Sam I am

[Jimbo07]

LOL. I have an engineering degree...
... From Matchbook Cover U

i) your credentials, please?

ii) a statement of their relevance to EFT, the Challenge... anything

[Admiral]

Is this going to turn into a battle of "Whose college is better?"

If it does, I hope that it ends up in "Abandon All Hope," and fast, because such discussions are absolutely useless. There are many people who never went to college and understand the scientific method better than Dr. Gary Schwartz, a Harvard graduate, whose experimental protocols regarding the paranormal are disgustingly flawed.

A college doesn't bestow on all its graduates automatic respectability.

Edit- Example of another Harvard grad gone wrong- Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber.

[Jimbo07]

Is this going to turn into a battle of "Whose college is better?"


Not from my end.

I'm willing to admit that some may consider my college podunk (although we think it's quite cracking :D).

Rather, I'm concerned about someone misrepresenting engineers. I would have thought that someone with an 'engineering degree from one of the top universities on the planet,' would have provided a better showing.

:(

[Lamuella]

I hope I wasn't getting into a college war. I was trying to say that talking about qualifications was an attempt to sidestep the issues in this thread.

[Pepper]

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?

Spot the irony.

[Lamuella]

Spot the irony.

I'm sorry, I checked and couldn't see it. At what point did I gloss over an important part of a post to find the snarky bits?

and once again: were you deliberately being insulting by calling us "skepdicks" or was it a typo?

[Flange Desire]

....Cyanide is deadly.

Your claim that Cyanide is deadly is well supported by respectable studies.
You are 100% correct to ignore the fool who says "It works. Just try it!"

Think about it some more Pepper.

[chillzero]

Well, you and I have have very different experiences.


Well, you and I [would have had very different experiences. I was asking questions, trying to gain more knowledge about the things I was involved in.

It seems that believers don't like that, even when the questioner is (as I was at the time) a fellow believer.

I was not accepting what I was told without some tangible evidence.

As for the 'spin', well, I read your OP, and feel that you didn't get the aggression you seemed to have been asking for. People are trying to discuss this matter with you, by asking questions. After a point they become frustrated. I don't feel that you are being 'attacked'.

[Scottie99]

[QUOTE=Scottie99;1613174][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.

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


Exactly,

You have no proof. No reasoning. Not even a simple easy point to why you think the challenge is a sham.

That thought is simply something you created in your mind much like you have created that EFT works.


Pepper you are a sham.

Get off the challenge board.

[Pepper]

Your claim that Cyanide is deadly is well supported by respectable studies.
You are 100% correct to ignore the fool who says "It works. Just try it!"

Think about it some more Pepper.

I have. Do you understand the concept of utility? Obviously not.

[Pepper]

Get off the challenge board.

You skeptics are very much like book burners. You want to censor people who challenge your world views. Had this happen to me on one Yahoo skeptic board, I was limited to 2 posts a day. The owner of the group claimed it was because of the number of posts I was making, when someone pointed out I was posting fewer posts than many other people, he was kicked out of the group. You lot really are helping me on my search for truth, and for that I thank you.

Don't like my posts? Quit reading and responding to them. Duh.

[Pepper]

Well, you and I would have had very different experiences. I was asking questions, trying to gain more knowledge about the things I was involved in.

So was I.


It seems that believers don't like that, even when the questioner is (as I was at the time) a fellow believer.

So far, "skeptics" have been the biggest group of believers I've run into.


People are trying to discuss this matter with you, by asking questions. After a point they become frustrated. I don't feel that you are being 'attacked'.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

[Scottie99]

You skeptics are very much like book burners. You want to censor people who challenge your world views. Had this happen to me on one Yahoo skeptic board, I was limited to 2 posts a day. The owner of the group claimed it was because of the number of posts I was making, when someone pointed out I was posting fewer posts than many other people, he was kicked out of the group. You lot really are helping me on my search for truth, and for that I thank you.

Don't like my posts? Quit reading and responding to them. Duh.


You do not wish to take the challenge. You do not wish to further discuss why in your mind (and your mind only) the challenge is the sham. You have absolutely no thoughts to the challenge.

The merits of EFT can be discussed on a number of the plentiful other boards on this site. It does not belong on the challenge section.

No one is censoring or limiting your posts. I am simply asking you to post your aimless wanderings about EFT in a relevant section of the site.


PS:

Your use of Duh is becoming boring. Pepper everyone here has tried to show you they would be willing to discuss EFT and if a proper challenge protocol could be created for it. Also a willingness to discuss the science behind it (if any exisits at all) but you choose to be childish and call us skepdicks instead. DUH!

[Lamuella]

hey, Pepper, are you going to answer this question this time?

When you called us "skepdicks" earlier, was that a typo or were you being deliberately insulting?

[Scottie99]

hey, Pepper, are you going to answer this question this time?

When you called us "skepdicks" earlier, was that a typo or were you being deliberately insulting?


Can I add to your post my question she wishes to constantly avoid also (At least five times and counting)?

Pepper show can you show one instance of someone from JREF lying about the challenge results?

[Lamuella]

I have. Do you understand the concept of utility? Obviously not.

do you understand that something can have utility and still be dangerous in certain circumstances? You have already heard anecdotal evidence of someone who experienced problems after EFT, why the resistance to testing EFT and discovering its benefits and dangers? Why the resistance to being given a million dollars just for showing it works?

[Lamuella]

Can I add to your post my question she wishes to constantly avoid also (At least five times and counting)?

Pepper show can you show one instance of someone from JREF lying about the challenge results?

I'm trying the approach of putting nothing but the question in the post. That way she can't selectively quote around it.

[Pepper]

Pepper show can you show one instance of someone from JREF lying about the challenge results?

Why do you keep asksing that stupid question? I never claimed it happened. Last post on that "issue".

[Pepper]

do you understand that something can have utility and still be dangerous in certain circumstances?

Ah, so you don't understand the concept of utility.

You have already heard anecdotal evidence of someone who experienced problems after EFT, why the resistance to testing EFT and discovering its benefits and dangers?

I have no resistance to EFT being tested. Test away.

[Lamuella]

so you admit you can find no instance of him lying about challenge results, and yet a HUGE PLANK of your insistence that the challenge is a sham is built on the fact that he COULD?

[Lamuella]

I have no resistance to EFT being tested. Test away.

All right. First step in the testing process is for you to complete a challenge application. Let us know when it's done.

[Scottie99]

Why do you keep asksing that stupid question? I never claimed it happened. Last post on that "issue".

No you claimed it COULD happen.

That is my issue. No proof it did happen but you think the challenge is a sham because it COULD happen.

You come into this forum bad mouthing the challenge with the simple statement that someone COULD lie. I find that dangerously close to libelous pepper.

And I think you COULD be a very lame 19 year old frat guy. In fact I am going to work off that assumption from now on.

Troll go away..

[Lamuella]

incidentally, pepper, are you talking about "utility" as defined in economics and game theory? Or are you using a vague and personal definition of it?

[Scottie99]

incidentally, pepper, are you talking about "utility" as defined in economics and game theory? Or are you using a vague and personal definition of it?


Wow we already established he can not read. You are expecting pepper to have an understanding of economics or the game theory?

Good luck with that...

[Pepper]

Troll go away..

Yep, skeptics love to try and censor people who challenge their beliefs.

[Pepper]

incidentally, pepper, are you talking about "utility" as defined in economics and game theory? Or are you using a vague and personal definition of it?


Just admit you don't understand it.

[Pepper]

Wow we are established he can not read.

If you believe that, you are a moron for writing to me!

[Scottie99]

Yep, skeptics love to try and censor people who challenge their beliefs.


I do not even claim to be a skeptic. I am someone interested in the scientific research of the unexplained. I find the paranormal fascinating.

No one here has censored you. You are a simple troll. Stating a fact.

