in any case could be replicated in the control group, and if habituation were an effective desensitising cure it would be used more often! BTW the control group could well be substituted by the placebo group for the purposes of the challenge, could it not? After all there are millions with phobias who have not received treatment of any sort and who still have their phobia, maybe that's a bit lax, though?

[Sandro de Rosa]

How about we try a different approach. How about instead of taunting those that are tying to help you develop some sort of a protocol, you tell us exactly what you think it is you can do.

]]A little harmless, gentle fun. I hope you were not offended. You see I know that the Christians in this Lion's Den usually get eaten or torn to shreds

<snip>
It's always possible, but fairly unlikely. What is more unlikely is that people don't have the powers that they think they do.

]]Ah! Powers. I don't have any more than you. But I have knowledge and experience, like all good Shamen :D

You haven't done much research on the JREF it seems. You will notice that time and time again James Randi has commented that we can not say that these things are impossible, only that no one has yet to demonstrate them in proper testing conditions.

]]Yes, but that is not usually the attitude reflected by supporters and sympathisers.

If you can demonstrate some ability in proper testing conditions, many of us would be over joyed at the discovery. Like you said, in your earlier post, if this treatment is effective it would be a great boon to science. Of course, if it can't be demonstrated, it's somewhat less of a boon.

]]Yes. I think JREF is giving a right signal in at least challenging to see a result. Accademia usually stops where there is no plausible theory.

And so you should. If there is something going on underhanded it should be exposed. Proper testing conditions should be... proper.

]]You bet. Though a lot of things can't be easily controlled, so the whole thing needs proper preparation and deep thought on my part.

<snip> I need to get this quoting sorted, ]] is where I replied

[Sandro de Rosa]

I am male, or at least I was last time I looked. Sandro is the male version of Sandra, much like Alexander is the male version of Alexandra. Sorry to disappoint but I don't think I can detect energy fields. If you read the EFT manual, what I actually do is spelt out right there. No field detection is involved. Yes I don't need to touch nor see the subject to get a result, the subject touches himself on my instructions. This is how I work over the phone. Also you continue to state that acupuncture makes use of a human energy field. That is certainly how the chinese looked at it housands of years ago and teach it today, but as I said, that is your interpretation that leads you to belive it's bunk *by definition* because it's a paranormal claim. I say that because EFT works (my presupposition) it must have an explanation, not the other way round. Before EFT I knew nothing of "meridians" (even now I know very little after a decade) so my "conviction" derives from empirical evidence of efficacy.

[Sandro de Rosa]

- This process is repeated for 10 attempts. If the claimant is successful in determining the presence/absence of the target 9 out of 10 times, the test is considered a success. If the claimant is successful in determining the presence/absence of the target 8 or less times out of 10, the test is considered a failure.
- Should it be determined that the claimant engaged in any kind of trickery or cheating to obtain positive results, the entire test will be considered a failure.

Just for fun (as the protocol was a nonsense, with respect, wrt my possible claim) 1) rules for determining trickery should be stated in advance to prevent abitrary definitions of trickery invented posteriorly so as to avoid paying out 2) 9+/10 high standards, unlikely payout, better statistical parameters like 1 or 2 STDs over normal, or probability calculation. 3) Wall is better than screen. As I said: for my claim the suggested protocol is a nonsense like determining the culinary capacity of a soccer player by counting the number of goals he kicks in a season! Let's see what is a reliable instrumental way of determining involuntary, unadulterable, physiological changes and/or cures of emotional disturbances.

[Pixel42]

You know I was skeptical at first, then result after result, I understand that the effects cannot possibly be placebo
The only way to eliminate placebo, confirmation bias and regression to the mean as a possible explanation is to do a placebo controlled double blind trial. Have you done one? If not, all of these remain possible explanations of what you have observed.

[Jackalgirl]

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO QUOTE SINGLE PASSAGES SO WHERE YOU SEE ]] ABOVE IS WHERE I REPLIED INLINE

What I do is I put write [/quote] wherever I want the quote to stop. Then I find the part that says "QUOTE=Sandro de Rosa;" (and then a number, all within brackets), and copy that (including the brackets) and paste it at the start of every quote section.

