Sam I am

[Piggy]

You can just try it and see if it works.
In that case, I'll stick to the strolls in the park, Sunday afternoons in the hot tub, and games of cards with friends.

If that's all you have to offer, then it's a waste of my time indeed. I have something that works now. And I don't wish to trade it for EFT, prayer, chanting Hare Krishna, crystology, aromatherapy, tossing the I Ching, or anything else. All this tapping and thinking gives me a headache just thinking about it.

[Lamuella]

Pepper, let me ask you this (and it's probably been answered):

were you interested in applying to the challenge when you wrote to Randi?

If so, why aren't you interested now?

Even if you don't care about the money, think of the press. If EFT passes the challenge, then it will be PROVEN TO WORK. The publicity in a skeptic like James Randi saying "EFT has been shown to be effective, here's your million dollars" would be immense. You would be helping the people of the world who haven't heard of EFT, or don't have time to "just try" every unproven method out there.

You would also be advancing the cause of medical science by opening doors to a whole new area of development.

Ian't this more valuable than hurt feelings about a rude email?

[Pepper]

Pepper, let me ask you this (and it's probably been answered):

were you interested in applying to the challenge when you wrote to Randi?

If so, why aren't you interested now?

I was at the time, but I'm not now because I believe the challenge is a meaningless sham.

Even if you don't care about the money, think of the press.

I doubt it would even make the 11 o'clock news.

And I know Randi is dishonest. I have no reason to believe he would admit EFT worked, even if it were proven to him.


Ian't this more valuable than hurt feelings about a rude email?

I haven't made his rudeness an issue, and he didn't hurt my feelings. I even got a bit of a laugh. It's his dishonesty that is an issue to me.

Also, the challenge is on hold. So, even if I were yearning to apply, I couldn't.

"We will not be accepting any new applications or working on the current crop until I’m fully recovered. This may take some time."

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

[William Smith]

I was at the time, but I'm not now because I believe the challenge is a meaningless sham.
...


It makes no sense to me trying to discuss facts with a believer.

Until you apply: Good day, ma'am.

[Lamuella]

I doubt it would even make the 11 o'clock news.


Then you're insane.

If you PROVED THAT A PARANORMAL TECHNIQUE WORKED to the satisfaction of one of the world's most famous skeptics, the publicity would be enormous. Gargantuan.

[petre]

It really is a pity the people that believe the challenge is a fraud don't work to expose it as such. It really could use a good testing itself.

[gnome]

I was at the time, but I'm not now because I believe the challenge is a meaningless sham.
You haven't really given a good reason to think so...

And I know Randi is dishonest. I have no reason to believe he would admit EFT worked, even if it were proven to him.
Well, you have reasons, you just reject them without further argument, such as the fact that HE DOESN'T HAVE TO ADMIT IT for you to win, and if you win and he refuses to turn the prize money over, you have legal remedy in court.

I haven't made his rudeness an issue, and he didn't hurt my feelings. I even got a bit of a laugh. It's his dishonesty that is an issue to me.
Which, again, you have not demonstrated.

If you find us bristling at this, it is because you are basically accusing him of fraud. If you're going to accuse someone of committing a crime, you'd better have something pretty persuasive if you want people to listen.

[Pepper]

It makes no sense to me trying to discuss facts with a believer.

Until you apply: Good day, ma'am.

Spot the irony. What about the FACT that they aren't accepting applications?

[Pepper]

You haven't really given a good reason to think so...

They are good enough for me. And they aren't accepting applications anyway. I think it's kind of interesting timing...

[gnome]

They are good enough for me. And they aren't accepting applications anyway. I think it's kind of interesting timing...

If you don't care if they stand up for anyone else, I wonder why you keep returning to this thread.

Do you suppose Randi timed his medical problems :confused:

Whether they are accepting applications right now is irrelevant, as that is only temporary.

But, if all that matters is what you think, what purpose are you serving by continuing to tell us that which we already know?

[Piggy]

And I know Randi is dishonest.
Well, obviously, there are a lot of folks here who don't see what you're referring to when you say this.

It would help if you just referred us to the email, or the post, or the commentary where Randi lied.

I thought I knew what you were referring to, but you said I was wrong, so now I don't know.

I don't worship Randi. I'm as skeptical of him as I am of anybody else. Hell, I'm even skeptical of Carl Sagan and I'm getting a lot of heat for it, but I'm willing to quote exactly what he said that I think is wrong and explain why I think he was wrong. It seems like no one else much agrees with me, but I'm still explaining my position, whether anyone cares to listen or not.

So far, they're listening. They're also stating their case, but we're at least having a discussion.

Since I had a wrong idea about what you were saying, I apologize. Please tell me what the right thing is.

[Pepper]

Well, obviously, there are a lot of folks here who don't see what you're referring to when you say this.

Or don't want to see.


It would help if you just referred us to the email, or the post, or the commentary where Randi lied.

I've done that, but, from
http://www.randi.org/jr/042205modern.html#7

"First, the applicant (not "claimant," as this writer says) had only asked about something he called "EFT," without giving me any notion of what it is, providing any reference, or any description!"

This is not true. I gave him a quick description, and a link to the EFT web site, which is a reference.

"He did not respond to my questions, he was vague and could not make clear sentences."

None of this is true. I've posted our exchange. (I think it's around post 23 in this thread.)

And notice the bit at the end where I talk to him about his dishonesty WRT homeopathy. Wow, did he ever block me quickly after that. :)

[Piggy]

"First, the applicant (not "claimant," as this writer says) had only asked about something he called "EFT," without giving me any notion of what it is, providing any reference, or any description!"

This is not true. I gave him a quick description, and a link to the EFT web site, which is a reference.

"He did not respond to my questions, he was vague and could not make clear sentences."

None of this is true. I've posted our exchange. (I think it's around post 23 in this thread.)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Up til now I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Now it's clear.

This seems to arise from a substantial difference between what you view as a coherent notion/description of what a claim is and what Randi views as a coherent notion/description of what a claim is.

Your edited version of the email exchange and Randi's edited version don't coincide. But regardless, I see now why you're complaining that Randi misrepresented your correspondence. If I were in your position, I'm sure I'd see it the same way.

By the same token, if I were in Randi's position, I'd likely see it his way.

On the whole, though, I think he stated his case too strongly. You did give him a description. Point taken. You're within your rights to be offended.

While I don't believe that Randi was being dishonest about homeopathy, I do appreciate your providing this explanation regarding his dismissal of your claims -- do note that apparently some others called him on the carpet about it as well. It hasn't made me any more likely to try EFT instead of my own preferred methods of relaxation, but now I see your point, where before it was murky.

Still, if you think there's merit here beyond the placebo effect, if you think there's evidence of subtle energies, I hope you'll keep investigating and testing beyond the "try it for yourself" approach.

We may have all been rather short with you, but we're not kidding when we say that Randi and his associates don't have any power to sway the results.

If you'd rather not go thru the hoops, that's ok, too, of course. Whatever works for you.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. And again, thanks for giving me the specifics.

[Admiral]

Good that you made a specific reference to where you found him dishonest, Pepper.

Problem was, during your email exchange you weren't being specific enough. Now, it's true you gave him a website- but the website made many, many claims, some of which were paranormal and some of which were not. For example, the claim EFT can cure headaches is not paranormal, the claim it can cure diabetes certainly is. By sending Randi to the website and asking "Is what this site describes paranormal?", you made the question impossible to answer. That's why he requested more specifics on what YOU claimed was possible.

In addition, your description also wasn't specific enough. Remember when he asked whether if the points the subject tapped were changed, the treatment would still work? That was because he wanted to see if the ability could be tested scientifically. If it could, then it would be eligible for the challenge. If it couldn't, then it's not eligible.

He can't answer whether a particular ability would be eligible unless he hears enough detail to see if it's testable. That's why he said you hadn't given you a description.

Also, what did you mean when you said "it's kind of interesting timing?"

Kramer: Oh, no, I think Sam might apply for the Million Dollar Challenge!

Randi: His vauguely described EFT, which he has admitted he's never tested, will bankrupt us for sure!

Kramer: I got it- I'll quit my job!

Randi: Even better- I'll have a triple bypass operation!

Kramer- Great! That'll stall for time!

[Piggy]

<inside joke>

Also, what did you mean when you said "it's kind of interesting timing?"

Kramer: Oh, no, I think Sam might apply for the Million Dollar Challenge!

Randi: His vauguely described EFT, which he has admitted he's never tested, will bankrupt us for sure!

Kramer: I got it- I'll quit my job!

Randi: Even better- I'll have a triple bypass operation!

Kramer- Great! That'll stall for time!

Stop being so orange! It's not physically impossible, is it?

</inside joke>

[TheBoyPaj]

It really is a pity the people that believe the challenge is a fraud don't work to expose it as such. It really could use a good testing itself.

I agree. IF the challenge is a sham, prove it. Apply, and publish your communications with the JREF. Let the world follow your progress through the negotiations, and if you're badly treated everyone will know about it.

By sitting on your hands and making half-hearted accusations, you only give weight to the opinion that you're full of it.

[Jeff Wagg]

OK, some clarifications:

1) The challenge is not a sham. We've had many many many well documented claims against the challenge. The money is real which is easily provable.

2) The challenge is on hold. The "interesting timing" is not interesting at all..Randi is recovering from health concerns of the most serious kind. (He is doing very well, by the way.)

3) The proper way to apply for the challenge is to read the rules at http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html and do what they say. Again, the challenge is on hold, however I have a stack of applications on my desk at the JREF waiting to be processed and they will. If someone is serious about applying for the challenge, they are welcome to mail in an application.

4) Don't contact Randi about the challenge. We ask that over and over and over again. We created a new e-mail address (challenge@randi.org) just to deal with challenge issues. Randi gets involved AFTER the application is sent in. Why is this? He's a very very very busy man. We get a LOT of interest in the challenge, and most of that interest is from people who appear to have severe mental challenges. The signal to noise ratio is very low. If Randi handled all the challenge correspondence personally, we'd have no commentary, no media interviews, and no research going on.

5) If you have questions about whether something would pass the challenge, ask the folks right here. Yes, that's right..I'm saying to trust the opinions of the people on the forum. No, they don't speak for the JREF, but they are very smart people, and they understand the concepts of the scientific method better than most. And, like me, they WANT someone to win the challenge. So does Randi for that matter.

6) Is Randi rude at times? You bet. If you saw the e-mail he gets, you might understand his position a little better. If a claimant is offended by this, I suggest they apply for the challenge and win it.

[gnome]

Kudos all around for today injecting the discussion with some badly needed clarity on both sides.

[William Smith]

...
If someone is serious about applying for the challenge, they are welcome to mail in an application.
...


Pepper, your move.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Pepper, your move.


From Pepper, retrieved from the future by psychic intuition
Well I'm not applying so it doesn't matter anyway.

$1,000,000 please.

[William Smith]

Would you like fries with that?

[strathmeyer]

They are good enough for me. And they aren't accepting applications anyway. I think it's kind of interesting timing...

How do you know they aren't accepting applications?

You sent it an application, and it was returned to you? You sent in an application, and nothing happened? Someone at the JREF said that they were no longer taking applications?

Throughout this thread, you seem to be constantly unable to answer questions. This seems to be because you're just making stuff up and expecting us to believe you. Do people you normally spend time with believe everything you say? Do you just believe the things everyone else says? If so, this is pretty sad. You should learn how to figure things out for yourself, it will probably lead to a much happier and more productive life, and lead to you being able to socialize with much more interesting people.

[Pepper]

How do you know they aren't accepting applications?

I assumed "We will not be accepting any new applications..." meant they will not be accepting any new applications.

What do you think it means?

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Throughout this thread, you seem to be constantly unable to answer questions.

Not true. I've answered all kinds of questions, like the one above. Sometimes several times.

[Mojo]

You seem to have missed this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1599032#post1599032)

[William Smith]

I assumed "We will not be accepting any new applications..." meant they will not be accepting any new applications.

What do you think it means?
...


Less than eight hours ago, JREF Representative Mr. Jeff Wagg posted this http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1598290#post1598290 in this very thread, six posts above your most recent reply.

[William Smith]

You seem to have missed this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1599032#post1599032)

You reacted quicker.

"Egg Raid On Mojo!" ;)

[Mr. Skinny]

You seem to have missed this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1599032#post1599032)
To be fair Mojo, that was posted about 8 hours ago, and perhaps Pepper doesn't stay glued to this board like some of us do.

[Mr. Skinny]

Pepper's statement that they "weren't accepting applications" was made yesterday at 7 PM EST, before Jeff Wagg's post.

[Mojo]

To be fair Mojo, that was posted about 8 hours ago, and perhaps Pepper doesn't stay glued to this board like some of us do.So maybe Pepper missed it. As I suggested was the case. ;)

There are only about ten posts between Pepper's post at 3:31am (BST) and Pepper's post at 10:42pm (BST), one of which was the one I linked to and another of which was the one that post quoted. It's not as if there's a couple of pages worth to wade through.

[William Smith]

So maybe Pepper missed it. As I suggested was the case. ;)

There are only about ten posts between Pepper's post at 3:31am (BST) and Pepper's post at 10:42pm (BST), one of which was the one I linked to and another of which was the one that post quoted. It's not as if there's a couple of pages worth to wade through.

Ditto.

Also, if you start a thread, should you keep up with all new posts? You bet.

[Pepper]

Your edited version of the email exchange and Randi's edited version don't coincide.

That's because I'm telling the truth, and Randi isn't. :)


Still, if you think there's merit here beyond the placebo effect, if you think there's evidence of subtle energies, I hope you'll keep investigating and testing beyond the "try it for yourself" approach.

For me, "try it yourself" is the bottom line, because no matter how many scientific tests the method passes or fails, that's what really matters. The "subtle energies" are a non issue for me.


If you'd rather not go thru the hoops, that's ok, too, of course. Whatever works for you.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. And again, thanks for giving me the specifics.