[Scottie99]

If you believe that, you are a moron for writing to me!


Yes pepper it is my full honest belief you can not read.

Get sarcasm much?

[Pepper]

Yes pepper it is my full honest belief you can not read.

Then you are a moron for writing to me.

[Scottie99]

Pepper taking a quote out of context is childish.

I think we need some clarification to continue.

Can you define for us

Sarcasm:

Utility:

Sham:

EFT:


I think this will help us deal much better.

[petre]

Interesting fact:

EFT does not, and never has, worked for Pepper.

There is something about the fact listed above that is identical in nature to everything Pepper has said so far, and should now be apparant to everyone. I'm sure Pepper can identify it in time.

[Lamuella]

Just admit you don't understand it.

first, tell me which of the several definitions of the word "utility" you are using.

[gnome]

Yep, skeptics love to try and censor people who challenge their beliefs.

Did someone try to prevent you from posting?

[Pepper]

Did someone try to prevent you from posting?

Not here, but in another skeptic group. And people here have told me to go away.

[ChristineR]

Pepper, I'll make you a deal.

I will test EFT IF you will answer this question satisfactorily BEFORE I test.

If my tests show no difference from placebo, what will you say? Even if you are 100% sure EFT will work in my tests, pretend it has been shown not to work. What will you say then?

Fellow skeptics, if Pepper goes for this, I will be soliciting your help in setting up tests.

[Pepper]

Pepper, I'll make you a deal.

I will test EFT IF you will answer this question satisfactorily BEFORE I test.

I don't care if you test EFT or not. If you want to test it, go ahead, if you don't, then don't.


If my tests show no difference from placebo, what will you say? Even if you are 100% sure EFT will work in my tests, pretend it has been shown not to work. What will you say then?.

I'd say your tests showed it to be no different than a placebo.

[Jon.]

Just admit you don't understand it.

What do you understand "utility" to mean, in the context in which you are using it?

[petre]

I don't care if you test EFT or not. If you want to test it, go ahead, if you don't, then don't.



I'd say your tests showed it to be no different than a placebo.

Pepper, I really think you haven't given sugar pills a fair shake. All the 'skepticks' claim they don't do anything, but they're actually a cure-all.

The following also work (in case EFT and sugar pills fail to correct something as quickly or completely as you'd like):

- Foot Reflexology
- Prayer (there are a lot of gods to choose from, so try several! It can only increase your chances)
- Acupuncture
- The Electric Slide
- Chiropractic
- Jury Duty
- Reiki / Theraputic Touch
- Voting Republican

I don't know how, but they WORK! Except maybe by wasting time until it gets better on it's own. But that's the last I'm going to say about that subject.

But it works! It really does! Try it for yourself and see! Or don't, I don't care what you do.

I know you won't believe me anyway, because you're really a close-minded 'skeptick' yourself. Pretending to be so willing to try new things, but you're just a sham. That's the last I'm going to say about that subject.

So try it! What have you got to lose? Heck, you probably don't even know what the word "try" means. You're no better than all the other people on this message board. But that's the last I'm going to say about that subject.

[Flange Desire]

This is the part of the thread where the woo self-destructs in a whirlwind of personal attacks and inchoherent babbling.

It's true!
Just try it!

[Pepper]

This is the part of the thread where the woo

Spot the irony. "Woo" is a personal attack. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Flange Desire]

Spot the irony. "Woo" is a personal attack. Thanks for the chuckle.

You win!

Do you want to provide some evidence supporting your claim that EFT works?

[Pepper]

What do you understand "utility" to mean, in the context in which you are using it?

Basically, it's the probability of something happening times how "good" or "bad" that event would be. Think of playing the lotto. While it's almost certain you'll lose the buck you bet, that's not very bad. And while it's almost certain you won't win the big prize, it would be really cool if you did. So, you might want to play the lotto, but not spend an amount of money you would miss.

When it comes to EFT, one might feel it's not very likely to work, but they have little to use by trying it, and it would be a very big plus if it did work. It would be a differnet story if you had to spend money or lots of time to learn it, or if it were really dangerous.

[Pepper]

Pepper taking a quote out of context is childish.


You make posts just to insult me and then complain that I am being childish!? Funny stuff.

[gnome]

Basically, it's the probability of something happening times how "good" or "bad" that event would be. Think of playing the lotto. While it's almost certain you'll lose the buck you bet, that's not very bad. And while it's almost certain you won't win the big prize, it would be really cool if you did. So, you might want to play the lotto, but not spend an amount of money you would miss.

When it comes to EFT, one might feel it's not very likely to work, but they have little to use by trying it, and it would be a very big plus if it did work. It would be a differnet story if you had to spend money or lots of time to learn it, or if it were really dangerous.
There's the additional point though that there are countless proposals, which, similar to EFT, have little likelihood of working, but require little effort and would certainly be helpful if they did. By your logic, a person should try all of them, or pick one at random. It seems rather pointless.

[Pepper]

There's the additional point though that there are countless proposals, which, similar to EFT, have little likelihood of working, but require little effort and would certainly be helpful if they did. By your logic, a person should try all of them, or pick one at random. It seems rather pointless.

No. Because how "good" or "bad" an event would be is subjective. Back to the lottery example, how "bad" losing $1 for person 1 might be different for person 2 than for person 2. And it might make sense to somoene to bet $1, but not $20, or $200.

Same with trying differnt proposals. How "bad" would it be to try one out and find it doesn't work? That would vary from person to person. Trying out two techniques that don't work might be "worse" than twice as bad as trying out one that doesn't work.

[Pepper]

There's the additional point though that there are countless proposals, which, similar to EFT, have little likelihood of working, but require little effort and would certainly be helpful if they did. By your logic, a person should try all of them, or pick one at random. It seems rather pointless.

No. Because how "good" or "bad" an event would be is subjective. Back to the lottery example, how "bad" losing $1 for person 1 might be different than for person 2. And it might make sense to somoene to bet $1, but not $20, or $200.

Same with trying differnt proposals. How "bad" would it be to try one out and find it doesn't work? That would vary from person to person. Trying out two techniques that don't work might be "worse" than twice as bad as trying out one that doesn't work.

[Admiral]

Pepper, while you do hit on the concept of utility correctly, there are three issues that make your suggestion of "just try it" invalid.

a)As others have pointed out, there are hundreds of ludicrous ideas out there- prayer (to any of many gods), homeopathy, magnet therapy, feng shui... Should we try every one of them? I suppose you'll say that you should only to a limited extent, like buying only one lottery ticket instead of thousands. However, why choose EFT? Which is less likely to work- solutions so diluted that they're nothing but water, or tapping yourself...

b)You say there is no downside. How about Sally?


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"

It's anecdotal evidence- but so is yours. My point is that just as it is possible for EFT to help, it's possible for EFT to hurt. To me, both seem unlikely, but my point is that you have to factor the possible negative outcome into the utility.

c) This is my most important issue. If it works- if, that is, I try it and decide I feel better- that isn't evidence of anything paranormal whatsoever. In fact, to me it's not particularly interesting. It's pretty much just a twist on meditation. I've meditated before, and it's an interesting experience. Adding a tapping routine and pretending it works because of "energy flow" is completely useless. It certainly gives us no more information about the world. And in this uncontrolled, subjective test, it is NOT paranormal at all.

So you ask, "Why not try it?" My answer- it is potentially harmful, would prove nothing if it were true, and is only one of hundreds of sham treatments anyway.

I'm interested in your response to these points. Also, could everyone, both Pepper and the skeptics, keep a more civil tone? This name-calling doesn't advance the discussion.

[Pepper]

Pepper, while you do hit on the concept of utility correctly, there are three issues that make your suggestion of "just try it" invalid.

a)As others have pointed out, there are hundreds of ludicrous ideas out there- prayer (to any of many gods), homeopathy, magnet therapy, feng shui... Should we try every one of them?