That breaks your quote apart into multiple little quotes, and lets me insert my commentary.

I'm snipping a bunch of my commentary because I finally get, I think, what you're trying to say:

Your specific claim is that you use EFT techniques to cure phobic responses. Therefore, you're going to need people specifically diagnosed as suffering from certain phobias, and you intend to demonstrate that, after your EFT treatement, their phobia is cured.

Whooooo, boy. I'm not sure that this is going to be something that will be very testable in in an MDC sense. You're going to have to have some means of demonstrating that the subjects involved do suffer from a phobia, and some other means of demostrating that they are (after the treatment) no longer suffering from a phobia, and the innate subjectiveness of this is going to cause you some problems.

I know that you've floated the idea of polygraphs, but I'm not sure how well that will go over with JREF. Polygraphs are not always very reliable. But here's what I think you should do:

1) Go ahead and write up the simple claim ("By the use of EFT, I am able to eliminate phobic responses in persons suffering from phobias.") (Assuming that's a correct characterization)

2) Write up the basics of a protocol ("The test will involve x subjects, all certified by practicing psychologists as suffering from x phobia. These subjects will, because of their phobias, be unable to resist a reaction of y to z stimulus, and this, too, will be affirmed by practicing psychologists. After x EFT treatment(s), these subjects will be exposed to z stimulus, and will not react. If a out of x subjects fail to react to their stimuli, the test will be a considered a success. If a-1 out of x subjects fail to react to their simuli, the test will be considered a failure.") Something like this. You may want to include that the JREF should provide some psychologists who will examine the subjects; any subjects with whose diagnosis they do not concur will be excluded from the test.

3) Provide an academic affidavit and some media notoriety (if you've published a paper regarding this, that will probably do, but Jeff or RemieV will be able to tell you if there are any problems).

Mind you, you're going to have to answer questions like:

- How do we determine that the phobia sufferers are actually suffering from the phobia?
- How do we determine that their reaction is involuntary?
- What, exactly, do we mean by "react to their simul(us)"? That is, what action/inaction on the person's part qualifies as a reaction? (This is where the polygraph or an EKG comes in -- you could define "reaction" as a reaction to the polygraph, a change [of x bpm] in heart rate, etc).

Pretend that you are a trickster trying to fake these reactions (for example: your subject could have a hard rubber ball under his/her arm and could fake slowing his/her heartbeat by cutting off the pulse to his/her arm and thereby change the readings on any device attached to that arm to monitor heart rate). Figure out a way to foil the trickery. Write that into your protocol.

Send that off to challenge@randi.org and see if they'll accept the polygraph. I think that's the major sticking point at that part (as far as I'm concerned). I'm not sure they'll accept it, but since I understand what you're trying to demonstrate, I can't say for sure that they'd reject it, either, which is why I recommend you go ahead and submit your application.

Oh, one last thing: you'll have to bear all the costs for all of this. If psychologists have to be paid for their time and diagnoses, you'll have to pay for it. If there's travel involved on anyone's part (patients, psychologists, etc), you'll have to pay for it. You'll be paying for the use/rental of all locations and equipment as well. If people have to come somewhere and stay there for an extended period of time, you'll also have to pay for their food and lodging.

Are you prepared to pay for all of this? (This is, in fact, another excellent reason why it's best to try to find some fundamental part of EFT's claim and test that, rather than getting into a medical trial with before-and-after diagnoses, medical equipment, etc.)

[SimpleIrony]

I think the possible habituation afforded by occasional presentation of stimulus, in any case could be replicated in the control group, and if habituation were an effective desensitising cure it would be used more often!

More often than the most widely used treatment for phobias? I'm not sure how psychologist could use it more than always.

BTW the control group could well be substituted by the placebo group for the purposes of the challenge, could it not? After all there are millions with phobias who have not received treatment of any sort and who still have their phobia, maybe that's a bit lax, though?

I really don't see how, unless there is well-established data on the effect of repeated exposure to a fearful stimulus intermingled with repeated polygraph tests. Assuming what the base line should be doesn't make for good science.