Thank you for your reasonable post.

[TheBoyPaj]

I said:

By sitting on your hands and making half-hearted accusations, you only give weight to the opinion that you're full of it.

And I still mean it.

[Pepper]

6) Is Randi rude at times? You bet. If you saw the e-mail he gets, you might understand his position a little better. If a claimant is offended by this, I suggest they apply for the challenge and win it.

Randi's rudeness is a non issue. His dishonesty is the issue. The challenge is a sham, so, I'm not going to apply for it. Is there any way to make my position clearer?

[DrMatt]

Randi's rudeness is a non issue. His dishonesty is the issue. The challenge is a sham, so, I'm not going to apply for it. Is there any way to make my position clearer?

Not at all. But you're wrong. The issue is your dishonesty.
We know, as well as anything can be known (i.e. better than the correct model of gravity is known to physics) that you're full of it, and are attacking Randi and the JREF challenge on false pretexts. You cannot hide behind ignorance of the facts because you've had ample opportunity to check them out and we have helped you to check them far beyond any obligations. You are a liar and a fraud. Go away.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, it looks like you have two options. You can offer some basis for your belief that the challenge is a sham, and maybe even attempt to demonstrate it, or you might as well stop posting in this challenge forum altogether. Which is it to be?

Actually, there is a third, altogether more likely option, which is to carry on whining and griping without ever providing any substantiation of your claims. Yeah, that's going to be it, isn't it?

[gnome]

Randi's rudeness is a non issue. His dishonesty is the issue. The challenge is a sham, so, I'm not going to apply for it. Is there any way to make my position clearer?
I'm still not clear how a matter of whether you gave him information or not makes the challenge a sham? Even if he's flat out lying about whether you submitted the information you say you did, (rather than honestly disagreeing, or being mistaken) that says nothing about the challenge. You cleared up where you think he's been untruthful, why not clear this up too?

[Pepper]

Not at all. But you're wrong. The issue is your dishonesty.


Point out one thing I have said that is dishonest.

[DrMatt]

Point out one thing I have said that is dishonest.

You said the challenge is a sham. The challenge is a legally binding document made by a non-profit organization. We've shown you where to find the documentation of that. We've already covered this ground. You've had ample opportunity to discover the truth yourself, and have instead opted to repeat this libelous lie. Go away.

[Mr. Skinny]

So maybe Pepper missed it. As I suggested was the case. ;)

There are only about ten posts between Pepper's post at 3:31am (BST) and Pepper's post at 10:42pm (BST), one of which was the one I linked to and another of which was the one that post quoted. It's not as if there's a couple of pages worth to wade through.
Mojo and GK: OK, but attacking her over little or nothing IMHO.

Mojo's *cough* seemed kinda snarky, like Pepper shoulda known before she made the "not accepting applications" post that Jeff was gonna open things up again. Just my take on how I perceived it, Mojo.

KG, I don't start too many threads, but if I started one, let's say late one Sunday night, I wouldn't be able to respond to it until 16 hrs. later minimum, since I have to sleep and work (and I can't post from work).

Granted, Pepper has been avoiding tough questions (again IMHO), but Jeebus, don't act like sharks on a feeding frenzy.

[Mojo]

Mojo and GK: OK, but attacking her over little or nothing IMHO.

Mojo's *cough* seemed kinda snarky, like Pepper shoulda known before she made the "not accepting applications" post that Jeff was gonna open things up again. Just my take on how I perceived it, Mojo.I thought so too, pretty much as soon as I posted it, hence the edit.

[Mr. Skinny]

I thought so too, pretty much as soon as I posted it, hence the edit.
OK, missed the edit in a sense, other than I noticed when I quoted you, the name of the link was different..........I just figured it showed up differently for Ed knows what reason, Mojo.

I've said enough.

[Errata]

Wow, did he ever block me quickly after that. :)

You keep saying he "blocked" you. You can't apply for the challenge, because you're "blocked". If blocked means he didn't want to continue personal correspondence with you, then I can more than understand. I wouldn't want to have to correspond with you that much either. But nothing in that exchange indicated that he "blocked" you from applying to the challenge. Sending him personal emails has nothing at all to do with applying for the challenge, it was a dead end to begin with. You should have read the process and answered your own questions.

You've ignored all evidence that the money is real and the procedures you would agree to in advance are legally binding. If you passed the terms of the contract and they didn't fulfill it, then you'd have no trouble suing them for the money or finding a lawyer to represent you for nothing up front. Its a lot of money to pass up, but its very easy to ignore when you know deep down that you could never prove your claims scientifically.

[Pepper]

You keep saying he "blocked" you.

Let me quote him: "'Bye. You're blocked."

I considered that the end of the matter when it came to applying for the challenge.


You've ignored all evidence that the money is real and the procedures you would agree to in advance are legally binding.

If you passed the terms of the contract and they didn't fulfill it, then you'd have no trouble suing them for the money or finding a lawyer to represent you for nothing up front.

When you first apply for the challenge, you aren't going for the money. So, if they lie and say you didn't pass the test, you'd have to go through all the hasssle of going to court just so you could be tested again.

[Lamuella]

Let me quote him: "'Bye. You're blocked."

I considered that the end of the matter when it came to applying for the challenge.


why? Randi is not and never has been the challenge coordinator. Applications for the challenge currently go through Jeff Wagg, not Randi. Randi not wanting to exchange personal emails with you shouldn't be a barrier to you taking part in the challenge.

This really sounds to me like you're trying to find a way of saying "well, I can't take part in the challenge, and anyway it's biased and you're all liars" so you can avoid applying.

[Admiral]

When you first apply for the challenge, you aren't going for the money. So, if they lie and say you didn't pass the test, you'd have to go through all the hasssle of going to court just so you could be tested again.

Do you think that the JREF would lie, cheat, and commit perjury in a case they were sure to lose, just to cause you hassle after you passed the preliminary? Do you have any idea the sort of negative publicity that would bring them?

I think there's something you still don't understand. This "they" that lies and says you didn't pass the test... you're referring to the JREF? Because the person running the test is NOT a JREF representative. It is NOT a JREF staff member. He is NOT associated with the JREF or on the JREF's payroll. If you want a further explanation with evidence that the person who conducts the test is NOT part of the JREF, read post 214, where I gave examples of past tests and the independent observers that conducted them. (In addition, remember each test is videotaped.)

Is your assertion that this independent observer (who, remember, doesn't work for the JREF and isn't associated with them) loves the JREF so much that they'll lie, destroy or falsify the videotape, and commit perjury just to protect the million dollars, even after they saw the successful test?

[Pepper]

why?

Because he blocked me, and I considered that the end of the issue. By that time, I knew why nobody had won the challenge. If those aren't good enough reasons for you, or anybody else, oh well.

[Flange Desire]

For me, "try it yourself" is the bottom line, because no matter how many scientific tests the method passes or fails, that's what really matters.

Ahem! For you perhaps; but surely not for critical thinkers.

You continue to assert that 'the challenge is a sham' regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented to you.
And you continue to misunderstand the challenge methodology when it is clearly explained to you many times.

As DrMat said previously -
You cannot hide behind ignorance of the facts because you've had ample opportunity to check them out...

Your claim of disinterest in the $US 1 mill, the kudos and worlwide aclaim, along with the Nobel prizes, also does not wash with me.

[Flange Desire]

Because he blocked me, and I considered that the end of the issue. By that time, I knew why nobody had won the challenge. If those aren't good enough reasons for you, or anybody else, oh well.

It has been explained to you - blocking of email correspondence has absolutely nothing to do with the JREF challenge application procedure.

If the confirmation of your belief, $US 1 mill, worldwide acclaim, and Nobel prizes are not good enough reasons for you, oh well.

Pediction from my christal ball: you will continue to assert this nonsense.

[Pepper]

Do you think that the JREF would lie, cheat, and commit perjury in a case they were sure to lose, just to cause you hassle after you passed the preliminary? Do you have any idea the sort of negative publicity that would bring them?

You're asking my opinion, and I have to say I wouldn't put it past them.

[Pepper]

It has been explained to you - blocking of email correspondence has absolutely nothing to do with the JREF challenge application procedure.

I never claimed it did. I said that I considered it the end of the matter.

[Flange Desire]

You're asking my opinion, and I have to say I wouldn't put it past them.

Why? What would be the motivation for a non-profit educational foundation to lie, cheat, and commit perjury in a case they were sure to lose?

[Flange Desire]

Why doncha just cut to the chase Pepper?

Either EFT works or it doesn't.
It's easy to design a test for this.
$US 1 mill and worldwide acclaim is up for grabs.

If you don't believe in EFT strongly enough, just say so.

[Admiral]

Pepper, I've noticed something.

This whole thread, you've only vaguely mentioned that you yourself believed in EFT.

I'm trying to understand- did you come across this website, or hear about the technique from someone, then, without testing it or seeing any real evidence, build up a belief in it?

If this is true, then why haven't you thought more critically about the technique? Why haven't you questioned the bizarre claims about energy flow, or why the doctor that runs the site hasn't applied for the million?

Is this the reason you're not interested in applying, that you don't have any reason to believe in EFT?

[Errata]

Because he blocked me, and I considered that the end of the issue. By that time, I knew why nobody had won the challenge. If those aren't good enough reasons for you, or anybody else, oh well.

So, say I want to win the lottery. And I call you on the phone and start talking to you, and eventually you get annoyed and hang up. Then I claim that that is proof that the lottery is rigged, and nobody can ever win it, because you hung up on me instead of giving me my $25 million winnings. Its an incredibly stupid assertion, because you have nothing to do with winning the lottery. If I want to win it, I have to buy a ticket, thats the only way.

You're connecting two events that have nothing to do with each other. You're pestering some poor guy who does not run the challenge process, and when he gets rude with you, you make wild claims about the challenge process. There is absolutely no connection to be made there, except in your own twisted head.

[Pepper]

Pepper, I've noticed something.

This whole thread, you've only vaguely mentioned that you yourself believed in EFT.

Vaguely!? How could I be more clear.

I'm trying to understand- did you come across this website, or hear about the technique from someone, then, without testing it or seeing any real evidence, build up a belief in it?

Someone told me about it, I tested it, and got good results.

Why haven't you questioned the bizarre claims about energy flow, or why the doctor that runs the site hasn't applied for the million?

As far as the energy flow goes, as they say, what's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I dont' know, and I don't care.

You act like people have some sort of obligation to apply for the challenge, and they have to justify it if they don't. (I don't think the guy who runs the site is a doctor.)

Have you tried EFT? If not, why not?

[Pepper]

Its an incredibly stupid assertion, because you have nothing to do with winning the lottery. If I want to win it, I have to buy a ticket, thats the only way.

If I could put the lottery on hold, like Randi has put the challenge on hold, you'd have a really good analogy.

[Errata]

Ah yes, we're back to how his temporary health problems are a response to his fear of you winning. By the time you worked out a protocol, he'd probably have someone processing new claims.

[strathmeyer]

I assumed "We will not be accepting any new applications..." meant they will not be accepting any new applications.

What do you think it means?

I think it means you missed the word "until" later on in the sentance.

[petre]

You're asking my opinion, and I have to say I wouldn't put it past them.

"Try it yourself, what do you have to lose?"

"It's worked for some people, give it a try"

"Just because a slightly-related experience is negative doesn't mean you shouldn't try this"

If these aren't reason enough to apply for a million dollars, then why should they be reason enough to try EFT?

[Scottie99]

Why is this still on the challenge board?

Pepper has said multiple times he does not wish to submit for a challenge. EFT may be testable but pepper can not even put enough coherent thought into it to pursue a challege. He has the biggest case of selective reading I have ever seen.

Can we get this out of the challenge section??

[William Smith]

...
[S]he has the biggest case of selective reading I have ever seen.
...


[Edit by me]
Thank you, Scottie99! (Applause.)

[Lamuella]

Because he blocked me, and I considered that the end of the issue. By that time, I knew why nobody had won the challenge. If those aren't good enough reasons for you, or anybody else, oh well.

he blocked you FROM PERSONAL EMAIL.

And as I pointed out HE IS NOT THE CHALLENGE COORDINATOR.

so in other words, you're finding excuses not to apply.

[strathmeyer]

The challenge is a sham, so, I'm not going to apply for it. Is there any way to make my position clearer?

Yes, by explaining how it is a sham. You see, you're not the first person to claim these things, and so we know that you don't actually have these powers and are just whining that the challenge is a sham because this is what people have done before you. Unfortunately, you won't explain to us why it is a shame, show us that it a sham, or show us that you have magical powers.

[Lamuella]

You're asking my opinion, and I have to say I wouldn't put it past them.

what motivation would they have? Think of it this way: person X walks through the door and is able to demonstrate, on camera and to the testers, a remarkable paranormal ability. For the sake of argument, let's say he's a telekinetic, and from fifty paces he is able to make a paperclip float in midair.

The testers from the JREF or another skeptical organization have two choices.

1) Admit this is genuine, and that this person can demonstrate powers unheard of in science. Instantly the subject being tested, and the test itself, are headline news. The door is opened to a new arena of science. The people partially responsible for demonstrating, under controlled conditions, that these powers existed can pretty much write their own ticket on the world's talkshows. And all this for a million dollars of someone else's money.
2) Cover it up, claim it didn't happen. Outright lie about something which is clearly visible on videotape of the event. Go to court, get sued for the million dollars. Lose when the tapes are uncovered. become derided worldwide as fraudsters and sham artists.

Why in the world would anyone choose option B?

[Scottie99]

[Edit by me]
Thank you, Scottie99! (Applause.)


As soon as I posted it I thought I remembered reading that pepper was a she not a he. I looked at a couple pages and did not find the post and ultimately decided to use the he as the gender neutral version. Full awareness of doing this as I refuse to use a singular they or the lame s/he

Wiki
When a speaker does not know or does not want to specify a person's sex, this can be a problem. Common solutions include singular they, generic he, one, generic you, circumlocutions such as he or she, using he and she in alternate passages, and rewording sentences to avoid pronouns.