That would be up to you.

However, why choose EFT?

I chose it because someone whose opinon mattered to me recommended it.


b)You say there is no downside. How about Sally?

It's a small risk. Especially when compared to some apporved blood pressure medications. And there is a risk to not doing anything about high blood pressure.


c) This is my most important issue. If it works- if, that is, I try it and decide I feel better- that isn't evidence of anything paranormal whatsoever.

For me, that's a non issue. I don't care how EFT works, I only care that it works.

[Mojo]

For me, that's a non issue. I don't care how EFT works, I only care that it works.But you don't even know that. You have stated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1605779#post1605779) that you didn't know whether it works via "subtle energy" or some other unspecifies means, or if it is just placebo. A placebo is a sham treatment designed to convince the subject that they have been treated, as people who think they've received a treatment will generally report an improvement whether thay're actually any better or not.

Saying that you don't know whether EFT is just the placebo effect is equivalent to saying that you don't know whether EFT is no better than a sham.

[gnome]

No. Because how "good" or "bad" an event would be is subjective. Back to the lottery example, how "bad" losing $1 for person 1 might be different than for person 2. And it might make sense to somoene to bet $1, but not $20, or $200.

Same with trying differnt proposals. How "bad" would it be to try one out and find it doesn't work? That would vary from person to person. Trying out two techniques that don't work might be "worse" than twice as bad as trying out one that doesn't work.

I am offered many things with exactly as much credibility as your EFT all the time. If you want to persuade people that yours stands out, you need to do better than "what have you got to lose". They ALL say that. If you don't care, you're spending an awful lot of time here trying to convince us otherwise (in ways that won't work)

[CriticalThanking]

I promised myself I would not revisit this thread, but I had to see what had dragged it out this many pages. Fascinating...

[snip] I only care that it works.

Pepper, many of the more patient folks on this board have sincerely tried to help you understand the scientific approach to claims and investigations.

(Real) doctors use "evidence-based" treatments. If your doctor told you that he was not going to give you antibiotics for your bacterial infection he better have a reason. If he told you about a tapping method he heard about from a friend but had no idea if it would work, he would be struck off. By your logic, odds are you might get better without treatment, depending upon the type of infection, so what's the harm? Are you really suggesting that we do away with evidence-based medicine?

If you are not interested in the challenge or in EFT being tested as paranormal, let's ask the mods to move/split this over to the Medicine thread.

If you are really interested in getting EFT tested as medicine, then why have EFT do an end-around the normal process? It should stand up (or fall) the same way all other tested treatments do: in properly controled tests. If it works, doctors can safely and honestly recommend it. If not, they will stay with the best available tested treatment options.

CT

[Mojo]

It's a small risk. Especially when compared to some apporved blood pressure medications. And there is a risk to not doing anything about high blood pressure. There certainly is. That's a very good reason for not attempting to treat it with a therapy that has not been demonstrated to be better than placebo.

[Scottie99]

You make posts just to insult me and then complain that I am being childish!? Funny stuff.

I make posts to try to get you to answer specific questions. To learn what your whole point is.

I know am fully clear you have none.


I am done with this subject. Duh

[Scottie99]

It's a small risk. Especially when compared to some apporved blood pressure medications. And there is a risk to not doing anything about high blood pressure.

There certainly is. That's a very good reason for not attempting to treat it with a therapy that has not been demonstrated to be better than placebo.

Although pepper does not seem to care much about science I do have an interest. So even though pepper and myself have reached an impasse I still wanted to post this.


I have borderline high blood pressure.

When I jumped into this thread a week ago I decided that while I believe EFT may only give some benefits as a relaxation technique why not see the results of using to try to control my high blood pressure.

I am currently on no medication and am at the stage of monitoring it at a daily basis. I try to measure it every night at the same time under the same circumstances. Before EFT I would wait until all my duties where done for the evening (between 9 -10pm) sit out on the couch take five minutes of quiet deep breathing and than take my blood pressure. For the last week I replaced the five minutes of deep breathing with EFT.

Readings a week before EFT:

4/20/2006 133/72
4/21/2006 135/74
4/22/2006 131/75
4/23/2006 132/70
4/24/2006 136/78
4/25/2006 139/75
4/26/2006 134/72

EFT:
4/27/2006 132/73
4/28/2006 136/79
4/29/2006 129/73
4/30/2006 131/74
4/30/2006 136/76
5/1/2006 133/73
5/2/2006 135/75



I will leave the results open to interpretation


And honestly pepper I am interested in finding out how things work. That is why I am so gosh darn frustrated with someone that does not seem to care how it works or is not interested in it being tested (especially through the flare of the challenge).

[Lamuella]

Spot the irony. "Woo" is a personal attack. Thanks for the chuckle.

Speaking of personal attacks, when you called us "skepdicks" earlier, was that a typo or were you being deliberately insulting?

[Lamuella]

Basically, it's the probability of something happening times how "good" or "bad" that event would be. Think of playing the lotto. While it's almost certain you'll lose the buck you bet, that's not very bad. And while it's almost certain you won't win the big prize, it would be really cool if you did. So, you might want to play the lotto, but not spend an amount of money you would miss.

When it comes to EFT, one might feel it's not very likely to work, but they have little to use by trying it, and it would be a very big plus if it did work. It would be a differnet story if you had to spend money or lots of time to learn it, or if it were really dangerous.

so you did mean "utility" as defined by game theory. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

also, as EFT has not been tested or evaluated on a large scale, and its effects are largely unknown, there cannot be an accurate benefit to loss analysis.

[Mojo]

Speaking of personal attacks, when you called us "skepdicks" earlier, was that a typo or were you being deliberately insulting?Actually, it would require two typos: one to substitute the d for the t, and one to insert the k between c and s (as these are both rather a long way from the k on a standard keyboard, it would usually be rather difficult to hit k by mistake at this point).

[Lamuella]

this is true, but I'd just like Pepper to admit she's been insulting us.

Of course, considering she claimed I got my master's degree from a matchbook, I probably have all the proof I need, but she evidently doesn't like me asking the question. So I'll keep doing so.

[petre]

I chose it because someone whose opinon mattered to me recommended it.


Just out of curiosity then, do you suppose you'd have more success convincing people to try EFT if you focused on telling folks that value your opinion?

[strathmeyer]

Yep, skeptics love to try and censor people who challenge their beliefs.

The way you keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means.

Skeptics love people who challenge their beliefs. That's what being a skeptic is.

[TheBoyPaj]

Yep, skeptics love to try and censor people who challenge their beliefs.

It takes more to challenge me than someone saying "try it!", "it works!".

Evidence and compelling argument. That's challenging. You have yet to come close.

And if you want to know what censorship is, try asking for evidence on a woo board.

[Jimbo07]

For me, that's a non issue. I don't care how EFT works, I only care that it works.

Let me get this straight...

You've graduated from a top-notch school as an engineer and you don't care HOW something works? :eye-poppi

I'm less than a year away from graduation... I hope I don't fall prey to the same apathy. Doesn't make for very good engineering...


Of course, considering she claimed I got my master's degree from a matchbook, I probably have all the proof I need,

At this stage, L, I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone who counts has picked up on the insults and accusations... even in this post ;)

[Pepper]

I am offered many things with exactly as much credibility as your EFT all the time. If you want to persuade people that yours stands out, you need to do better than "what have you got to lose". They ALL say that.

But maybe the answer is different for different things. Maybe for some you have to spend money, or a lot of time, or you have to take a risk by giving up conventional treatment, maybe involve someone else.

When using standard treatments, you're often facted with different choices. How do you decide then?

[Lamuella]

When using standard treatments, you're often facted with different choices. How do you decide then?

Personally, I take advice from my doctor, who has a medical degree from an accredited university. His (or her) advice will be based in part on his own experience and in part on what he has read of scientific tests of the different treatments in peer-reviewed scientific journals. His advice will thus be based on rigorous scientific testing.