I appreciate that you think that exposure therapy is not effective, but I don't think that we can equate progressive desensitization through repeated exposure, the most common form of therapy for phobias in North America, with doing nothing.

[Sandro de Rosa]

This theoretically could work, but the test subjects would have to be compared both to a placebo and a control group for it to be a valid result. We would naturally expect some decrease in the phobia through simple habituation to the stimulus, especially after ten times.

Are you, personally, able to use EFT to relieve physical problems such as allergies? The emofree.com website suggests that it works on allergies, but of course, it wouldn't be a fair test if you haven't had success with that.

I had been thinking the test I suggested was too expensive, but compared to having 30 people polygraphed up to 10 times, and being exposed to frightening stimuli, it is starting to seem like a bargain.
Heart Rate Variabillity looks good because it measures autonomic nervous system activity, which is directly linked to affect (note I mean Affect not Effect). Also my objective is to prove that EFT objectively causes physiological changes in ANS activity and is therefore therapeutic from a physiological viewpoint. The idea of curing n people of phobias is also significant, but also reduction of pharmacologically treated anxiety states is also testable the same way. In psychology patient outcome is subjective, just like in pain control, and pain reporting is subjective. Does that mean that local anaesthetics are not "scientific" because it's the patient reporting the effect? (with an E this time) It is possible for people to fake pain response just like the polygraph. How would JREF test for pain control? That would be a good place to start. To win the challenge a repeatable physiological effect must be observed and that's all I want to do. Why do more than necessary? Science progresses by short steps most of the time and giant leaps in case of serendipity. Once the challenge has been won on these premises, that will open a series of possibilities. Of course big science could try to smother it like it is attempting with Cold Fusion. I don't know if cold fusion exists, but to prove it definitively needs only a couple of million $ not the billions spent on the impractical expensive hot fusion, which if worked could only be delivered by big big big business. If cold fusion worked the world would have free energy and current economics and power structures would fall apart. The vested interests therefore will do whatever they can to snuff it out and certainly will not finance real research, unless they can up the market entry parameters so only incumbents can take advantage. Anyway that is a sidetrack and quite OT I know. Anyhow, I shall see if some experimental psychologists or ethologists in Rome might want to help me out in finding an objective satisfactory method for measuring just what I need to measure.

[Moochie]

From what I've read thus far, I don't see how this "therapy" can be eligible for the MDC, since no paranormal claims are being made. It looks to me that things like phobias and their "cure" lie within the realm of psychology and placebo effect.


M.

[petre]

From what I've read thus far, I don't see how this "therapy" can be eligible for the MDC, since no paranormal claims are being made. It looks to me that things like phobias and their "cure" lie within the realm of psychology and placebo effect.


M.

While it is true that a focus on changes prone to the placebo effect does make for a more difficult test, it is possible to control for it with a lot of work.

It may simply be the case that EFT works best, or even only, on changes that are prone to the placebo effect. That may suggest something to skeptics, but it does not negate the possibility that something paranormal is going on. If Sandro can come up with a suitable test that controls for all non-paranormal explanations and still demonstrates something non-normal, more power (and a million dollars) to him.

At the very least he seems to be talking with experts in related fields that can hopefully help him in this task.

[Moochie]

Yeah, this reminds me of the "antidepressant" prescribed for me that I complained about for almost a year because it didn't work. I paid to have one assayed and had my suspicions confirmed: they were "sugar pills." My trust in the medical profession disappeared around that time.

The antidepressants that actually work are illegal -- because you might get "hooked."


M.

[William Smith]

...
Anyhow, I shall see if some experimental psychologists or ethologists in Rome might want to help me out in finding an objective satisfactory method for measuring just what I need to measure.

Dr. de Rosa, please accept me getting straight to the point - now and in the future.

Do you have news to report on finding, as you say: "[...]an objective satisfactory method for measuring just what I need to measure."?

Also, for future posts, consider posting along the necessities of rule #01 of the Application Form. (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html)

I quote from said rule: "[...]Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result."

Allow me to remind you that the MDC is not per se a scientific test. It simply uses scientific methods. If you are unsure whether a specific claim will be accepted by the JREF, simply send you inquiry to challenge@randi.org



I would very much like to see you succeed and win the Prize.