Thanks for the more accurate correction though...

[Pepper]

or show us that you have magical powers.

I've never claimed to have magical powers.

[Pepper]

He has the biggest case of selective reading I have ever seen.

Spot the irony! I'm a she and have said so at least once. Talk about your selective reading...

[Scottie99]

Once again you refuse to comment to anything regarding the challenge itself.

I explained my usage of the generic HE above. Read Please!

Edit:

My main point is you have been given clarifying posts again and again on the specifics of the challenge but still refuse to accept them. From reading your post you are some what wishy-washy on EFT itself. You have no intention of applying for the challenge so this DOES NOT! belong in the challenge section of these boards.

[William Smith]

Sorry, Scottie99, I wanted to focus on your statement:


...
[Pepper] has the biggest case of selective reading I have ever seen.
...


Not on Pepper's gender. Didn't want to seem picky, either. Correct & thorough: Yes. Picky & petty: No.
Pepper's behaviour, position and action will remain the center of attention.

[Scottie99]

It worked in our benefit.

I had the feeling of the gender but wanted to go neutral (as it is proper to use he as generic but not she). Pepper of course focused on that even AFTER my post clearing that up. Once again supporting my selective reading hypothesis.

Thanks pepper for the proof...

[Pepper]

Once again you refuse to comment to anything regarding the challenge itself.

I explained my usage of the generic HE above. Read Please!

Edit:

My main point is you have been given clarifying posts again and again on the specifics of the challenge but still refuse to accept them. From reading your post you are some what wishy-washy on EFT itself. You have no intention of applying for the challenge so this DOES NOT! belong in the challenge section of these boards.

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Your excuse for using "he" is laughable. Just admit to selective reading.

Look at the overall subject. "Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" Well, yeah, my thought is the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is a sham.

I'm not at all wishy-washy on EFT, I say it works. Try it and see. Or don't.

[Scottie99]

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Your excuse for using "he" is laughable. Just admit to selective reading.

Look at the overall subject. "Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" Well, yeah, my thought is the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is a sham.

I'm not at all wishy-washy on EFT, I say it works. Try it and see. Or don't.

I admit laziness in not searching back for the specific he v. she post. I used he with knowledge of why I was doing so and explained BEFORE you posted why I did such. You keep stating your assertions on the challenge (i.e.: it being a sham) which have been debunked numerous times. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is dumbfounding.

Working simply from placebo effect means it does NOT work. So yes you are not even sure of the effectiveness.

If you don't want to try EFT, it's no skin off my nose. I've tried it, it works for me. Does it work because of energy meridians? Does it work because of the placebo effect? I don't care.


Once again why are you posting on the challenge board on this? You know EFT can NOT pass the challenge criteria and you have no desire to make any attempt to find a method in which it could.

[gnome]

When you first apply for the challenge, you aren't going for the money. So, if they lie and say you didn't pass the test, you'd have to go through all the hasssle of going to court just so you could be tested again.

With a million dollars at stake, wouldn't that be worth it?

[gnome]

I never claimed it did. I said that I considered it the end of the matter.

This could have ended the conversation long ago--sounds like another way of saying, "I don't want to"... which is fine if you don't throw in groundless statements that the challenge itself is a sham.

[TheBoyPaj]

No intention of entering challenge. Quoting that hoary old breatharian farce. Non-stop evasion. Yep, no doubt about it:

http://www.flickeringmoon.net/troll.jpg

[Jeff Wagg]

Because he blocked me, and I considered that the end of the issue. By that time, I knew why nobody had won the challenge. If those aren't good enough reasons for you, or anybody else, oh well.

Pepper..he blocked your E-MAIL..not your access to the challenge. You weren't following the rules.

[Scottie99]

Pepper,

Let me explain to you a little of my frustration on this thread to give you some insight to where I come from. I am relatively new to these boards and JREF but am fascinated with the scientific method. I find the most interesting part of these boards is the development of scientific testing on claims. A great number of very intelligent people post here and have amazing ideas on how to put some of those claims to proper testing. I find it almost abusive to waste the time of those people as resources. This has been going on a bit lately with clear examples of yourself and Renee Ryan with the hand signs test both who have claims that they do not desire to have tested properly.


It has clearly been shown that people are willing to explore ways to test EFT. But instead we get pages of whining that Randi is rude (irrelevant) or you are blocked from testing (debunked most clearly by Jeff Wang). Lately it is the assertion of not wanting to be tested: a complete roadblock in the development of scientific testing and my joys of this board.

I implore of you to rethink your position and be open to submitting for the challenge I think it could be a fascinating process in the both the development and testing.

Thanks,

Scottie

[Pepper]

With a million dollars at stake, wouldn't that be worth it?

But there is no million dollars at stake when you first try out for the challenge, you aren't trying out for the million. (I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.) You are trying out for a chance to try out for the million. So, no, in my opinion, it would not be worth the hassle. Maybe for you it would be.

Different strokes and all.

[Scottie99]

Stop the presses.

So the issue is you have to be tested TWICE! ..two whole times to pass the million dollar challenge. That you have to prove that you can pass both a preliminary test and a final test that is a hassle!

One million dollars for passing TWO test!

Do you realize what normal scientific testing is like? Months, Years, Decades of testing... JREF is simply asking for you to pass a preliminary and a final test. That my friend is easy money...

[Pepper]

I find it almost abusive to waste the time of those people as resources. This has been going on a bit lately with clear examples of yourself and Renee Ryan with the hand signs test both who have claims that they do not desire to have tested properly.


But instead we get pages of whining that Randi is rude (irrelevant) or you are blocked from testing (debunked most clearly by Jeff Wang).



I have never made Randi's rudeness an issue. I've made his dishonesty an issue. I never claimed I was blocked from testing. Never. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you skeptics aren't interested in the truth.

Don't like this thread or my posts? You are free to ignore them. I can't waste your time, what you do with your time is your choice, not mine.

[gnome]

So if I say, "This method will cure a headache". Is that claim not clear, or not testable?

It needs to go beyond that though. Are you aware that applying the treatment to a test group and surveying if they feel better is not a sufficient study? Are you aware of WHY that is insufficient?

[Pepper]

Stop the presses.

So the issue is you have to be tested TWICE! .

No. The issue is that you are not going for the million dollars when you are being tested at first. (I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.) So, if you pass the test, and they lie about it, I don't think it would be worth the hassel to go to court over it. You might. It's a matter of opinion. Get it now? If not, read it again, because this is my last post on that matter.

[Scottie99]

There are no results to lie about. That assertion has been debunked pepper.

The results are clear for all parties you either pass or fail. It is not up for interpertation. On a simple dowsing test a certain number of hits is determined as Pass under that is fail. Who lies?

Eft can be tested the same way x number of "cures" out of so many is a pass under that is fail. Noone has an opportunity to lie.

[TheBoyPaj]

No. The issue is that you are not going for the million dollars when you are being tested at first.

Yes you are. The preliminary test is part of the challenge.

(I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.)

I find it suspicious that you continue to post in a challenge forum when you have no interest in the challenge. VERY suspicious. But hey. Different, as you say, strokes.

So, if you pass the test, and they lie about it, I don't think it would be worth the hassel to go to court over it.

You don't think so? You don't think that getting the world's attention for proving EFT AND shaming the world's most prominent skeptic into the bargain would assist your wish for people to try EFT? Nonsense.

this is my last post on that matter.

Your last post about the challenge? Or the fact that you have no intention of ever applying for it?

What are you even doing here anyway?

[drkitten]

No. The issue is that you are not going for the million dollars when you are being tested at first.

Yes you are -- it's simply a two-phase test.

(I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.)

No more so than any other two-phase competition. Is it suspicious that to get an Olympic gold medal, you typically have to compete in the preliminary heats and in the final?

If not, read it again, because this is my last post on that matter.

Quite frankly, no great loss. There are a ready supply of people who are unwilling to take Randi's challenge, but quite willing to libel him in the process of not-taking it. One more dropping out of the discourse will not be missed.

[Pepper]

There are no results to lie about. That assertion has been debunked pepper.

No, it has not. No matter what happens, somebody can lie about it. Can't they?

[Scottie99]

You got me pepper.

Can someone lie: Yes

Would someone lie: No

The rules and criteria for success are decided and agreed upon by both sides. Both sides can bring witnesses. The event is videotaped.

A liar would be exposed in a second.

Edit:
Of all the test run please point to one case of JREF lying. Countless examples of both the testee and tester agreeing on the results.

[Pepper]

I find it suspicious that you continue to post in a challenge forum when you have no interest in the challenge. VERY suspicious. But hey. Different, as you say, strokes.



Last time on this matter. Look at the subject. "Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" Yes, I have thoughts on the Million Dollar Challenge.

[Scottie99]

I never claimed I was blocked from testing. Never. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you skeptics aren't interested in the truth.


My post in response to this got lost in board downage. So reposting the main response to this post pepper...

Stop your lying please pepper.

Randi can believe what he wants. You can test EFT for yourself for free and see if it works. I can't post links yet, so go to emofree dot com. I wanted to put EFT to the million dollar test, but after exchanging a few emails about it, Randi blocked me.

I don't know who ChristineR is talking about, but I have never made a dime off of EFT, and would never tell anybody to give up conventional treatments. I'd suggest adding EFT, but that's it.


I was going to apply for the challenge, that's why I wrote to Randi asking him if EFT would qualify. He blocked me after several emails, so I consider the matter (applying for the challenge) closed.

Edit:

I know you are going to say you never specifically said you were blocked from the challenge. Pepper we all know that is what you meant. You wanted to apply than randi blocked you....You considered the matter closed...

Therefore Randi blocking you resulted in you interrupting that the challenge was closed to you. That is false.

[Spidey13]

But there is no million dollars at stake when you first try out for the challenge, you aren't trying out for the million. (I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.) You are trying out for a chance to try out for the million. So, no, in my opinion, it would not be worth the hassle. Maybe for you it would be.

Different strokes and all.

Sorry to jump in here on this, but finding two tests suspicious just got me going. This whole thing is based on the scientific method, and one of the most important parts of it is REPEATABILITY! What's so suspicious about that?

[TheBoyPaj]

Last time on this matter. Look at the subject. "Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" Yes, I have thoughts on the Million Dollar Challenge.

We get it. "It's a sham." But you are unwilling to lift a finger to demonstrate that it is a sham. And your reasons for this unwillingness have been shown to be nonsensical.

But then, they're not the real reasons, are they? Your real reason is, of course, that you know that EFT is nonsense. You know that you would fail the test, so you'll do anything to avoid having to face up to that reality.

[Mongrel]

And yet we have Mr Achau Nguyen (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38792) who has already attempted the challenge. Followed the correct procedure, negotiated a satisfactory protocol and did his best in all good faith. Whilst he didn't succeed that time he's perfectly willing to try again as soon as he can (here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1598368#post1598368)).

Would he be wasting his time like this if the challenge was a sham?

[petre]

No, it has not. No matter what happens, somebody can lie about it. Can't they?

So I suppose you don't keep your money in a bank then, since they could just lie about it and never give it back? You never play the lottery either I suppose, since the lottery could just lie and claim you've got the wrong numbers even if you've won.


P: Dear Lottery Commissioner -- I am interested in playing your lottery using some QRS numbers. Would it be possible for me to win? http://www.joyofpi.com/pi.html

LC: Could you be more specific about the numbers you plan to use?

P: I plan to use a FF transform on selected irrational number sets to generate values to play.

LC: I'm not going to learn advanced mathematics in order to answer your question, exactly what numbers do you plan to use to play?

P: For example, I like to count the number of cars parked on my street, and then divide it by the natural log of 2. I think this gives very nice numbers to play.

LC: Get a clue, I don't care what math games you like to play.

P: Now I see why it's so hard to win the lottery! People ask you if they can play and you're rude to them! Everyone else understands my math, I know because they nod approvingly and pat me on the head. I sent you a page with lots of example numbers. Your lottery is just full of it! Oh, and you still didn't answer if I play the lottery with the correct numbers will I win?

LC: The answer is still yes. I'm not going to parse a page of numbers and identify which would be valid for the lottery. It's YOUR job to pick valid numbers and buy a ticket. How many digits do you plan to use? There's a specific range of valid numbers, and a specific number of them that must be selected, and then properly entered on a lottery entry. Any random set on some webpage isn't necessicarily going to fit the description. THINK!

P: I just wanted to know if my numbers could win your lottery. How do people normally properly fill out a lottery entry? I've always assumed they just write on a cardboard box with a crayon and mail it to Santa Claus.

LC: Bottom line -- You have to pick specific valid numbers, I don't think you're even capable of that. If you are, go ahead. Why have I even bothered to waste this much time with you?

P: Are you going to accept the numbers I give you? I see now, this lottery thing is all a mind game. I see now why it's foolish to even enter.

LC: Clearly you're some kind of idiot. Bye, You're blocked.

P: (to the world) See! The lottery is a sham! Even if I got the correct numbers and won a million dollars, they'd just lie and say I didn't. Then I'd have to go to court just for the opportunity to actually bring my lottery ticket into their office. So not only do I have to BUY the ticket with the correct numbers, but then I have to SHOW them that ticket as an entirely seperate event! Don't you find it kind of suspicious that they won't give me the money for just buying the ticket? I'm blocked now anyway, so I consider the matter settled.

[strathmeyer]

No, it has not. No matter what happens, somebody can lie about it. Can't they?

Pepper, people can always lie. They can do whatever they want; anything is possible. You can get a job but they can always not pay you, so what's the point of getting a job? You can buy a car but the car can be a lemon, so why buy a car? You can walk down the street but someone can come up to you and just punch you in the face, so why go outside?

How do you ever do anything?

[Jeff Wagg]

I'm going to stop following this thread now as I have lots of other stuff to do. Please feel free to write me at challenge@randi.org if anything needs clarification.