At no point will he say to me "try it and see"

[Scottie99]

But maybe the answer is different for different things. Maybe for some you have to spend money, or a lot of time, or you have to take a risk by giving up conventional treatment, maybe involve someone else.

When using standard treatments, you're often facted with different choices. How do you decide then?

When I talked to my doctor about high blood pressure we did have the choice to go the medication route.

With my age and healthy lifestyle we decided together it is not the time to start a possible lifetime of medication that does have some risks associated with it. I was ordered daily bp monitoring, salt intake watch, exercise increase, and stress reduction.

All this was based on sound scientific testing of what causes high blood pressure and the risks of medication that has been proven to lower it.

[TheBoyPaj]

When using standard treatments, you're often facted with different choices. How do you decide then?

Maybe by looking at the evidence? But then, you don't like to do that, do you?

[gnome]

But maybe the answer is different for different things. Maybe for some you have to spend money, or a lot of time, or you have to take a risk by giving up conventional treatment, maybe involve someone else.

When using standard treatments, you're often facted with different choices. How do you decide then?

You misunderstand... I am generally faced with suggestions nearly identical to your own in terms of time, investment, and risk. I'm inclined to ignore all of them unless one catches my attention by achieving solid results in a real test.

[Pepper]

Pepper, many of the more patient folks on this board have sincerely tried to help you understand the scientific approach to claims and investigations.

Spare me. Your trying to help me understand the scientific approach is like me trying to teach Kobe Bryant a thing or two about basketball.


(Real) doctors use "evidence-based" treatments. If your doctor told you that he was not going to give you antibiotics for your bacterial infection he better have a reason.

If I had even suggested that people abandon standard treatments and use EFT instead, you'd have a really good point.

By your logic, odds are you might get better without treatment, depending upon the type of infection, so what's the harm? Are you really suggesting that we do away with evidence-based medicine?

It's funny you can't make an argument against what I have really said, but have to make stuff up.


If you are not interested in the challenge or in EFT being tested as paranormal, let's ask the mods to move/split this over to the Medicine thread.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Pepper]

Maybe by looking at the evidence? But then, you don't like to do that, do you?

But the evidence can't tell you if a treatment will work for you or not. You have to try it and see.

You've never been under a doctor's care, have you?

[Scottie99]

Whatever floats your boat.

Pepper.

This is the thread you started. What is your point?

There is no reason for this to be in the challenge section. You have stated yourself have no interest in the challenge.

You have gotten your point of just try it (which I did) across multiple times. When those here argue that they need more than just try it you become huffy and insulting. And you have no information to provide on your own direct experience with eft (except it works for me!) to spark a discussion.

What is the goal now?

I do agree this needs to be moved...

[Pepper]

You misunderstand... I am generally faced with suggestions nearly identical to your own in terms of time, investment, and risk. I'm inclined to ignore all of them unless one catches my attention by achieving solid results in a real test.

Different strokes, as they say. Where I in your position (I'm assuming you haven't found something that is working to your satisfaction), I'd probably try them all.

[Admiral]

But the evidence can't tell you if a treatment will work for you or not. You have to try it and see.

You've never been under a doctor's care, have you?

Certainly my doctor wouldn't say "This is certain to work for you because it has worked in tests before." However, I sure as hell hope he doesn't say "Try this- it can't hurt! What have you got to lose?"

One other thing:


For me, that's a non issue. I don't care how EFT works, I only care that it works.


Your trying to help me understand the scientific approach is like me trying to teach Kobe Bryant a thing or two about basketball.


We have many scientists on this forum. Saying that you're the scientific equivalent of Kobe Bryant, even after you admit that you don't care at all how EFT works or even if it can pass controlled tests, is an insult to all of them.

[Pepper]

Certainly my doctor wouldn't say "This is certain to work for you because it has worked in tests before." However, I sure as hell hope he doesn't say "Try this- it can't hurt! What have you got to lose?"

Then what a doctor says boils down to, "It's worked for others in a test. Try it, and see if it works for you."


We have many scientists on this forum. Saying that you're the scientific equivalent of Kobe Bryant, even after you admit that you don't care at all how EFT works or even if it can pass controlled tests, is an insult to all of them.

Oh, boo hoo. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on earth, and there are people here who think nothing of insulting me.

[Lamuella]

But the evidence can't tell you if a treatment will work for you or not. You have to try it and see.

You've never been under a doctor's care, have you?

The evidence can tell me if the treatment is likely to work for someone like me, though. If the doctor has a fairly good idea of my physiology and physical condition, he can better know what to prescribe. He can know, for example, that treatment X should not be recommended for children under 15, or that treatment Y is not suitable for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant.

A doctor would never ever be irresponsible enough to just say "try it and see". A doctor might try a medication not knowing for certain if it will work, but there's a big difference between lack of certainty and lack of testing. Why else do you think drugs go through years of trials before they are released?

[Hellbound]

I have no engineering degree.

I think nothing of insulting you.

In fact, the idea that you actually do have an engineering degree and still show so little understanding of scientific process makes you even more deserving of scorn.

But that's another issue.

[gnome]

Different strokes, as they say. Where I in your position (I'm assuming you haven't found something that is working to your satisfaction), I'd probably try them all.

I'm not in any position, I'm speaking hypothetically.

But, I should point out, that once you are at the point of trying them all... you can no longer consider the combined time investment trivial.

[juryjone]

Oh, boo hoo. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on earth, and there are people here who think nothing of insulting me.

And there are others who think nothing of you at all.

For the troll, a tasty recipe my family enjoys. (Sorry I have no kitty pictures.)


Title: BLT Pasta Salad
Categories: Salads, Bacon, Pasta
Yield: 8 servings

1 7 oz. pkg elbow macaroni,
-cooked and drained
8 sl Bacon, cooked and crumbled
1 c Mayonnaise or salad dressing
1/3 c Chili sauce
1/4 c Lemon juice from concentrate
2 ts Instant chicken bouillon
2 ts Sugar
1 lg Tomato, seeded and chopped
1/4 c Slice green onions
4 c Thinly sliced lettuce

In large bowl, combine mayonnaise, chili sauce, lemon juice, bouillon
and sugar; stir in macaroni, tomato and onions. Cover; chill. Just
before serving, stir in lettuce and bacon. Refrigerate leftovers.

[petre]

Different strokes, as they say. Where I in your position (I'm assuming you haven't found something that is working to your satisfaction), I'd probably try them all.

You really would? Have you gotten a chance to try square dancing? The results are really amazing!

[Admiral]

Oh, boo hoo. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on earth, and there are people here who think nothing of insulting me.

You think that a degree gives you the right to ignore principles of the scientific method and still pretend to be an expert?

You refuse to accept that if a treatment works no better than a placebo, it is a sham?

Stop hiding behind a degree. It's not an excuse to be stupid.

[Jimbo07]

Oh, boo hoo. I have an engineering degree from one of the top universites on earth, and there are people here who think nothing of insulting me.

For a couple of pages, now, I have been bugged about this. Either:

i) at best, you are poorly representing the profession

ii) at worst, You are lying.

Which is it?

:mad:

[Scottie99]

Pepper

One thing that your just try it approach seems to neglect is the dangers involved. I have pointed this out before but you seem to think it can not hurt to try even if the only reason EFT works is because of the placebo effect.

This can be harmful:

For Example say I start having frequent headaches and a friend recommends EFT. With the no harm done with trying attitude I start using EFT and viola my headaches disappear via the placebo effect. (I.e. my mind is tricked into feeling like I am taking pro active steps to stop the headaches so the pain no longer is felt). I keep up the EFT treatment as an effective way to treat headache pain. Than one day I wake up vomiting, confused, and slip into a seizure. Being whisked away to the hospital the doctors discover a severe brain tumor which will by my demise. If I responded to the early warning signs of the increasing headaches something could have been done but these were ignored because of my perceived treatment...