I will add one thing though.. If anyone actually has these abilities, passing the challenge will be very very easy. That's the whole point of the challenge..to prove that the abilities exist!

[Pepper]

Why in the world would anyone choose option B?

This is my last post on this matter, we can only offer our opinions about a hypothetical matter. People choose to do all kinds of things. I might be able to explain/understand their motivation in some cases, not in others.

[Pepper]

I know you are going to say you never specifically said you were blocked from the challenge. Pepper we all know that is what you meant.

Well, if you can read minds, apply for the challenge. LOL.

I didn't say I was blocked from the challenge, because I wasn't.

[Pepper]

Would he be wasting his time like this if the challenge was a sham?

People do all kinds of things. You'd have to ask him.

[Mojo]

This is my last post on this matter...You keep saying this, and then you keep on posting...

[Pepper]

You keep saying this, and then you keep on posting...

Because I'm posting on a different matter each time. Duh.

[Thing]

Here's my surmise:

1) Pepper likes to think of herself as having access to some power/ability that skeptics believe is bunk, it makes her special.

2) Pepper knows in her heart of hearts that she couldn't win the challenge.

3) She doesn't like this state of affairs and doesn't want to dwell on it.

4) If she can persuade herself and, who knows, a few anti-skeptics, that the challenge is a sham she can continue to tell herself she's the special one. So that's what she's doing.

I think this fits the behaviour we've seen better than anything else I can think of.

[Piggy]

5) "She" is actually a male college student, a member of a fraternity at a small school in the midwest, who -- along with a few other similar posters -- uses the JREF board as part of a daily drinking game, attempting to elicit new posts and specific accusations from other board members in an attempt to make the other players take shots until they pass out.

[Pepper]

Here's my surmise:

1) Pepper likes to think of herself as having access to some power/ability that skeptics believe is bunk, it makes her special.


I keep saying I have no special powers nor abilities. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Is that clear now? If not, read it again until it is. Sheeeesh...

[gnome]

This is my last post on this matter, we can only offer our opinions about a hypothetical matter. People choose to do all kinds of things. I might be able to explain/understand their motivation in some cases, not in others.

Translation: My opinion cannot be defended logically, so I'm going to fall back on the idea that any opinion is as strong as any other regardless of if it makes sense.

There is little difference between your opinion and claiming the lottery is a sham because they could refuse your winning ticket. If you choose not to make a better distinction, you have no chance of convincing anyone of your opinion. If you don't care, why are you still here?

[Admiral]

This is my last post on this matter, we can only offer our opinions about a hypothetical matter. People choose to do all kinds of things. I might be able to explain/understand their motivation in some cases, not in others.

Pepper, how is "People choose to do all kinds of things" a reason to believe that the observer WILL lie?

You have provided not a shred of evidence that any independent observer for the Challenge has ever lied. If there is NO reason to believe they would lie, why assume that they will?

Imagine I applied "People choose to do all kinds of things" to everyday life. No way will I try that job next summer, because the respected employers with reputations at stake will probably will just decide not to pay me... my generally sweet and friendly next door neighbor could choose to stab me with a butcher knife, so I'll definitely avoid her... My best friend that I've trusted for 12 years probably wants to steal my credit cards and max them out. I'd better stay safe in my room, maybe post on a few message boards.

[Scottie99]

Last time on this matter. Look at the subject. "Have any thoughts about the JREF Million Dollar Challenge?" Yes, I have thoughts on the Million Dollar Challenge.

Just so we are fully clear.


You are not interested in taking the challenge so specifically what are your exact thoughts on it?

That people can lie? That seems more generic than an actually challenge thought. If you have evidence of people lying with challenge results please provide it. If not what is your point???

[William Smith]

No intention of entering challenge. Quoting that hoary old breatharian farce. Non-stop evasion. Yep, no doubt about it:

http://www.flickeringmoon.net/troll.jpg

Aww, how cuuute!

(You can also clearly see how the blue hair affects the "open" hand sign. ;) )

[Sally]

Why not just try EFT see if it works for you? At worst, it just won't work, and you've wasted about 20 min. Nobody even has to know you tried it.


Pepper,


I have been following this forum with great interest. About a year ago I was diagnosed with high blood pressure while it is mild given my weight and activity level it is an issue of concern. Right now I am not on medication but am working with other methods to control it (i.e. diet, exercise, stress reducers). Upon reading about EFT it seemed a great way to control some energy and work positively on bringing the pressure down.


I read on the technique for High blood pressure and one night got myself into a relaxed state took the pressure and started EFT. As doing the motions I began to feel nauseous but continue. At the end of the treatment I became violently ill and was so for the next four hours. I did manage to check my blood pressure and it had risen slightly most likely due to the stress of the sickness.


A week later I determined that it most likely was just a coincidence so started the procedure again. The results were almost exactly the same and I was becoming soured to EFT. After about a month of reflection I thought I had just gotten it in my mind that EFT was causing my sickness. I did the procedure again but stopped at the first signs of nausea luckily I had only a sick stomach to contend with that evening and not violent sickness.


Three tests gave me three results of illness. I read and re-read the technique and am sure I did it exactly as stated. I believe that giving this type of power to people that are not fully trained is dangerous and do not recommend anyone "trying it for themselves"


I actually did consider applying for the challenge but I am blocked since the obvious harm it does. I recommend that you make sure you are fully aware of what you are dealing with…

[William Smith]

Hi Sally, and welcome to the JREF Forum.

Thank you for your first hand experience of EFT. I hope you find more efficent ways to deal with health issues. Remain patient and focus on diet and exercise. Time will show you results. It worked for me too.

[Pepper]

I actually did consider applying for the challenge but I am blocked since the obvious harm it does. I recommend that you make sure you are fully aware of what you are dealing with…

Sally,

Sorry to hear about your experience. It's the first negative one I've heard about EFT. I still feel the benefits of EFT far outweigh any risk. Can't think of any treatment that is 100% safe and effective.

Were you blocked from the challenge?

[Sally]

Sally,

Sorry to hear about your experience. It's the first negative one I've heard about EFT. I still feel the benefits of EFT far outweigh any risk. Can't think of any treatment that is 100% safe and effective.

Were you blocked from the challenge?


I was not blocked but can not apply according to the challenge rules.

2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me?

Essentially, the JREF doesn't want to be seen as even slightly condoning self-injury or injury to others. It has partly to do with legal issues, partly to do with the image of the JREF, and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants. Most of the applications that are self-injurious involve living for extended periods of time without eating, or stopping the use of prescribed medications, and the evidence gathered over millennia is pretty strong that the human body does indeed die after a prolonged period without food. There is also ample evidence to prove that a diabetic who stops taking their insulin will most certainly die or suffer serious internal damage if they stop taking it. It should be no surprise to you that many such claims are submitted.

No test that involves potential injury to the applicant or test participants can be accepted.

In Randi's own words:


'A test of [someone who says he doesn't need to eat] would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"' [6]

I have no idea if this is just my internal weirdness (most likely) or if it is something I can show would happen to others.

I was joking about thinking of applying mostly...No way would I ever submit a claim that was I can make myself sick through tapping and repeating words...

[Sally]

Sally,

Sorry to hear about your experience. It's the first negative one I've heard about EFT. I still feel the benefits of EFT far outweigh any risk. Can't think of any treatment that is 100% safe and effective.

Were you blocked from the challenge?

Seems I am not the only person ever to feel worse...

From wiki on EFT

Perceived negative effects of EFT application
Some cases have been recorded where a client reports feeling worse after some rounds of EFT. This happens, according to Gary Craig, because the initial rounds of EFT tapping take the lid off some repressed and suppressed emotions which now come to the surface. This should be viewed as an opportunity, rather than a problem, as it means that the underlying issues are now exposed and can be resolved while the client is still in an emotionally excited state.

Also studies have been done. For those interested

Preliminary Report of the First Large-Scale
Study of Energy Psychology

By
Joaquin Andrade, MD
David Feinstein, PhD



SUMMARY
(complete paper follows)

In preliminary clinical trials involving more than 29,000 patients from 11 allied treatment centers in South America during a 14-year period, a variety of randomized, double-blind pilot studies were conducted. In one of these, approximately 5,000 patients diagnosed at intake with an anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to an experimental group (tapping) or a control group (Cognitive Behavior Therapy/medication) using standard randomization tables and, later, computerized software. Ratings were given by independent clinicians who interviewed each patient at the close of therapy, at 1 month, at 3 months, at 6 months, and at 12 months. The raters made a determination of complete remission of symptoms, partial remission of symptoms, or no clinical response. The raters did not know if the patient received CBT/medication or tapping. They knew only the initial diagnosis, the symptoms, and the severity, as judged by the intake staff. At the close of therapy:

63% of the control group were judged as having improved.

90% of the experimental group were judged as having improved.

51% of the control group were judged as being symptom free.

76% of the experimental group were judged as symptom free.

At one-year follow-up, the patients receiving tapping treatments were less prone to relapse or partial relapse than those receiving CBT/medication, as indicated by the independent raters assessments and corroborated by brain imaging and neurotransmitter profiles. In a related pilot study by the same team, the length of treatment was substantially shorter with energy therapy and related methods than with CBT/medication (mean = 3 sessions vs. mean = 15 sessions).


I can not post links yet but the full study is at emofree dot com slash res.html

[Pepper]

Thanks for the info, Sally.

[chillzero]

Seems I am not the only person ever to feel worse...


I was trained years ago in massage, reflexology, reiki and some other stuff.
This 'effect' came up at all courses, and was described by my tutors as the 'healing crisis'.

Apparently, your body gets worse before it gets better, because it's like opening a floodgate, and you unleash all these other things that were actually wrong but your client never knew about.

For me, I became quite ill also, and got headaches and loads of spots - toxins coming out through my pores - apparently. Years down the line and I have only become healthier following major surgery. What bothers me most is not just that I bought into this stuff, but that I also passed that same 'knowledge' to my own clients - including one who suffered terrible migraines following treatments.

[rjh01]

I have taken antibiotics many times. I am sure most of you have done too. I did not feel any worse after taking them for a day or so. Same with other medicines.

The only reason I can think of to feel worse straight after treatment is that the drug itself has some serious side-effects. Not due to 'healing crisis'.

If such things are likely to happen then a patent MUST BE informed in advance. Otherwise the patent cannot give informed consent.

Bed time for me. Then a week without a computer. So this is my last post for a week.

[Scottie99]

There are cases where approved medical treatment can cause serious illness in the patient but where benefits outweigh the negatives. Dialysis, chemo, etc. And yes the patient most be fully informed of the risks vs. benefits.


The problem with EFT is it seems like a pseudo psychology in which any benefits or negatives are mental based yet they throw around this just go ahead and try it. Telling us to all become amature psychologists and no offense to sally it seems you can further mess up your own mind...


Sally and Pepper I did glance through the study and it seems that they are linking EFT to be a psychological treatment. No mention of the other outrages claims of diabetes, cancer, etc...

[strathmeyer]

I can not post links yet but the full study is at emofree dot com slash res.html

This link is dead; why not post a citation?

[Scottie99]

Followed the link from wiki:

http://www.emofree.com/Research/andradepaper.htm

[Pepper]

There are cases where approved medical treatment can cause serious illness in the patient but where benefits outweigh the negatives.
.

And where they don't. I've had personal experiences with approved medical treatments were the "cure" was worse than the disease.

[Scottie99]

And where they don't. I've had personal experiences with approved medical treatments were the "cure" was worse than the disease.


Pepper,

Do not these approved medical treatments undergo extensive testing to reach approved status? The goal is for medical professionals to give you the best chances of defeating the disease. Yes there are cases where the "cure" makes you sick, even kills you but the risks are known and we are working to improve the science the best we can.


Would you not want to see EFT go through that type of rigorous testing?

[Pepper]

What bothers me most is not just that I bought into this stuff, but that I also passed that same 'knowledge' to my own clients - including one who suffered terrible migraines following treatments.

What made you change your views? In my search for truth, I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who have "switched sides".

[Pepper]

Pepper,

Do not these approved medical treatments undergo extensive testing to reach approved status?

Yes, they do. But that doesn't mean they are going to work for any particular person. Or that they are safe.


Would you not want to see EFT go through that type of rigorous testing?

It's really a non issue for me, mainly because EFT is so safe, and it's free. So, a person trying it has little to lose and a lot to gain by trying it. If EFT were dangerous, or you had to shell out $ to try it, and/or you had to abandon standard treatment methods to try it, then I'd want to see it put though rigorous testing.

And again, no matter what such test results might be, it boils down to if it's going to work for you or not. It's worked for me, it's worked for others. Does it work because of subtle energy? Placebo? Some other way? As the saying goes: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care.

[Piggy]

I don't know, and I don't care.
If you don't know, why come on a skeptics' board where people do want to know?

If you don't care, why attempt to get others to care by proselytizing?

[Mojo]

I was trained years ago in massage, reflexology, reiki and some other stuff.
This 'effect' came up at all courses, and was described by my tutors as the 'healing crisis'.

Apparently, your body gets worse before it gets better, because it's like opening a floodgate, and you unleash all these other things that were actually wrong but your client never knew about.They have this in homeopathy as well, but they call it an "aggravation". It's all quite handy really: if the patient gets better, it shows that the remedy is working; if the patient gets worse, it shows that the remedy is working... :rolleyes:

[TheBoyPaj]

It's really a non issue for me, mainly because EFT is so safe, and it's free.

EFT Course: 13 hours of video and 3 hours of audio on DVD plus EFT Manual on CD. This foundational course teaches all the basics. Many live demonstrations provide sophisticated approaches. A MUST video set, even if you are already familiar with EFT. $60 for the entire set (40% discount if your order totals $100 or more)

https://www.emofree.com/Store/store.aspx

Free, my arse.

[Scottie99]

Does it work because of subtle energy? Placebo? Some other way? As the saying goes: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care.

How many times must you be told this.

If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work. Take a godamn sugar pill is quicker and you dont have to tap on yourself like an idiot. Recommending something to people that only works as a placebo is stupid and dangerous. Especially when it comes to the bigger claims of diabetes, cancer, etc...

[Pepper]

https://www.emofree.com/Store/store.aspx

Free, my arse.

Yes, you can pay for some DVDs and other things, if you want to. (And if you buy one copy, you can make 100 free copies to give away. ) BUT you can also get all the info you need for free.

http://emofree.com/downloadeftmanual.asp

Did you not see this? Or are you just dishonest?

[Pepper]

How many times must you be told this.

If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work.

It works via the placebo effect.

Take a godamn sugar pill is quicker and you dont have to tap on yourself like an idiot.

Calm down. Here's a napkin to wipe the foam off of your mouth. You're welcome.


Recommending something to people that only works as a placebo is stupid and dangerous. Especially when it comes to the bigger claims of diabetes, cancer, etc...

What if it helps their diabetes, cancer, etc via the placebo effect? And, again, I don't see any harm. IF I were telling people to abandon conventional treatments, that would be one thing. But, it seems to me, in the vast majority of cases, at worst, it just won't work. Then what have they lost? Nada.

[TheBoyPaj]

Did you not see this? Or are you just dishonest?

I did not see that. But the question must be asked, if the free information is all you need to effectively use the technique, why is the $60 DVD set "A MUST video set, even if you are already familiar with EFT"?

Why sell the DVDs at all? Is it "just in case" the free technique does not work?

[William Smith]

From this link: https://www.emofree.com/Store/store.aspx

"(...) Experts make presentations on EFT's uses regarding Business, Addictions/Overweight, Sexual Trauma, Relationships and Severely Emotionally Disturbed Children. (...)"

Where are those experts?
Shouldn't flocks of them already have applied for the Challenge?
$1,000,000 en passant for showing EFT works?
"Come one, come all. Don't push, please. We will accept eeeevery application."

These bleeping bleepers exploit the gullibility, the hope and, in case of Mr. Gary Craig, the purses of people looking for help.
I find this abominable - unless, of course, someone would step up and prove EFT in fact does work.

Will this happen?

Hello?

Hello-o?

[Admiral]

Pepper, if you freely admit that EFT works by the placebo effect, then it is NOT paranormal, and NOT eligible for the JREF prize. See, this is what Randi was asking you- whether you were talking about effects that could be distinguished from the placebo effect.

Curing a headache or back pain with the placebo effect would NOT be paranormal. However, there are some exceptions:

What if it helps their diabetes, cancer, etc via the placebo effect? And, again, I don't see any harm. IF I were telling people to abandon conventional treatments, that would be one thing. But, it seems to me, in the vast majority of cases, at worst, it just won't work.

Pepper, the placebo effect has indeed caused surprising results in many patients. However, the idea that it can help cancer is paranormal indeed.

I'm not a doctor, but I want to know from any doctors on the forum- has there EVER been a known case of the placebo effect being shown to have an effect against cancer?

Of course, such data is not readily available, since medical tests generally test a remedy against a placebo, not a placebo against nothing at all. However, if EFT can help a patient's cancer or diabetes, that would be eligible for the million.

Edit-corrected syntax

[Pepper]

I did not see that. But the question must be asked, if the free information is all you need to effectively use the technique, why is the $60 DVD set "A MUST video set, even if you are already familiar with EFT"?

Why sell the DVDs at all? Is it "just in case" the free technique does not work?

I got a set of the earlier video CD's just because I was interested, so I know they are not "just in case" the free technique doesn't work, it's the same technique. They show people actually doing EFT, different examples.

The main point is you can learn how to use EFT effectively without paying a cent.

[Pepper]

From this link: https://www.emofree.com/Store/store.aspx

"(...) Experts make presentations on EFT's uses regarding Business, Addictions/Overweight, Sexual Trauma, Relationships and Severely Emotionally Disturbed Children. (...)"

Where are those experts?
Shouldn't flocks of them already have applied for the Challenge?
$1,000,000 en passant for showing EFT works?
"Come one, come all. Don't push, please. We will accept eeeevery application."

These bleeping bleepers exploit the gullibility, the hope and, in case of Mr. Gary Craig, the purses of people looking for help.
I find this abominable - unless, of course, someone would step up and prove EFT in fact does work.


Why do you act like people are obligated to apply for that sham challenge? Maybe they just don't want to bother, or haven't heard of it.

Once again, you can learn EFT for free and try it on yourself and see if it works. So, where is the exploitation??

[Piggy]

Pepper, if EFT "works" via placebo effect, then the exploitation comes from all the codswallop on the EFT site re energies and such.

As for the question "Why not?", I recommend you re-read post 226 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1587201&postcount=226).

[Pepper]

Pepper, if EFT "works" via placebo effect, then the exploitation comes from all the codswallop on the EFT site re energies and such.

That wouldn't be exploitation.

As for the question "Why not?", I recommend you re-read post 226 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1587201&postcount=226).

I don't find that a very good argument. (Differnet strokes...) I'd rather have lots of alternatives. IF the conventional treatments were working, I would just pass on any alternatives people present to me. "No thanks, I'm doing fine".

[Pepper]

See, this is what Randi was asking you- whether you were talking about effects that could be distinguished from the placebo effect.


Odd that somebody who doesn't believe in ESP expected me to read his mind.

[Piggy]

That wouldn't be exploitation.
Of course it would. Anytime you market a product to a vulnerable population with bogus promises, that's exploitation.

Listen, Pepper, all this EFT stuff is junk. You wanna believe in junk, ok. You wanna practice this mumbo jumbo on yourself, fine.

But you're peddling b******t. That's how you want to live your life, you're welcome to it.

[William Smith]

Why do you act like people are obligated to apply for that sham challenge?
...


People are not obligated to take the JREF Challenge.
You seem to react defensive even with the mention of this word. Challenge. Does that say anything about your emotional freedom? (Of course, you don't have to answer that.)


...
Maybe they just don't want to bother,
...


Yeah, because who cares about a Million buckaroos s/he can collect in a jiffy simply by doing what s/he claims s/he can do. Such a pain in the lower back.

I like you, Pepper. Because you make me smile.

[Pepper]

Listen, Pepper, all this EFT stuff is junk. You wanna believe in junk, ok. You wanna practice this mumbo jumbo on yourself, fine.


"These findings suggest that a single treatment session using EFT to reduce specific phobias can produce valid behavioral and subjective effects..."

http://www4.infotrieve.com/newmedline/detail.asp?NameID=12945061&Session=&searchQuery=eft+AND+freedom&count=1

[TheBoyPaj]

I got a set of the earlier video CD's just because I was interested, so I know they are not "just in case" the free technique doesn't work, it's the same technique. They show people actually doing EFT, different examples.

So they're a rip-off? They're not "a MUST" at all?

Of course, no one likes to admit that they have been had.

[gnome]

It works via the placebo effect.

If it relies only on the placebo effect--then it has no specific value other than to convince the patient that something useful is being done. In that case, the details are completely irrelevant, and a study of it is nonsense.

It's almost the literal definition of "mumbo-jumbo".

[Pepper]

So they're a rip-off? They're not "a MUST" at all?

Of course, no one likes to admit that they have been had.

Not a rip off, I felt I got my money's worth. And "a MUST" is a marketing phrase, BFD. Obivously you aren't going to die without them. Would you like a copy? You can see for yourself.

[Pepper]

If it relies only on the placebo effect--then it has no specific value other than to convince the patient that something useful is being done.

And if that is all it takes to cure them, sounds good to me!

[gnome]

And if that is all it takes to cure them, sounds good to me!

But don't pretend you've discovered something supernatural. Placebo doesn't count as supernatural--it is simply a slight benefit of using the power of suggestion.

And let me rephrase, if you never claimed it was supernatural... anything that relies on the placebo effect is NOT eligible for the million dollar challenge. So, that might end the conversation right there.

[William Smith]

And if that is all it takes to cure them, sounds good to me!

A placebo effect, as gnome pointed out, does not qualify as paranormal. You may label the effect as you see fit. Substitute the word "placebo" with whatever you like.

Finally, at least you were proved right once: You really couldn't apply for the Challenge.

Well, technically you could but if you described it the way you did in your last posts, your application would get rejected - because EFT does not exist in this thing we call, dangit what's that word again, er, ah shady mind, mmh, oh yeah: reality.

[Pepper]

A placebo effect, as gnome pointed out, does not qualify as paranormal.

So what?


Finally, at least you were proved right once: You really couldn't apply for the Challenge.


Randi said EFT qualified for the challenge.

Any comment on the link to the study that showed EFT to be effective?

[gnome]

So what?

Randi said EFT qualified for the challenge.

Any comment on the link to the study that showed EFT to be effective?
I think you would have gotten a different answer had you said up front that it only worked as a placebo. Hence all the experimental controls--they're designed to eliminate placebo effect.

[Pepper]

I think you would have gotten a different answer had you said up front that it only worked as a placebo. Hence all the experimental controls--they're designed to eliminate placebo effect.

I have never said that EFT only works as a placebo. I don't know how it works. But IF (notice the word IF) it does work only as a placebo, then that's OK by me. If I can get rid of a headache, eliminate a bad habit and/or feeling via the placebo effect, fine.

[TheBoyPaj]

Not a rip off, I felt I got my money's worth.

Like I said, no one likes to admit that they've been had.

And "a MUST" is a marketing phrase, BFD.

As someone who used to work in marketing, but quit because he couldn't stand the lying, that excuse does not impress me.

Obivously you aren't going to die without them.

And you would probably get better without them, too. AND be $60 better off.

Would you like a copy? You can see for yourself.

No thanks. I got placebo effects up the wazoo.


(Unless yours are administered more gently?)

[TheBoyPaj]

Randi said EFT qualified for the challenge.

You know, it's kind of assumed that when someone applies for a paranormal challenge, that they have a paranormal claim. For the effect to be paranormal, it cannot be placebo. The only test the JREF would ever accept is one which eliminates placebo.

[William Smith]

A placebo effect, as gnome pointed out, does not qualify as paranormal.
...



So what?
...


Thanks Pepper, I think this sums it up nicely:

1. No paranormal claim.
2, No application.
3. Do not pass 'Go'.
4. Do not collect $1,000,000.

[Mojo]

I have never said that EFT only works as a placebo. Never?It works via the placebo effect.

[Pepper]

Never?

Never. You took that quote out of context. Anybody can go back and see that you did.

[Pepper]

Like I said, no one likes to admit that they've been had.

I wasn't had, I got want I wanted.


As someone who used to work in marketing, but quit because he couldn't stand the lying, that excuse does not impress me.

Get over yourself. It's just an expression. If someone tells me "You MUST see this movie!", I don't figure I'll die of malnutrition if I don't. They just mean it's a very good movie.

And this is my last statement on this non issue brought up to divert attention from the real issue which is: You can learn to use EFT without paying a cent.


And you would probably get better without them, too. AND be $60 better off.


Actually, I only got the CD's because I tried EFT and it worked, so I was curious as to what was on them. If I had tried it and it had not worked, I would not have ordered them.



No thanks. I got placebo effects up the wazoo.

(Unless yours are administered more gently?)

Chicken.

[Mojo]

Never. You took that quote out of context. Anybody can go back and see that you did.Rather than use the multi-quote feature, which doesn't link back to the original posts, I went out of my way to use the quote feature, copying and pasting the second quotation, so that people could indeed go back and see the quotation in its original context by simply clicking on the link.

If you insist, here is the quotation in its original context: Originally Posted by Scottie99:
How many times must you be told this.

If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work.

It works via the placebo effect.


Originally Posted by Scottie99:
Take a godamn sugar pill is quicker and you dont have to tap on yourself like an idiot.

Calm down. Here's a napkin to wipe the foam off of your mouth. You're welcome.


Originally Posted by Scottie99:

Recommending something to people that only works as a placebo is stupid and dangerous. Especially when it comes to the bigger claims of diabetes, cancer, etc...


What if it helps their diabetes, cancer, etc via the placebo effect? And, again, I don't see any harm. IF I were telling people to abandon conventional treatments, that would be one thing. But, it seems to me, in the vast majority of cases, at worst, it just won't work. Then what have they lost? Nada.Could you explain what the words "it works via the placebo effect" mean?

[Pepper]

Rather than use the multi-quote feature, which doesn't link back to the original posts, I went out of my way to use the quote feature, copying and pasting the second quotation, so that people could indeed go back and see the quotation in its original context by simply clicking on the link.

If you insist, here is the quotation in its original context: Could you explain what the words "it works via the placebo effect" mean?

"If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work."

IF. So I countered with "It works via the placebo effect", IOW, IF it only works due to a placebo effect, THEN it works due to the placebo effect. But I never claimed it only worked via the placebo effect. Um. Duh.

[gnome]

"If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work."

IF. So I countered with "It works via the placebo effect", IOW, IF it only works due to a placebo effect, THEN it works due to the placebo effect. But I never claimed it only worked via the placebo effect. Um. Duh.
Fine. But you can't use the "placebo effect" to win the paranormal challenge, because that isn't paranormal by anyone's definition. To win the challenge you have to demonstrate the part of EFT that isn't placebo. So, we're back to me pointing out that it's fine for you to say you're not interested, but don't blame the Challenge. (that is, unless you've got something against it that you are willing to defend). It's not sacred, but if you want to question it, you can't dance around the issue.

[Admiral]

"If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work."

IF. So I countered with "It works via the placebo effect", IOW, IF it only works due to a placebo effect, THEN it works due to the placebo effect. But I never claimed it only worked via the placebo effect. Um. Duh.

So, if I understand you, your claim is that it works via the placebo effect, but not ONLY via the placebo effect.

OK. What's the difference? What in EFT has an effect besides the placebo effect?

[Pepper]

So, if I understand you, your claim is that it works via the placebo effect, but not ONLY via the placebo effect.