The same could go with high blood pressure, through the placebo effect I could be masking things that will ultimately result in a stroke...

[Beleth]

Skeptics love people who challenge their beliefs. That's what being a skeptic is. Exactly.

Nothing in this thread has challenged my beliefs. I believe that EFT is indistinguishable from placebo until shown otherwise, and I believe that it has not been shown otherwise.

I'd love to be challenged on these beliefs. Please, Pepper, challenge these beliefs.

[TheBoyPaj]

But the evidence can't tell you if a treatment will work for you or not. You have to try it and see.

The evidence can tell me if the treatment has ever been shown to work for anybody. Has EFT ever passed any clinical trials? If so, which ones?

You've never been under a doctor's care, have you?

What an odd assumption to make.

[gnome]

I think without revealing too much personal information, Pepper could easily post WHICH top university, and what field of engineering...

[Jimbo07]

I think without revealing too much personal information, Pepper could easily post WHICH top university, and what field of engineering...

Or frankly, any university, engineering field, year of graduation, current membership in organizations such as IEEE, SAE...



:boxedin:

[Pepper]

I have no engineering degree.

I think nothing of insulting you.
... makes you even more deserving of scorn.


Saying someone is deserving of scorn isn't an insult? You skeptics crack me up.

[Pepper]

Pepper
If I responded to the early warning signs of the increasing headaches something could have been done but these were ignored because of my perceived treatment...

And this would be different than treating the headache with something like aspirin...how?

[Admiral]

I think without revealing too much personal information, Pepper could easily post WHICH top university, and what field of engineering...

You might not have been reading the thread back then... Pepper did tell us, it was UCLA, and the degree was in aerospace engineering. (I can point you to the post if you want me to.)

Saying someone is deserving of scorn isn't an insult?

Oh, no, it certainly is an insult. That's why he said "I think nothing of insulting you." This sentence MEANS "I have no problem insulting you," not "I won't insult you." (As in "Think nothing of it!")

Ask Huntsman- he won't deny that he meant to insult you (though his insults are nothing compared to yours...)

[gnome]

You might not have been reading the thread back then... Pepper did tell us, it was UCLA, and the degree was in aerospace engineering. (I can point you to the post if you want me to.)

That's fine, I just didn't spot it.

[Beleth]

And this would be different than treating the headache with something like aspirin...how?
Irrelevant to the claim that EFT performs differently than placebo.

[Pepper]

Irrelevant to the claim that EFT performs differently than placebo.

But very relevant to the argument that Scottie99 brought up in the post I was replying to. A post about masking symptoms of a serious problem. In this case, a headache that was due to a brain tumor. Get rid of the headache using asprin, or EFT, even if it is just a placebo, seems the result would be the same.

[Admiral]

But very relevant to the argument that Scottie99 brought up in the post I was replying to. A post about masking symptoms of a serious problem. In this case, a headache that was due to a brain tumor. Get rid of the headache using asprin, or EFT, even if it is just a placebo, seems the result would be the same.

Completely true. Scottie99's argument was flawed, in my opinion, though he can respond if he feels differently.

So about the other issue- you've never claimed that EFT would perform differently than a placebo. Do you understand that if this were true (that it worked entirely based on the power of suggestion) that:

a) Gary Craig's claims about how EFT works based on energy and meridians are misled at best and lies at worst.

b) The claims that EFT helps cancer and diabetes on www.emofree.com are not only wrong, they give false hope to the desperate.

c) EFT is not paranormal at all.

I just want to know if you agree with these statements- it's fine if you don't care about whether they're true.

[Flange Desire]

Let me get this straight...

You've graduated from a top-notch school as an engineer and you don't care HOW something works? :eye-poppi


Pepper does not answer the 'too hard' questions.

[Pepper]

Completely true. Scottie99's argument was flawed, in my opinion, though he can respond if he feels differently.

Thank you.


So about the other issue- you've never claimed that EFT would perform differently than a placebo. Do you understand that if this were true (that it worked entirely based on the power of suggestion) that:

a) Gary Craig's claims about how EFT works based on energy and meridians are misled at best and lies at worst.

I'm not really up on the "energy and meridians" theories, and really consider them a non issue. However, I don't see how working by power of suggestion and working by meridians would have to be mutually exclusive.


b) The claims that EFT helps cancer and diabetes on www.emofree.com are not only wrong, they give false hope to the desperate.

I think our emotions have a powerful effect on our health, and I have no reason to believe the reports on the EFT site are lies. So, maybe any hope is helpful, even if it's just power of suggestion.


c) EFT is not paranormal at all.

I just want to know if you agree with these statements- it's fine if you don't care about whether they're true.

When I first wrote to Randi about the challenge, that it what I was trying to get out of him, I wanted to know if EFT "counted" for the paranormal challenge. He said it did. The challenge is not concerned with HOW something works. He even states on his page that he is not interested in theory, and doesn't even want to hear it. IIRC.

Some people will see EFT as paranormal, some will not, not really an issue for me.

The power of suggestion is the power of the mind to make you feel better. Is that paranormal? Again, guess it depends on how you look at it.

[Flange Desire]

I'm not in any position, I'm speaking hypothetically.

But, I should point out, that once you are at the point of trying them all... you can no longer consider the combined time investment trivial.

Re: your high blood pressure ...

Have you tried poking yourself in the eye?
I've heard from someone that it works for a lot of various problems.
And I tried it and it worked for me.

It works! You've got nothing to loose! Just try it!

[Flange Desire]

Pepper: Will you be showing us any evidence that supports EFT?

[Flange Desire]

Pepper.

This is the thread you started. What is your point?

There is no reason for this to be in the challenge section. You have stated yourself have no interest in the challenge.

You have gotten your point of just try it (which I did) across multiple times. When those here argue that they need more than just try it you become huffy and insulting. And you have no information to provide on your own direct experience with eft (except it works for me!) to spark a discussion.

What is the goal now?

I do agree this needs to be moved...

Pepper does not answer the hard questions.

[Flange Desire]

snip ...
The challenge is not concerned with HOW something works. He even states on his page that he is not interested in theory, and doesn't even want to hear it. ... snip

Absolutely correct for the challenge.

But back in the world of real medicine, we ARE interested in how it works.

[Mojo]

Absolutely correct for the challenge.

But back in the world of real medicine, we ARE interested in how it works.On the other hand, it might be a good idea to establish whether it works at all before wasting time trying to figure out how.

[Scottie99]

But very relevant to the argument that Scottie99 brought up in the post I was replying to. A post about masking symptoms of a serious problem. In this case, a headache that was due to a brain tumor. Get rid of the headache using asprin, or EFT, even if it is just a placebo, seems the result would be the same.

My argument back would be all the research shows that Americans pop over the counter pain relievers way to much. As you have stated before that can be damaging. A sensible person would treat the occassional pain with an over the counter remedy and if it became chronic consult the doctor. Which is my main key here, even if they are masking pain with the placebo effect a good doctor should be able to surmise that...

Doctor: are you taking any over the counter medications?

Me: Um just advil

Doctor: How often

Me: A couple times a day

Doctor: Why so often

Me: I get these headaches everyday so I take the advil and they go away

Doctor: I am going to need to run some tests...



EFT works differently than that (I believe from my reading you can correct me pepper if I am wrong) as a daily routine to focus on problems you are having. In my example it would be a headache...Asprin, Advil, etc are not suppose to be taken daily (except if recommended by a doctor) for headache pain. That is cleary stated on the label "Consult a Doctor" if you use more than 4 days in a row. I have yet to find that recommendation in my EFT reading in fact it claims to work better when used daily.

My argument does open up a whole new can of worms. The placebo effects and the benefits vs. harm is something that is being continual studied. The latest was a 2000 dutch study by Hróbjartsson and Götzsche. Here is some stuff from Wiki on the study:

"The placebo effect, thought of as the result of the inert pill, can be better understood as an effect of the relationship between doctor and patient. Adding the doctor's caring to medical care affects the patient's experience of treatment, reduces pain, and may affect outcome. This survey makes it clear that doctors continue to use placebos, and most think they help."
The editorial suggested there were problems with Hróbjartsson and Götzsche's methods and argued that their results show that placebos can't cure everything, but don't prove that the placebo effect cures nothing. The editorial concluded, "We cannot afford to dispense with any treatment that works, even if we are not certain how it does." [18]

The editorial prompted responses on both sides of the issue.[19]

Critics of the practice responded that it is unethical to prescribe treatments that don't work, and that telling a patient that a placebo is a real medication is deceptive and harms the doctor-patient relationship in the long run. Critics also argued that using placebos can delay the proper diagnosis and treatment of serious medical conditions.

Defenders of the use of placebos suggested that placebos do not work in clinical trials because the subjects know they might be getting a placebo, but do work in medical practice where the patient believes she is getting an active drug. Other writers pointed to the empirical data showing that placebos can have measurable biological effects, especially in pain relief (see above), or argued that the use of a placebo to "please the patient" fosters real healing as part of a caring doctor-patient relationship. [20] [21]

About 25% of physicians in both the Danish and Israeli studies used placebos as a diagnostic tool to determine if a patient's symptoms were real, or if the patient was malingering. Both the critics and defenders of the medical use of placebos agreed that this was unethical. The BMJ editorial said, "That a patient gets pain relief from a placebo does not imply that the pain is not real or organic in origin...the use of the placebo for 'diagnosis' of whether or not pain is real is misguided."

[Scottie99]

The power of suggestion is the power of the mind to make you feel better. Is that paranormal? Again, guess it depends on how you look at it.

I am not speaking for everyone but that is not paranormal. Emotions do play a role in your how you feel. If you have a healthy mindset and think positive your body will respond. And if it is only about the power of suggestion why all the tapping???

Reading emofree and other websites though argue more than that. As others have stated some claim by energy fields, meridians, etc and etc that the power of EFT can cure cancer, diabetes, and a whole myriad of things. If EFT could be studied and shown to work in those ways that is what would be paranormal.

So for the question of eligibility if it makes you feels better through the power of suggestion no it is not eligible. If it cures cancer through energy fields yes it is. This was part of what Randi was trying to decipher originally what was your exact claim....

[Hellbound]

Saying someone is deserving of scorn isn't an insult? You skeptics crack me up.

I also think nothing of your ability to comprehend the written word, which appears to be sorely lacking.

IN case you missed it, Pepper, I was specifically insulting you, and making the point that you have done everything in your in-ability to make yourself the recipient of such insults.

[Pepper]

EFT works differently than that (I believe from my reading you can correct me pepper if I am wrong) as a daily routine to focus on problems you are having. In my example it would be a headache...Asprin, Advil, etc are not suppose to be taken daily (except if recommended by a doctor) for headache pain. That is cleary stated on the label "Consult a Doctor" if you use more than 4 days in a row. I have yet to find that recommendation in my EFT reading in fact it claims to work better when used daily.


"Nothing contained herein is meant as a substitute for proper medical advice or supervision."

"Further, Gary Craig is not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach."

http://www.emofree.com/pain-management/20painarticles.htm

I think that covers it.

[Scottie99]

"Nothing contained herein is meant as a substitute for proper medical advice or supervision."

"Further, Gary Craig is not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach."

http://www.emofree.com/pain-management/20painarticles.htm

I think that covers it.

Fair enough

I was going mainly off of this:

EFT's results on headaches are often astonishing. In most cases, headaches, including migraine headaches, vanish within a few minutes of applying EFT. Also, repeated applications of EFT often eliminate chronic headaches so that they no longer re-appear daily, weekly or monthly.

For those who don't achieve instant relief, EFT is still likely to resolve the problem. However, in these cases more sophisticated approaches are usually necessary. Sometimes the principle cause of the headaches is one or more unresolved emotional issues such as anger, fear, guilt or trauma. EFT is ideally designed to address these emotional issues and, once properly resolved, many physical ailments subside.

http://www.emofree.com/migraine-headache.htm

The direction tends to lead that even if EFT does not fix your chronic headaches continue use may get at the problem.

Edit:

Further reading of the full disclaimer on the bottom of the page you provided pepper

Important note: While EFT has produced remarkable clinical results, it must still be considered to be in the experimental stage and thus practitioners and the public must take complete responsibility for their use of it. Further, Gary Craig is not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach. Those who want to discuss the use of EFT for a specific emotional problem with a professional in the mental health field are referred to our Referral section, where a number of licensed practitioners who use EFT in their practices are listed.

Even emofree seems not to promote the just try it you got nothing to lose method. I do agree with the site and proper studying must take place. I think that is what all of us Skeptics would like..

[Pepper]

Even emofree seems not to promote the just try it you got nothing to lose method. I do agree with the site and proper studying most take place. I think that is what all of us Skeptics would like..

You make good points, but I still don’t think you have anything to lose by just trying it. I’m not talking about replacing standard treatments. It doesn't seem to me like most of the Skeptics minds will be changed by studies, they just want to call people "woos", and will find some reason to reject any results that don't agree with their beliefs. Like what happened when I posted a link to a clinical trial posted in a peer reviewed journal.

Anyway, I’m sure this will make many people here happy, but I’m finished here. I’m on a search for truth, and it’s clear Skepdicks aren’t interested in it. A bigger bunch of “true believers” I haven’t run into. The Christian Scientists are willing to discuss their beliefs without insults, and willing to talk about actual proof. I thought it would be the other way around. I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence.

[Hellbound]

I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence.

So why are you planning to treat them differently?

Why didn't you post your evidence here, or discuss the actual points?

All you did was hem and haw, mutter about "unfair" and "sham", and continually refuse to post any evidence or argument at all.

I'll agree with you 100% that your time here was spectactularly unproductive.

I disagree strongly with your assessment of who caused that situation.

[Scottie99]

Anyway, I’m sure this will make many people here happy, but I’m finished here. I’m on a search for truth, and it’s clear Skepdicks aren’t interested in it. A bigger bunch of “true believers” I haven’t run into. The Christian Scientists are willing to discuss their beliefs without insults, and willing to talk about actual proof. I thought it would be the other way around. I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence.

I actually thought we were starting to get somewhere pepper. Evidence is what drives the skeptic...

One bit of advice: Do not refer to them as Christian Sciendicks I think they would take even more offense to that then us "skepdicks".

[Lamuella]

"Nothing contained herein is meant as a substitute for proper medical advice or supervision."

"Further, Gary Craig is not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach."

http://www.emofree.com/pain-management/20painarticles.htm

I think that covers it.

all it covers is their asses. Those statements are there to stop them being sued for practicing medicine without a license. Do you think they would be there if they weren't required by law?

[Scottie99]

all it covers is their asses. Those statements are there to stop them being sued for practicing medicine without a license. Do you think they would be there if they weren't required by law?

In the EFT vs. Asprin argument I would say it is relevant though. The reason consult your doctor is printed on over-the counter medications is the lawyers making sure they cover their asses. But those medications have a much larger history of testing to know why they have to cover their ass than EFT does..

[Beleth]

You make good points, but I still don’t think you have anything to lose by just trying it. Except money...

I’m not talking about replacing standard treatments. No, you are talking something that has no better results than a placebo.

Anyway, I’m sure this will make many people here happy, but I’m finished here. I’m on a search for truth, and it’s clear Skepdicks aren’t interested in it. A bigger bunch of “true believers” I haven’t run into. The Christian Scientists are willing to discuss their beliefs without insults, and willing to talk about actual proof. I thought it would be the other way around. I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence. Bye. And thanks for the parting insults.