You don't understand me. Seems so simple, too. Last time. EFT works. I've used it, other people have used it. I even posted a link to a study that shows it works. (Interesting that nobody has commented on that...) How does it work? I don't know, and it's not an issue for me.

[Flange Desire]

... EFT works. I've used it, other people have used it. I even posted a link to a study that shows it works. (Interesting that nobody has commented on that...) How does it work? I don't know, and it's not an issue for me.

So your linked study shows that EFT works but it does not show you of how EFT works, and this is not an issue for you.

Last time.

[ChaoticLimbs]

Pepper, your correspondence, as I read it, is very unfortunately entirely meaningless, and you make lots of statements without any support. Your sentences lack the proper Subject, Verb, Direct Object kind of structure and convey no meaningful information. This means you're very likely to demonstrate ignorance and foolishness (gushing) rather than answering questions with information.

What's even more telling is that your example, a headache, cannot possibly be verified to be occurring, and cannot be verified to have been eliminated via your "treatment".
Being able to "cure" a psychosomatic ailment via the placebo effect is not paranormal or supernatural.
For a million bucks you have to be able to do WAY better than the placebo effect does, and in a situation where the symptoms or ailment can be verified to have been ameliorated significantly.

[TheBoyPaj]

Chicken.

Come now. You're not even trying, are you?

[TheBoyPaj]

You don't understand me. Seems so simple, too. Last time. EFT works. I've used it, other people have used it.

People who have used homeopathy claim that it works too. Your opinion means diddly when it comes to science.

I even posted a link to a study that shows it works.

But the study did not account for placebo. Why is that? You still have yet to show that EFT itself does anything at all and it is possible, nay likely, that wishful thinking is responsible for all of EFT's claimed effects.

Besides, a study doesn't win the JREF million. But you're not interested in the JREF challenge, are you? Why are you still here?

[Mendeli]

Ok, I'd like to really know what you would say is flawed with that study. I'm no expert but to me it seems they at least tried to make a double blind study.
They had the experiment group and a control group. The raters were blind to the method of treatment. 5000 patients over 14 years seems to me like a pretty good amount of data...

So I'm really interested to hear where you think the study was flawed. Should they have had a third group that only ate sugar pills?

[chillzero]

What made you change your views? In my search for truth, I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who have "switched sides".

I have posted quite a few things about my dis-engagement with paranormal beliefs, so I won't go into detail here again. In short though, there were probably 3 main elements:

1 - the aggressive nature of believers when questioned as to their beliefs, or about their heroes. As one example, I believed people like Sylvia Browne and so on could speak to spirits, but when I asked a question on another board to clarify something Colin Fry had said that didn't add up, I was slated, and then my posts were edited, and nobody attempted to answer my question.

2 - I realised that my own 'psychic' abilities were more a case of very good intuition - founded on solid things like deductive reasoning, character assessment, selective memory and so on.

3 - the explanations for things put forward by skeptics made more sense than those being advocated by believers, and were backed up by evidence and verifiable facts.

The frustration of dealing with people who at best were decieving themselves, and at worse actively defrauding people became too much for me. I realised that I was being mentally and emotionally abused by those who were supposed to be closest to me - and this was before I became a pain to them all with my constant need to question things; to find out more about everything.

[Lamuella]

No, it has not. No matter what happens, somebody can lie about it. Can't they?

can someone lie? Probably. Would their lie be really really easily found out? Definitely.

Let's say that your test was that you could make a chair levitate. How in the world could they dispute you had this power if you TAPED the demonstration?

With something a little more subjective like EFT, it might be harder to demonstrate, but only because the results would be less visible. Nonetheless, you wouldn't be in the hands of their judgment. A test protocol for something like EFT would probably be something like this: you get three groups of people with, say, migraine headaches of similar type and intensity. One group will be given no treatment for a period of time (let's say 24 hours for the sake of argument). The second group is given something superficially similar to EFT, but not EFT (not something that invokes the powers you are demonstrating by testing EFT). The third group is given EFT. In order for EFT to be judged as successful, it must treat the migraine headaches better than both control groups. The problem here is that the only way of judging how effective it has been is to ask people how they are feeling, and that's difficult to quantify. The best we can do is to grade their pain on a level of 1 to 10 before and after the 24 hours including the treatment. You could specify that EFT's effectiveness has been proven if, say, the average level of pain relief caused by the EFT treatment is 50% greater than that experienced in the placebo groups (for example, the average pain drop in the EFT group was 6 points, and the average pain drop in the second control group is 4 points). It doesn't matter what your specifics for success are as long as they exist and are set in stone before the testing takes place.

Then - and this is the clever part - YOU INTERVIEW THE MEMBERS OF EACH GROUP. You get their comments about the level of pain relief they experienced on camera.

Now ask yourself: how could someone lie about this? Not why would they, but HOW could they?

[William Smith]

...
And this is my last statement on this non issue brought up to divert attention from the real issue which is: You can learn to use EFT without paying a cent.
...


In your OP you blame Mr. Randi for "his dishonesty, and silly insults."
Later on you labeled the insults a non-issue. Ok.

Again later: "I'm not interested the challenge [sic!]. I now know it's meaningless, and that Randi is dishonest." http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1537805#post1537805

If I'd join in your semantic games, I'd say:
A person who has no interest in the Challenge should see no reason in posting in the Challenge Forum. Having thoughts on the Challenge should count as interest. As well as wanting to prove it being a "sham".

(ETA: What is the issue, then?)

Do I understand correctly that I have to cough up $12 (or $30?) first to view the entire study document you mentioned?

[Lamuella]

This is my last post on this matter, we can only offer our opinions about a hypothetical matter. People choose to do all kinds of things. I might be able to explain/understand their motivation in some cases, not in others.

wow. Compelling. So your argument against taking the challenge is that they might lie about the results and face universal shame and derision, because "People choose to do all kinds of things".

Why not just admit that you don't want to take the challenge because you don't think your technique will pass muster?

[Lamuella]

I keep saying I have no special powers nor abilities. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Is that clear now? If not, read it again until it is. Sheeeesh...

If you have no special powers or abilities, what in the world makes you think you qualify for a million dollar prize?

[Nucular]

I even posted a link to a study that shows it works. (Interesting that nobody has commented on that...)
I have a pdf of the study, if anyone's more interested than me, pm and I'll email it.

A couple of observations though. As one study, it wouldn't constitute 'proof' that EFT 'works', regardless of design and findings. The proof of the pudding is in the repeating.

However, it seems a reasonable small-scale, limited-scope study for an area with scant research.

After an uncritical review of 'energy psychology' literature and acupuncture, the authors go on to describe a single-blind study (it is admittedly difficult to double-blind psychological intervention studies, though this would have been possible in this case I think). Sample size is pretty small (n=46, 43 of whom were female), and I didn't see any power calculations (though my reading was quite cursory). The study was randomised, but I didn't see any reference to testing characteristics of the two groups to check if they differed.

The main problem really is that the comparison procedure was deep breathing, which hardly seems an appropriate choice. Why not a sham EFT condition in the study? This would have been a more appropriate control, and easy to double-blind using naive practitioners, as they did with assessment.

Overall, the study doesn't really enlighten us as to either efficacy of mechanism: instead, it compares EFT as a treatment for specific phobia to an alternative treatment which isn't used for specific phobia.

The authors admit themselves the considerable methodological limitations, and caution to wait for further research before drawing conclusions as to efficacy.

What do you think of the study Pepper? What do you think it shows?

[Nucular]

Ok, I'd like to really know what you would say is flawed with that study. I'm no expert but to me it seems they at least tried to make a double blind study.
They had the experiment group and a control group. The raters were blind to the method of treatment. 5000 patients over 14 years seems to me like a pretty good amount of data...

So I'm really interested to hear where you think the study was flawed. Should they have had a third group that only ate sugar pills?
Hang on, have I got the right study?? Which one are you looking at Mendeli? The one I read had 46 subjects tested during a 9-month study.

Edit: no, even fewer - there's some kind of jiggerpokery with the group allocation I haven't got time to figure out. N is more like 35.

[TheBoyPaj]

Ok, I'd like to really know what you would say is flawed with that study. I'm no expert but to me it seems they at least tried to make a double blind study.

If I was to ask one of those test subjects if they had EFT or some sort of breathing technique, they would be able to tell me. This means that the test does nothing to show that EFT is anything other than placebo. The test subjects may have just digged the idea of EFT better than the chosen alternative.

The control group should have had something which was indistinguishable from the real treatment. Your suggestion of sugar pills would be similarly useless in this regard. You're going to ask me what the control should be, of course. I don't know. It would be up to the advocates of the treatment to say exactly what it is that supposedly makes EFT effective, so that that particular element can be removed without it being obvious to the subject.

Also, if we were to apply Pepper's logic to this for a moment, this study is useless because it could all be a lie.

[ChristineR]

I think Mendeli is talking about this:

http://www.emofree.com/Research/andradepaper.htm

The link talks about 29,000 patients over 14 years, including one study involving 5,000 people. There is not enough information given to evaluate any study, let alone make a meta-analysis. Apparently the 5,000 patient study followed patients for one year and lasted five years. The study compared cogntive therapies and medication to EFT and was evaluated by interview, so it was far from blind.

Also, patients were allowed to terminate treatment whenever they felt they had "succeeded" and were also allowed to restart treatments if they felt they had "relapsed." This actually encourages patients to claim that ineffective, placebo based, "feel good" treatments are more effective, as they are likely to feel that they have gotten everything possible out such a treatment and can thus declare it a "complete success" so far as it does anything at all.

[Lamuella]

surely the control would be to devise something that looks like EFT but is just a random series of taps, then make sure that neither side knows if they are in the EFT group or the random tap group.

Of course, it would be impossible to make this truly "double blind" without training one set of instructors in EFT and another in fake EFT and not telling them which was which.

[Mojo]

"If it works only do to a placebo effect that means it does NOT! work."

IF. So I countered with "It works via the placebo effect", IOW, IF it only works due to a placebo effect, THEN it works due to the placebo effect. But I never claimed it only worked via the placebo effect. Um. Duh.Fair enough: I misunderstood what you were saying there: I thought that you were conceding that it works via placebo rather than talking about a hypothetical situation.

But you have certainly said that you don't know (and don't care) whether it's just the placebo effect or is actually doing something, when explaining why testing EFT is a "non issue" for you: Originally Posted by Scottie99:
Pepper,

Do not these approved medical treatments undergo extensive testing to reach approved status?
Yes, they do. But that doesn't mean they are going to work for any particular person. Or that they are safe.

Originally Posted by Scottie99:
Would you not want to see EFT go through that type of rigorous testing?


It's really a non issue for me, mainly because EFT is so safe, and it's free. So, a person trying it has little to lose and a lot to gain by trying it. If EFT were dangerous, or you had to shell out $ to try it, and/or you had to abandon standard treatment methods to try it, then I'd want to see it put though rigorous testing.

And again, no matter what such test results might be, it boils down to if it's going to work for you or not. It's worked for me, it's worked for others. Does it work because of subtle energy? Placebo? Some other way? As the saying goes: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care.

[Pepper]

I have posted quite a few things about my dis-engagement with paranormal beliefs, so I won't go into detail here again. In short though, there were probably 3 main elements:

1 - the aggressive nature of believers when questioned as to their beliefs, or about their heroes. As one example, I believed people like Sylvia Browne and so on could speak to spirits, but when I asked a question on another board to clarify something Colin Fry had said that didn't add up, I was slated, and then my posts were edited, and nobody attempted to answer my question.

Sounds like skepdicks to me. Look how I've been attacked here. Also, I was limited on one skepdick Yahoo group to two posts a day. The owner of the group said it was because of the number of posts I made. When someone pointed out that I had made fewer posts than other people, he was kicked out of the group!

[Pepper]

What do you think of the study Pepper? What do you think it shows?

I think it shows EFT works. And it also shows that if a study goes against your biases, you'll pick it apart.

[Pepper]

So I'm really interested to hear where you think the study was flawed. Should they have had a third group that only ate sugar pills?

They think it's flawed because it goes against their biases.

[TheBoyPaj]

I think it shows EFT works. And it also shows that if a study goes against your biases, you'll pick it apart.

Remember what I said about how much your opinion is worth?

It's not just your opinion, though. Mine too. All worthless. What matters is the quality of the evidence. Yours is not good.

And it doesn't matter whether the study agrees with or conflicts with your current world-view. ALL studies are picked apart. That's what science is all about.

[Pepper]

Pepper, your correspondence, as I read it, is very unfortunately entirely meaningless, and you make lots of statements without any support. Your sentences lack the proper Subject, Verb, Direct Object kind of structure and convey no meaningful information. This means you're very likely to demonstrate ignorance and foolishness (gushing) rather than answering questions with information.

Sharpie! toasted can annex rejoice

[William Smith]

Sharpie! toasted can annex rejoice

Appreciate your continued interest.

[gnome]

Sounds like skepdicks to me. Look how I've been attacked here. Also, I was limited on one skepdick Yahoo group to two posts a day. The owner of the group said it was because of the number of posts I made. When someone pointed out that I had made fewer posts than other people, he was kicked out of the group!

Funny how you've been repeatedly banned and censored here too, if skepdicks are all the same :)

[Lamuella]

pepper, are you misspelling "skeptics", or are you deliberately being rude?

[Admiral]

Pepper, we're not picking apart the study because we disagree with it, we're picking it apart because science only trusts theories that have been picked apart, challenged, and have passed the most thorough examination.

More importantly, the reason we're looking at the details of the study is that we wish to determine whether it describes something paranormal or not. See, this is what Randi's question about whether tapping the wrong points on your body would cause the treatment to be ineffective would make the treatment lose its effectiveness- the information you had given him and linked to was insufficient.

The problem with this study is that while it notes that EFT is more effective than shallow breathing towards reducing phobias, it does not indicate anything paranormal. If you wanted to discuss this on another thread, such as Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology thread, this paper would be an interesting conclusion, since then the focus would be on the effectiveness of the treatment. However, in no way would this be paranormal, and I hope you understand why it would therefore not be eligible for the Challenge.