[Jimbo07]

The Christian Scientists are willing to discuss their beliefs without insults, and willing to talk about actual proof. I thought it would be the other way around. I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence.

Why would The Christian Scientists have any better idea of what constitutes 'real discussion and evidence,' than Pepper does?

:boggled:

[petre]

I’m on a search for truth, and it’s clear Skepdicks aren’t interested in it.

Does this mean you're willing to try my suggested remedies?

[TheBoyPaj]

When I first wrote to Randi about the challenge, that it what I was trying to get out of him, I wanted to know if EFT "counted" for the paranormal challenge. He said it did. The challenge is not concerned with HOW something works. He even states on his page that he is not interested in theory, and doesn't even want to hear it. IIRC.

EFT is eligible for the challenge, as long as you are claiming that it DOES something. ie. it is not just the patient's suggestibility doing all the work. The test will be designed to eliminate placebo.

Just like telekinesis is eligible, so long as the applicant doesn't want to pick the object up and move it about with his hands.

[Mojo]

Anyway, I’m sure this will make many people here happy, but I’m finished here. I’m on a search for truth, and it’s clear Skepdicks aren’t interested in it. A bigger bunch of “true believers” I haven’t run into. The Christian Scientists are willing to discuss their beliefs without insults, and willing to talk about actual proof. I thought it would be the other way around. I don’t’ know if the truth is to be found there, but at least there will be real discussion and evidence.There might have been some evidence here if you'd bothered presenting any. That's what people have been asking you for all along.

[drkitten]

[QUOTE=Pepper;1620097]YIt doesn't seem to me like most of the Skeptics minds will be changed by studies.[/.QUOTE]

No, you've got it exactly backwards. Studies --and specifically, competently done and reviewed studies -- are about the only thing that will change the minds of the majority of skeptics.

But you've not posted anything like that.

Instead, you've posted drivel saying "so it only works as well as placebo -- but that still means it 'works,' right?"

... when you've not posted outright falsehoods.

So I should hope that most of the skeptics' [sic] minds will not be changed by transparent lies and shameless definition-whoring.

[gnome]

Of course, this is just the latest in many claims that Pepper is done with us.

[Mojo]

I have recently discovered MKB (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56614), a therapy making similar claims to EFT. Is it worth submitting a challenge application?

[CriticalThanking]

Only if you promise to insult Randi, refer to the challenge as a sham, imply judges will lie about challenge results, insult posters honestly trying to help, evade direct questions, refer to yourself as the Kobe Bryant of the scientific method while demanding different standards of evidence for your pet theory, and refer to those who disagree with you as Skepdicks.

We await your application, Kobe-wan Mojo.

CT

Edited for bad spelling

[Mojo]

It's obviously a sham. I've been thinking about applying for several hours now and still had no reply whatsoever from Randi. :rolleyes:

[William Smith]

MKB rules. :D

[William Smith]

Also, Mr. Bryant fizzled (in the second half of Game 7 against the Suns) like Ms. Pepper (in this thread).

When it mattered most.

Unexplainable, undeniable, unbefrickinlievable.

No effort, no proof, no nothing.

[simonmaal]

Some interesting links to consider (some reliable, others not so):

http://www.eftdownunder.com/docs/EFTStudy.htm

http://www.posihd.com/EFT%20RElated/Research/AnxietyEFTStudy.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8125-1731326_1,00.html

http://www.emotional-freedom.com/research.htm

http://www.innersource.net/energy_psych/ep_article_intro-to-ep_phobia.htm

I have seen EFT demonstrated, and I was impressed by the results, even though I did not really believe it until I let the practitioner try it out on me; quite amazingly, the instensity of my spider phobia was reduced significantly. Now, here I was undergoing a procedure that I did not believe in to prove that it would not work, but it did! Wherefore art thou placebo? Needless to say, this created a lot of conflict in me; how could I reconcile my experience with my skeptical world view? So I decided to look into it a little bit (and I attended a two day EFT training course to verify for myself).

Personally, having studied EFT (and tested it in the field), I would say that it can work on psychological problems, as long as there is not a physical origin (which discounts psychoses or bi-polar depression, for example). However, I have seen absolutely no evidence of it making a significant difference to physical ailments; having said that, reduction of anxiety can help reduce some symptoms such as tension headaches. But any claims on EFT as a 'healing' technique (as opposed to psychotherapeutic intervention) are bunk and blarney.

So, I believe EFT does work as a psychological therapy, but not in the way its pantheon of peddlars believes it does. I find the energy explanation absurb (until somebody can prove otherwise), and I would say that EFT works as a form of relaxation and de-conditioning with a bit of suggestion thrown in; in other words, not unlike hypnotherapy. In the few studies that have been carried out on EFT, random tapping has had exactly the same effect as tapping on the 'acupuncture points'. So this would discount the energy explanation.

Let us not discount the outcome because the explanation is crap.

[William Smith]

MonstaBump.

What is your profession, simonmaal? How long have you studied EFT?

[steenkh]

Wherefore art thou placebo?
Placebo works in mysterious ways! One thing that is quite clear is that you do not have to believe in it. You can still subconsiously decode the body language and other signs, and react as expected.

Let us not discount the outcome because the explanation is crap.
I think that is sensible. Any therapy that can be supported by evidence should be considered, no matter what crappy theory might lie behind it.

[simonmaal]

Hi GzuzKryzt

MonstaBump.

What is your profession, simonmaal?

I was originally an engineer (I graduated in 1997), but then I 'switched tracks' following the decline of engineering in my area, and became a therapist about 5 years ago. I'm just about to embark on some research, after taking a bit of time off for good behaviour following the completion of my psychology degree. So, depending on what funding I can secure, I'd be very interested in studying some of these techniques.

How long have you studied EFT?Since 2002.

[Sandro de Rosa]

[QUOTE=Indolent Wretch;1538271] "I wish you people would stop avoiding the question. He asked 'How', how do you believe that EFT will help cure cancer? Don't refer me off to site full of gibberish, you should be able to give the gist of it in about 3 sentences.

Sandro de Rosa, MD - I assume the Italian doctor and not the Brazilian porn star, this one seems to have some real physical medical background but it was all in Italian. Links to the 'School for innovative therapy' has a site promoting 'Learn Fast Analogic Communication'... Certainly Anal Logic seems appropriate.

Well thats that. Not sure the cure from cancer is coming from there, but I tell you what, I bet they are all becoming very very rich."

This is my first post here so I might get the formatting and other stuff wrong, please bear with me. I am the man indolent wretch has tried to demolish the character of. I am here under my own name, has the the courage to use his in his posts? Doesn't look like it. Well let's see: Unfortunately, in some respects, I am not indeed the Brazilian porn star who also bears my name. I have been in Marquis' Who's Who in the World since 1997, so you can look me up. You don't get there by applying, you are selected by an independent panel for the reference value of your biography. Have you achieved anything worthy of mention? Are you able to judge others with authority? "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

I am what is known as an eclectic. That may be good or bad for you I don't know and, with respect, I don't care. My website which I have taken down as it was out of date and the new one which I am working on, but can't post a link to as I am a new member, are both in English. If you have a cached version of the Italian pages, you can however use Google translate and get some sense out of them, or you can buy Marquis Who's Who in the World from reed-Elsevier Publications. On my part, I am not "becoming very rich", though I don't see the harm in doing so. You state also that some people exploit the sick to make money. The biggest group is called the US Healthcare industry (not "service", industry) which has a turnover greater than the GDP of most sovreign nations on the planet bar about 6, and that's if we don't count the lawyers and insurance companies which are professional and financial services turnover related to healthcare.