In addition, this shows Randi's reasoning- he wanted to know what claim you were specifically making about EFT. You responded vaguely, which led to his getting impatient- it's not his job to make your claim for you. If you wanted to know whether a claim was acceptable, you should at least know what the claim is.

An analogy- imagine I sent an email to Randi saying "Is communication over long distances acceptable for the challenge?" When he asks for more details, I send him a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication. When he asks whether I would use a cell phone or a computer, I responded "Now I know the truth, you are just plain full of it!"

See, some claims related to EFT are eligible- some aren't. He wanted to know whether yours was.

[Pepper]

Why not just admit that you don't want to take the challenge because you don't think your technique will pass muster?

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you maintain your faith, but I woudn't have contacted Randi in the first place if I didn't know that EFT works. File that under "Duh".

[Lamuella]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you maintain your faith, but I woudn't have contacted Randi in the first place if I didn't know that EFT works. File that under "Duh".

you know, proper scientists test things to find out whether they work and why they work. knowing beforehand is rarely a prerequisite.

As to why you cantacted Randi instead of contacting the challenge coordinator as you were supposed to do, the only person who can answer that is you, and you haven't done a very good job of doing so.

By the way,did you call us "skepdicks" to be insulting, or was it a typo?

[Pepper]

Pepper, we're not picking apart the study because we disagree with it, we're picking it apart because science only trusts theories that have been picked apart, challenged, and have passed the most thorough examination.

I can't prove it, but I doubt y'all would be picking it apart if it said EFT didn'twork.


See, some claims related to EFT are eligible- some aren't. He wanted to know whether yours was.

Again, it's odd that someone who doesn't believe in ESP was expecting me to read his mind.

[Pepper]

you know, proper scientists test things to find out whether they work and why they work. knowing beforehand is rarely a prerequisite.

But you are claiming I don't think EFT would pass the test.


As to why you cantacted Randi instead of contacting the challenge coordinator as you were supposed to do, the only person who can answer that is you, and you haven't done a very good job of doing so.


LOL. Like I owe you an explanation. If Randi doesn't want to be contacted about the challenge, he shouldn't post his private email on the site.

[Nucular]

I think it shows EFT works. And it also shows that if a study goes against your biases, you'll pick it apart.
As others have pointed out, everything needs picking apart in order to see if it's made of the stuff it claims to be.

Have you read the study, Pepper? Or did you go to pubmed, type "emotional freedom techniques" and link to the abstract of the only study which appeared?

I suspect the latter, which would be why you missed the fact that even the authors of that study do not claim it shows that "EFT works": the closest they get is that it is

largely consistent with the hypothesis that EFT can reduce phobias of small animals in a single treatment session

which statement is followed by the qualification that

due to methodological limitations in the present study, firm conclusions about the efficacy of EFT must wait for confirmation from future studies.

So not only are you poo-flinging instead of evidence-finding, you're also disagreeing as much with the authors of the study you cited as you are with us.

Have you read the study?

[Lamuella]

pepper, you were expecting him to read your mind by giving him insufficient information and expecting a result.

you were also failing to read the site's instructions as to who you should contact with questions about the challenge. The email address you wrote to was Randi's personal email address. There is a complete other set of contact details for matters dealing with the challenge. What you did was equivalent to emailing the CEO of Autozone at his personal email address to ask questions about your oil change.

[Lamuella]

LOL. Like I owe you an explanation. If Randi doesn't want to be contacted about the challenge, he shouldn't post his private email on the site.

What in the world made you think that was the appropriate contact address for the challenge? A completely different set of contact details is given for the challenge coordinator. At the point where you first applied, the challenge coordinator was Kramer. Right now the person you need to contact is Jeff Wragg.

You ignored the challenge protocols and then got upset because Randi told you he didn't want you to email him at his personal email address any more. And somehow in your head this has become a huge psychodrama where Randi is a liar and a scammer who isn't giving you your million dollars. This is cognitive dissonance.

[Pepper]

surely the control would be to devise something that looks like EFT but is just a random series of taps, then make sure that neither side knows if they are in the EFT group or the random tap group.


I think a sugar pill would be a good control. You just tell everyone they are going to test a headache treatment, or something else that would cover both methods.

Why not random tapping? Because we don't know if random tapping works or not. But we do know a sugar pill doesn't.

What is the placebo effect? It boils down to a treatment working because the person believes it will. My guess is the most common way of treating a headace is taking a pill for it, so people taking the pill would likely believe that pills work. Again, just guessing, more likely to believe a pill would work as opposed to tapping.

Now, if the study showed that EFT works, one could then test it against random tapping, to try to figure out if the specific points matter or not.

[Lamuella]

I think a sugar pill would be a good control. You just tell everyone they are going to test a headache treatment, or something else that would cover both methods.

Why not random tapping? Because we don't know if random tapping works or not. But we do know a sugar pill doesn't.

What is the placebo effect? It boils down to a treatment working because the person believes it will. My guess is the most common way of treating a headace is taking a pill for it, so people taking the pill would likely believe that pills work. Again, just guessing, more likely to believe a pill would work as opposed to tapping.

Now, if the study showed that EFT works, one could then test it against random tapping, to try to figure out if the specific points matter or not.

The point of a control is to get something as similar to the thing being tested as possible, without the element that makes the thing being tested work. You test drugs against a sugar pill, because in both cases you get the same situational background: taking a pill and seeing if it works. For physical therapies like EFT or chiropractiv (for example), you need a control that mimics what they do as closely as possible, without the part that "works" in the treatment. In other words, you need something that gives a similar physical experience to EFT without being EFT.

[Pepper]

As others have pointed out, everything needs picking apart in order to see if it's made of the stuff it claims to be.

I wonder if it would "need" all this picking apart if it showed EFT didn't work.

I haven't read the study, I read the abstract. And someone asked me what I thought the study showed. I think it shows EFT works.

[Lamuella]

all scientific claims are subject to incredible scrutiny. This is especially true of extraordinary claims. The claims ascribed to EFT are extraordinary. Thus the proof needed is extraordinary.

What people were saying is that the results shown in that paper did not go far enough yet. The paper's author clearly believes this as well, as he says:

due to methodological limitations in the present study, firm conclusions about the efficacy of EFT must wait for confirmation from future studies.

[Admiral]

I think a sugar pill would be a good control. You just tell everyone they are going to test a headache treatment, or something else that would cover both methods.

That's a reasonable response, but it's misled with regard to the scientific method. Scientists don't allow more than one variable to change and assume that the variables besides the one they intend to observe won't have a negative effect.



What is the placebo effect? It boils down to a treatment working because the person believes it will. My guess is the most common way of treating a headace is taking a pill for it, so people taking the pill would likely believe that pills work. Again, just guessing, more likely to believe a pill would work as opposed to tapping.

As you admit, you're guessing. I personally think it's a reasonable guess that people are more likely to believe a pill can help them then tapping themselves. However, that doesn't make it scientific. As Lamuella noted, the point of the control is to make it as similar as possible to the original experiment.

What you have to ask yourself is this- what is it that is paranormal that we are testing? It's not that EFT can help headaches- that's not paranormal. It's not that EFT can help headaches more than sugar pills can- that's not paranormal. It's that EFT works by affecting energy in the body, the method of altering this energy being the tapping. This is a paranormal claim- and the way to test it is to change the protocol just enough so that the treatment should, according to EFT, no longer work, but still should give the same results according to scientific law.

I know, it's a complicated sentence. But it's a complicated idea, and treating it as being simple was what made Randi frustrated with you.

[ChristineR]

There are other possible explanations for the results of the study, especially as none of us can find the actual study. That certainly doesn't make it a worthless study. But EFT has no clear scientific basis and is similar to other techniques that have failed to show effects under tight controls, most of us are biased against a loosely controlled study like this one.

[Nucular]

I wonder if it would "need" all this picking apart if it showed EFT didn't work.

I haven't read the study, I read the abstract. And someone asked me what I thought the study showed. I think it shows EFT works.
Despite the fact that as I showed you, not even the authors of the study claim this.

Look, I would love it to work. I work in psychology, and the thought of having a technique that works to reduce anxiety or phobia in one day makes me drool - to think of that waiting list shrinking, and no more stroppy phonecalls from people who, quite rightly, resent waiting six months for an appointment.

But frankly, if EFT works, I'll eat my hat. Which I'm quite prepared to do, I have a chocolate hat with my words sprinkled on, and when I get to eat it I'll relish it. I just don't expect to have to, today.

The people who need help with problems such as these deserve to be treated using tried and tested methods. Whichever way you spin it, EFT is not tried and tested. And, as such, could be dangerous, or useless, until it is shown otherwise. And when it is, CBT can get lost, and I'll use EFT.

[William Smith]

...
I haven't read the study, I read the abstract. And someone asked me what I thought the study showed. I think it shows EFT works.


You have got to be kidding!


...
I haven't read the study,
...


[Emphasis added]

I refrickinpeat:
You have got to be kidding!

Pepper, this song on my stereo plays just for you: "People Are Strange", The Doors, October 1967. Because:


...
I HAVEN'T READ THE STUDY,
...


[Emphasis and CAPS added]


YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!

[Pepper]

You have got to be kidding!

Odd. Nobody else here has read it, but you don't say that to them...

Could it be because my point of view goes against your biases? Naaaaahhhh...

[petre]

Why not random tapping? Because we don't know if random tapping works or not. But we do know a sugar pill doesn't.


But a sugar pill DOES work. It works by placebo effect.

[TheBoyPaj]

Odd. Nobody else here has read it, but you don't say that to them...

Could it be because my point of view goes against your biases? Naaaaahhhh...

The abstract you quote does not indicate that there is anything in EFT. We can tell that without reading the whole paper. Surely, if they found compelling evidence that EFT works, they would say so right there on the cover.

When you said that you think the paper shows that EFT works, I think we sort of assumed that you had read the thing, and that you had found something in the main body which indicated effectiveness. I think maybe we gave you too much credit.

[William Smith]

Odd. Nobody else here has read it, but you don't say that to them...

Could it be because my point of view goes against your biases? Naaaaahhhh...

Odd, schmodd. I do not know if "nobody else here has read it" befrickincause I did not aks [sic!] no one.

I do not say it to "them" because nobody has claimed to not having read it. Fo' shizzle my Pizzle.

Bias, schmias.

Step up your game, or you will fail like Steve Nash, the Soon-To-Be-Named-NBA-MVP-Completely-
Outplayed-By-The-Mamba.

(Or, since you have an X-Chromosome: Like Diana Taurasi, who fizzled away with the Mercury at the end of last (WNBA) season.)

Naaaaahhhh, schmaaaaahhhh.

Please let me claim the authors of "the study": http://www4.infotrieve.com/newmedline/detail.asp?NameID=12945061&Session=&searchQuery=eft+AND+freedom&count=1 "Some limitations of the study also are noted and clarifying research suggested."

" ...clarifying research suggested." [Emphasis added.]

[The Painter]

I think this EFT may work. I’d be laughing so hard, I might forget I had a headache.

Can I win 1 million with my SOF technique?

SOF= Stomp On Foot…. Your foot will hurt like hell, but you’ll forget all about your headache. Same diversionary technique as EFT.

[William Smith]

Pepper, we appreciate your enthusiasm because most of the posters here would like to see a "paranormal" claim manifest into our reality.

TheBoyPaj, Admiral, Lamuella, ChristineR, Nucular, petre, Mojo, gnome, Flange Desire, Chaotic Limbs, Mendeli, Chillzero et moi: We WANT to see EFT working.

Nucular made some excellent points in post #448.

We WANT to have something to help us deal easily with our pains, anxieties, phobias, problems, and what nots.

All we want is to make sure it really helps. We do not want deceit. Nothing more, nothing less.

E.g.: I tried dozens of "miracle", "wonder", "real" diets, pills and preparations. They ALL failed. The only thing that did work was: Exercise, eat less and healthier.

Believe me, Pepper, I want miracles to work. (I still weigh 230 lb. And I like to cook.)

However, I want some proof first. Is that too much to ask? For real, no sarcasm:



Is that too much to ask?

[DrMatt]

This thread is still going on? And no challenge has been submitted by the lying libeler? Well, whaddyaknow.

[Pepper]

TheBoyPaj, Admiral, Lamuella, ChristineR, Nucular, petre, Mojo, gnome, Flange Desire, Chaotic Limbs, Mendeli, Chillzero et moi: We WANT to see EFT working.

Then try it. Simple. No matter how many tests and studies are done, either it will work for you, or it won't. Right? So, since you have little to lose, it's safe, and you don't have to invest any money or much time, why not try it?

[Pepper]

This thread is still going on? And no challenge has been submitted by the lying libeler? Well, whaddyaknow.

You can't come up with a single lie I've told, because I haven't told one. LOL!

[Flange Desire]

Then try it. Simple. No matter how many tests and studies are done, either it will work for you, or it won't. Right? So, since you have little to lose, it's safe, and you don't have to invest any money or much time, why not try it?

No. The onus is always on the claimant to provide evidence for their claim.

Were this not the case, all sorts of stupidity will arise ...

A: "If you poke yourself in the eye it will cure your stupidity."
B: "But I want to see some evidence for that."
A: "It works all right. You have little to lose, it's safe, and you don't have to invest any money or much time. Just try it."
B: "Ow! That really hurt!"
A: "I also have a remedy for pains. It involves cyanide ..."


Think about it!

[Pepper]

No. The onus is always on the claimant to provide evidence for their claim.

Fine, then don't try it.


A: "If you poke yourself in the eye it will cure your stupidity."
B: "But I want to see some evidence for that."
A: "It works all right. You have little to lose, it's safe, and you don't have to invest any money or much time. Just try it."
B: "Ow! That really hurt!"
A: "I also have a remedy for pains. It involves cyanide ..."