As for "Anal Logic", as well as being gratuitously offensive, you only show your complete ignorance in a useful and fascinating discipline used by more than one very respectable (in its organisation if not its actions) secret service. James Randi, as an illusionist, would learn a lot from the techniques presented in that discipline. Analogical Psychology is an emerging science, it is verifiable academically, though it is far far easier to scientifically verify EFT, which not being paranormal, responds to physical laws. The autonomous nervous system activity can be measured using Heart Rate Variability monitoring, for example, before and after EFT, or phobia reactions can be measured using a polygraph or other instruments, and placebo can be duplicated by tapping non "active" zones, repeating nonsense phrases instead of the intent phrase, or being silent. Double blind studies can be carried out to satisfy you. AFAIC my patients who complete the treatment walk away reporting to me that they no longer have the problem they came to me for, in about 90% of cases, which fi we compare that to a well known placebo called Psychoanalysis, is pretty cool, really. As a physician, what counts for me is that my patients trust in my competence, and those that do are rewarded with the solution to their problem. Even those that do not have their problem solved completely recognise that they have improved greatly and usually they give up because they are refractory, would require more sessions and are financially unable to cope, especially in these hard times. Here in Italy, people can't make it to the third week in the month with their wages and that has been going on since well before the current world economic crisis, which incidentally I believe started in December 2007 and is about to finish in the next few months.

As for cancer, I have never ever said it can cure cancer. So it is disonest for you to attack my honour and professionalism by including me in a gratuitous attack against other members of the EFT Scientific Advisory Board with your own prejudices. These people have dedicated their lives, wwhether you value them or not, to the betterment of the quality of life of all their clients and colleagues. Do remember, if for example homeopathy is just placebo, which I am not authorised to comment on as I have no real background in it, but if it is just placebo, it is still a valid therapy, speaking as a physician. Even if it may not be "science". After all Medicine is not a science it is an art dressed as a science for the purposes of the healthcare industry. Science for me is exact science, like physics and chemistry. Medicine is also about bedside manner, consideration of patients' attitudes and lifestyles as well as their physiology and pathological development.

To answer your question with the "gist" of how EFT *might* help patients with cancer, you'll need to accept a few givens (which might not be true) 1) EFT works on the autonomous nervous system, it tends to reduce sympathetic tone and so stress response. 2) Cancer appears to be controlled by the immune system. 3) Stress increases circulating cortisol which reduces the immune response. This is the gist of how I think EFT *might* help. It is not a theory nor endorsement, it is a "gist".

If you want further information you can try EFT free on yourself or organise a scientific experiment. If you are intellectually honest you can only debunk a claim if you can disprove it beyond doubt. Everyone who expounds EFT does so based on personal experience. Because EFT can't be patented and packaged and sold at great added value and in volume as it is information and not a substance, it is of no interest and indeed a threat to the economic/social powers that be so it is difficult though not impossible to prove it. There have been studies carried out on EFT and its mother TFT however.

Meanwhile, I advise you not to discredit people you nothing about, it only serves to discredit you. You only have the right to attack a claim and not those who make the claim and you can only do so with verifiable facts, not insinuations of trying to make a group of conscientious professionals who may or may not have scientific credentials which *you* value in *your* value hierarchy, look like a circus act, in you eyes. You did not, for example, need to state that there is a Brazilian porn star with my name, bless him, to try to insinuate that your moral judgement of this man should be somehow attributed to my very good self. More respect and more intellectual honesty, please.

[666]

<mega snip>
Indolent Wretch hasn't posted here since 2007 so may not see your response!

[William Smith]

...

If you want further information you can try EFT free on yourself or organise a scientific experiment. If you are intellectually honest you can only debunk a claim if you can disprove it beyond doubt.
...
More respect and more intellectual honesty, please.

That was one of the core points of this thread, Dr. de Rosa.

First of all, debunking is so 1960s. Today it's quite simple:

1. Make a claim.
2. Disclose test parameters, including defintion of success and failure.
3. Run test.

The basic rule of rational discussion is, The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. It is logically impossible to disprove an arbitrary assertion, for it can be supported by any number of further arbitrary assertions.
Thus, "There is an invisible man standing behind you," could be amended with, "He's moving out of the way, that's why you can't touch him," and "He's levitating, that's why he has made no footprints" and so on, indefinitely.

Since this is the Million Dollar Challenge subforum and Pepper did not apply, this discussion seemed pretty much over.

Requiescat in pacem.



If you want to start a new thread with the same or a slightly different subject, I recommend this (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7) subforum.

[Sandro de Rosa]

EFT is bunk. It has no basis in science. If you can demonstrate under controlled conditions that EFT works, you will win $1 million. Have you applied for the challenge? I mean, have you actually completed a notarised affidavit? If not, then quit whining here about it. Until that affidavit is supplied, all else is merely BS.
One caveat: be prepared to wait a while, as Randi is in hospital following heart surgery, and Kramer has finished his internship, so there's no one helming the challenge at present. This is not avoidance of your claim, merely an absence of personnel who can deal with it adequately. But first, you have to supply the affidavit as per the challenge rules.

I beg to differ that EFT be paranormal. It is very likely to be normal given its absolute repeatability. If you are sure that proof of EFT is payable and that there is some mutually acceptable way of measuring it, then I might just bother to go for the challenge for the hell of it. I must admit, though that money and fame are mot prime motivators though they don't hurt, well fame can, as it happens.

That EFT has "no basis in science", well science advances through innovation and "thinking out of the box", before Ben Franklin, electricity was something God did and if men produced it they were burnt at the stake for witchcraft. Real scientists don't offer money for proof, as the risk of having to pay it out can bias the payer to do their utmost to sabotage the tests. Not that I'm saying JREF would stoop so low, but it does cross the mind. A famous Italian politician, Giulio Andreotti, once said "You sin in thinking bad about people - but, often, you guess right". Science starts by observing and then trying to explain the observation, current accademia expects a plausible theory BEFORE trying to prove anything, even if the observation is blaringly stark. It is a limit of accademia and is the point where accademia departs from science. As George Spencer Brown, mathematician, philosopher, logician and engineer once said "Pride in one's knowledge raises an effective barrier against its own advancement for fear of being shamed of one's ignorance", and controversial or not, Xerox, Mullard, British Railways, several universities, Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein all respected this man's ideas, even if they were "coming from far left field". I agree that there are 99% frauds out there, especially magicians, tarot readers and "healers" but throwing the baby away with the bathwater is plain criminal, is it not?

[Sandro de Rosa]

Indolent Wretch hasn't posted here since 2007 so may not see your response!

Thanks, I saw his poor attempt at cross discrediting my work and my person today, and I don't expect him to reply, though it is not good for him to hide behind his finger. I felt it important to state my point of view and to rebut his shoddy political work also. (Science has nothing to do with his post, nor does the search for truth.)

[Sandro de Rosa]

[QUOTE=GzuzKryzt;4543762]That was one of the core points of this thread, Dr. de Rosa.

First of all, debunking is so 1960s. Today it's quite simple:

1. Make a claim.
2. Disclose test parameters, including defintion of success and failure.
3. Run test.

<snip>Since this is the Million Dollar Challenge subforum and Pepper did not apply, this discussion seemed pretty much over.

Requiescat in pacem.
<snip>

Thanks, actually I'm working on proper academic validation of EFT, it is one way to get the word out, if it works as I an thousands of others claim. If I succeed, will JREF put a sock in it and donate the prize to my favourite research organisation, or after such validation is the prize money no longer available?

[William Smith]

Thanks, actually I'm working on proper academic validation of EFT, it is one way to get the word out, if it works as I an thousands of others claim. If I succeed, will JREF put a sock in it and donate the prize to my favourite research organisation, or after such validation is the prize money no longer available?

Obviously, only JREF Staff - challenge@randi.org - can speak on behalf of the JREF, but I do think EFT would qualify as a claim for the MDC.

Dr. de Rosa, I invite you to join the thread I just opened for you. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4548080#post454808) We will help you to the best of our abilities.