Are you playing dumb, or not playing? Poking yourself in the eye hurts. Cyanide is deadly.

[TheBoyPaj]

Fine. "Just try it", you say. "See for yourself", you say.

But you don't seem to realise that we do not put the same value on subjective self-evaluation as you do. Even if we were to try it, and even if we did notice some sort of difference, most of us here would never jump to the conclusions that you have. We would never assume that EFT was making us better, rather than simply placebo. It would be a worthless experiment. We would have no more knowledge than when we started.

And knowledge is what people here want. Not a cure for a headache, because we have those already. We want to understand more about the way the universe works. If EFT offers insight into some unknown function of the human body, we want to know about it. But we're not going to get that knowledge by downloading a pdf and trying it ourselves.

And what if it didn't work? Well, there's a never ending line of people offering all sorts of weird stuff which might work instead. None of it has any evidence, and they're all saying "just try it". What sort of skeptics would we be if we snapped up every new-age remedy that came along, and didn't care whether it worked or not? How could we claim to be critical thinkers, if we bought into angel therapy, colour therapy, magnet therapy and others without asking for a little evidence first?

Critical thinkers don't do that. People like you do that.

[Nucular]

Odd. Nobody else here has read it, but you don't say that to them...
As I told you, I read it, albeit quickly. I went to the trouble of finding the article, downloading it and reading it, in response to your demands for comments; after which you admitted you hadn't even read it.

I even offered to send a copy to anyone who's interested, but you obviously weren't interested enough to take me up on that.

I attempted to open discussion on it, but you just called me biased.

I quoted parts of the full article which demonstrate that the authors don't make the same claims for their own study that you do, but you ignored them.

All of this because you don't really care what's in that article, do you Pepper? You just wanted something to fling. And then you go back to your "just try it and see" approach, culled straight from the "how to convince a sceptic" page on your pet website.

12 pages in, and how far have we got? Your idea of an evidence base is a pubmed search with a link to a single article which doesn't say what you claim it does. Your idea of a rational argument is "You can't come up with a single lie I've told, because I haven't told one. LOL!". Your idea of an effective therapy is one which "works by the placebo effect". You expect posters on a sceptical forum to accept your anecdote that an absurd-sounding technique "worked for you". You tell us the challenge is a sham, but haven't managed in 12 pages to get around to telling us why. You tell us you don't really want a million dollars anyway, but are peeved that Randi was horrid to you when you tried to apply.

Careful, you're in danger of looking silly :rolleyes:

[Mojo]

So, since you have little to lose, it's safe, and you don't have to invest any money or much time, why not try it?You say we wouldn't have to invest much time. How long does it take to learn the technique?

[chillzero]

Sounds like skepdicks to me. Look how I've been attacked here. Also, I was limited on one skepdick Yahoo group to two posts a day. The owner of the group said it was because of the number of posts I made. When someone pointed out that I had made fewer posts than other people, he was kicked out of the group!

I should have clarified - this was a believer's forum - dedicated fans of Colin Fry and so on.

I have found skeptics to be much more rational, and informative.

eta: I don't feel that you have been attacked here so much as that people are frustrated at your approach.

[gnome]

"Just try it" doesn't prove that something is more effective than meaningless mumbo-jumbo. Part of what you would know if you were paying attention here (or to your own education) is that subjective experience is not a reliable indicator of medical treatments.

If you don't care whether it's "real" or just seems to work most of the time (if you don't go to any trouble to eliminate personal bias), there's not much point in being here.

[Pepper]

Your idea of an evidence base is a pubmed search with a link to a single article which doesn't say what you claim it does.

Why can't you "skeptics" at least be honest? I was asked what I thought the arcticle showed.

Your idea of a rational argument is "You can't come up with a single lie I've told, because I haven't told one. LOL!".

The person called me a liar. If I'm a liar, that would mean I have told a lie. Right? Or does that mean something else in Randi land?

You tell us the challenge is a sham, but haven't managed in 12 pages to get around to telling us why.

Yes, I have. You just don't accept it.

You tell us you don't really want a million dollars anyway,

Perhaps you can quote where I said that? Didn't think so.

And I've never made Randi being a jerk an issue. You guys keep harping on that.

[Pepper]

You say we wouldn't have to invest much time. How long does it take to learn the technique?

Took me about 20 min.

[Pepper]

I have found skeptics to be much more rational, and informative.

Well, you and I have have very different experiences.


eta: I don't feel that you have been attacked here so much as that people are frustrated at your approach.

Love the spin!

[Pepper]

Critical thinkers don't do that. People like you do that.

If being a "critical thinker" means you'll suffer with a problem until some scientist says "Simon says" instead of trying a treatment that might challenge your world view, I'd rather be a person like me. TYVM.

[strathmeyer]

The person called me a liar. If I'm a liar, that would mean I have told a lie. Right? Or does that mean something else in Randi land?

Well, you do keep claiming to know that EFT works.

[Pepper]

Well, you do keep claiming to know that EFT works.

And it does. So where is the lie?

[gnome]

If being a "critical thinker" means you'll suffer with a problem until some scientist says "Simon says" instead of trying a treatment that might challenge your world view, I'd rather be a person like me. TYVM.
How can it challenge my worldview, if the effects disappear when placebo is controlled for? My worldview includes placebos. I just don't choose to believe Dumbo's magic feather is actually magical.

[Scottie99]

Originally Posted by Nucular :
You tell us the challenge is a sham, but haven't managed in 12 pages to get around to telling us why.


Yes, I have. You just don't accept it.

No. The issue is that you are not going for the million dollars when you are being tested at first. (I find that a bit suspicious in and of itself.) So, if you pass the test, and they lie about it, I don't think it would be worth the hassel to go to court over it. You might. It's a matter of opinion. Get it now? If not, read it again, because this is my last post on that matter.


Recall this post that you never responded to Pepper?


Just so we are fully clear.


You are not interested in taking the challenge so specifically what are your exact thoughts on it?

That people can lie? That seems more generic than an actually challenge thought. If you have evidence of people lying with challenge results please provide it. If not what is your point???

So for further clarification we determined that you think the challenge is a sham because people can lie. But have no evidence of anyone lying on challenge results?

Was that it??

[strathmeyer]

And it does. So where is the lie?

If it works, then why don't you win the million dollar prize. If it works, then why can't you explain how it works. How do you know it works. Why can't you explain to others how to show that it works?

Telling a lie and then putting your fingers in your ears and screaming whenever someone points it out doesn't count as not lying. Sorry.

[nathan]

Why can't you "skeptics" at least be honest? I was asked what I thought the arcticle showed.

In usual conversation, when someone says 'I think article X says Y', they are implying they actually read article X. You failed to do that, and you failed to indicate you'd not read it until after someone called you on it.

[Pepper]

If it works, then why can't you explain how it works. How do you know it works. Why can't you explain to others how to show that it works?

Telling a lie and then putting your fingers in your ears and screaming whenever someone points it out doesn't count as not lying. Sorry.

I've already explained why I'm not going to bother with the challenge.

Only things I can explain work? Damn, guess the sun didn't work until around the mid 70's. Must have been pretty damn cold and dark until then!

I know it works the same way I know my computer works, I've used it. And I have explained to others how to show it works, by telling them to try it. That's the bottom line.

BTW, you've yet to come up with a lie I've told.

[Metullus]

Pepper evidently has a habit of not actually ready the links to which she refers:

Thanks for supplying the links.

And again, I'm no legal expert, but what exactly is the agreement? The preliminary test is just to determine how likely you would be to pass a formal test. I can't find any place where it says you WILL get a formal test if you pass the prelim.

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Can you?
Yes:

"Upon properly completing this document and agreeing upon the test protocol, you will receive your application back, signed on the reverse by JR. The applicant then becomes eligible for the preliminary test, which, if successful, will result in the formal test."

From your link, emphasis added by me.
Thank you. I admit I only read the rules.
This trick is getting old.

[Pepper]

In usual conversation, when someone says 'I think article X says Y', they are implying they actually read article X. You failed to do that, and you failed to indicate you'd not read it until after someone called you on it.

I wouldn't think that in the case of a link to an abstract. I would have assumed the person read the abstract...

Since I didn't claim to have read the article, there was nothing to call me on.

[TheBoyPaj]

Only things I can explain work? Damn, guess the sun didn't work until around the mid 70's. Must have been pretty damn cold and dark until then!

No, you don't understand. Of course some things happen even though we cannot explain it. But the trouble is, you have yet to successfully demonstrate that EFT does work. I should point out that, if the success you claim is down to placebo, then the EFT isn't doing anything. It is all in your mind.

I know it works the same way I know my computer works, I've used it. And I have explained to others how to show it works, by telling them to try it. That's the bottom line.

And the bottom line is that your proposed method would not show that EFT works. I am starting to think you will never understand that.

[Pepper]

Pepper evidently has a habit of not actually ready the links to which she refers:


I read the link. I missed something. Everybody makes mistakes. Like saying "ready the link" when they meant "read the link".

[Pepper]

No, you don't understand. Of course things work even though we cannot explain it. But the trouble is, you have yet to successfully demonstrate that EFT does work.

I have to my satisfaction, and it's been shown to work to the satisfaction of lots of other people. That's what you don't understand.

[Metullus]

I read the link. I missed something. Everybody makes mistakes. Like saying "ready the link" when they meant "read the link".
Actually, it should read "reading the links".

And the point is that you are careless in reading what you suggest supports your claims, while the skeptics here actually read your posts and the links you provide.

[Scottie99]

[QUOTE=Pepper;1612983]I've already explained why I'm not going to bother with the challenge.[QUOTE]


Pepper see once again my post number 473.

I am asking for specific clarification on this exact point.

Can you please give me such?

From my reading I have only found one specific reason that being you would have to take two tests and people can lie after the first test.

Is that still your assertion? You do not care to bother with the challenge because people can lie about the results of the first test?


If so I ask for the THIRD time please give an example of a challenge related lie that makes you assume this will be the case.


I hope to hear the response to this question this time.

Thanking you in advance pepper.

[TheBoyPaj]

I have to my satisfaction, and it's been shown to work to the satisfaction of lots of other people. That's what you don't understand.

Of course I understand that some people are satisfied that EFT has been proven to work. Some people think that the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster is compelling. For any wacky idea, you'll find some people who think that it's real. Some people have very poor standards.

[Admiral]

I have to my satisfaction, and it's been shown to work to the satisfaction of lots of other people. That's what you don't understand.

I think you have a very subjective view of things: if it makes you happy, it's good. There's really nothing wrong with this view- in fact, I'd expect that the majority of the population of the world feels this way.

In this same realm- many religions can make people feel better. I know from experience the security that faith in God can provide- I was a sincere Protestant up until a few years ago. Do you believe in Christianity, Pepper? What about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or any of the other religions that all suceed in making people feel better? (This isn't a sarcastic question- I am honestly curious whether you believe that such religions, because they make people feel better, are worthwhile.)

Skeptics deal not with what people subjectively enjoy, but with what reality actually is. That's what the Million Dollar Challenge is about- many people think that the nature of reality is very different from what scientists believe it to be, but offer no proof. Randi offers these people a million dollars for a simple demonstration that proves it.

Anyway, I'm wondering, Pepper- do you believe that if something makes people feel better, it's therefore valid?

[Lamuella]

Why can't you "skeptics" at least be honest? I was asked what I thought the arcticle showed.


and as you hadn't read the article, you should have simply said "I haven't read the article".

[Lamuella]

I wouldn't think that in the case of a link to an abstract. I would have assumed the person read the abstract...

Since I didn't claim to have read the article, there was nothing to call me on.

Giving your opinion of an article based on an abstract is like giving an opinion of a book based on the blurb on the back cover. Useless and lazy.

[Pepper]

Actually, it should read "reading the links".


Sloppy writing.

[strathmeyer]

BTW, you've yet to come up with a lie I've told.

So you're still sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "La la la I'm not listening."

How on earth can you expect other readers to do the same? You are aware that other people can go back and read what you've written, right? You are aware that others don't automatically have the same thoughts as you, right? You are aware that other people exist outside of your head, right?

[Pepper]

Pepper see once again my post number 473.

I am asking for specific clarification on this exact point.
Can you please give me such?

I've already made my last statment on that issue. Check back in the thread.

[strathmeyer]

Giving your opinion of an article based on an abstract is like giving an opinion of a book based on the blurb on the back cover. Useless and lazy.

Don't attribute laziness to what can be explained by incompetence.

[Pepper]

So you're still sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "La la la I'm not listening."


No, I'm just waiting for you do quote a lie I've told. Until you do, I'm done with this issue.

[Pepper]

Don't attribute laziness to what can be explained by incompetence.

LOL. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on the planet. What do you have?

[Pepper]

Skeptics deal not with what people subjectively enjoy, but with what reality actually is.

Then why so much dishonesty?


Anyway, I'm wondering, Pepper- do you believe that if something makes people feel better, it's therefore valid?

If that is what the thing is for, yes.

[Lamuella]

LOL. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on the planet. What do you have?

I have the ability to read an article before giving my opinion on it.

ZING!

[Pepper]

I have the ability to read an article before giving my opinion on it.

ZING!

IOW, nada. LOL.

[Jimbo07]

LOL. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on the planet...

Then Don't make engineers look bad.

:mad:

[Lamuella]

IOW, nada. LOL.

actually, I have a master's degree in information science, but that's absolutely and entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The issue at hand is that you don't think you need to read an article before giving your opinion on it.

The issue is that despite the fact that you have repeatedly told us you have no interest in applying for the challenge, you still feel the need to rant and rave about how much of a scam it is, when you have absolutely no evidence to show that it is.

[Pepper]

actually, I have a master's degree in information science...


From Matchbook Cover U, right?

[Lamuella]

From Matchbook Cover U, right?

Pepper, is there any chance at all that you can focus on the meat and potatoes of the post, not just the parts you can be snarky about?

Incidentally, when you called us skepdicks, was that a typo or an insult?