Sam I am [Archive] - JREF Forum

View Full Version : Sam I am

Pages : [1] 2 3

Pepper

25th March 2006, 06:21 PM

Well, it's been almost a year since I wrote to Randi about EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) and the million dollar challege, so I don't know if anybody remembers. Have to say I was shocked at his dishonesty, and silly insults.

At first I just wrote him to ask if EFT would qualify for the challenge, I wondered if it would be considered "paranormal". And I gave him a link to the site. (He claims I didn't give him any reference...)

Pepper aka "Sam"

Zep

25th March 2006, 07:02 PM

Would you please reference that site here?

ChristineR

25th March 2006, 07:24 PM

Here (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-03/031706carroll.html#i4) is Randi's opinion.

Pepper, Randi believe that EFT does not work, has no scientific basis, teaches people to extort money from the sick, and discourages people from getting real medical care that might actually help. He's not kind to people like that.

However, if you are a competent EFT practitioner (and EFT works) you can easily prove him wrong. Simply find a person with a disease or condition that does not get better on its own, and that can be measured by an objective test like a blood test. Get your patient looked at by three doctors, and make sure they all agree that the diagnosis is correct. Then treat that person. You do not have to have a 100% success rate, you can keep trying until one of your patients gets better.

If you do not think you can do that, but only think that you can reduce symptoms and make people feel better, the tests are a bit more complicated. You will have to derive a procedure that seems similar to EFT and involves just as much talking and touching and general encouragement but that delibrately ignores the merdians (or whatever else is important in EFT).

Soapy Sam

25th March 2006, 07:56 PM

And if you are still shocked by the poor quality of Randi's insults, pm me. I have some extremely high quality insults in stock.

Pepper

25th March 2006, 09:53 PM

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.

Piggy

25th March 2006, 10:26 PM

You can test EFT for yourself for free and see if it works.
That's not how bona fide testing is done, I'm afraid, and for good reason.

Kimpatsu

25th March 2006, 10:28 PM

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.

Admiral

25th March 2006, 10:44 PM

Well, I looked through the site. First of all, EFT may be useful for people suffering from mental disorders, simply because it helps people relax. There is nothing paranormal about techniques that help people relax- otherwise, yoga could have won the prize long ago. I'm also willing to believe it lowers blood pressure and so on- again, nothing doctors wouldn't agree with.

However- anything that suggests EFT works because of "energy imbalances" and so on is just silly, particularly when it invokes Einstein. There is not connection between Einstein's theory of the relationship between mass and energy and EFT's assertion that emotion causes the body to grow sick.

I don't, however, think that Gary Craig is really a quack. I think he just understands the placebo effect, and knows that if his site a)is very friendly and b)purports to have a technique that acts as a near-instant cure for emotional problems, people will get better. I don't think many doctors disagree that happy people get sick less than unhappy people.

Just because the technique works, however, does NOT mean it is paranormal in any way. If, for example, you prove that you could lower your blood pressure using EFT, this would NOT be eligible for the prize. People can lower their blood pressure just by thinking about relaxing things- that's not paranormal at all.

If, however, you can come up with a test that would demonstrate an ability that IS paranormal, please describe it. I'm sure that once they get someone new to run the challenge, you could apply with it.

Pepper

25th March 2006, 10:46 PM

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.

Piggy

25th March 2006, 10:47 PM

I see Dr. Joseph Mercola is on the advisory board. He was recently slapped with an FDA warning (http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml) about making false health claims. Perhaps not the best choice in a board member.

EFT appears to be representing itself as a therapeutic procedure with a wide variety health claims, including being effective against cancer and against dyslexia in children.

I look forward to seeing EFT subjected to controled and rigorous testing regarding these claims.

rjh01

26th March 2006, 03:16 AM

Just done a search. Found this http://www.randi.org/jr/041505hollywood.html Do a search on the page of 'A GOOD EXAMPLE OF OUR BURDEN (http://forums.randi.org/)' and you will find it. Also see the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37833&highlight=Emotional+Freedom+Technique
QED

thatguywhojuggles

26th March 2006, 03:20 AM

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.

Could you post these emails, so we can have a better idea of why he blocked you?

Mojo

26th March 2006, 03:48 AM

I don't think many doctors disagree that happy people get sick less than unhappy people. Or that healthy people tend to be happier than sick people. ;)

JM85

26th March 2006, 04:08 AM

I would also be interested to see these emails and when Randi feels up to it maybe he can verify his responses to you.

Zep

26th March 2006, 04:42 AM

I'm afraid I have to laugh at the technique as described, though. Imagine: A person who is really into this who is out power-walking, and gets a tummy ache and a headache and a cramp at the same time. What to do?

Each injury would probably involve different tapping techniques and incantations. So they would start saying the incantations, and at the same time, tapping themselves in all the various places on their body as necessary. Or perhaps do them in sequence instead, I don't know.

This would treat the public to the sight of a person talking to themselves while hitting themselves all over in some strange pattern. What is known in the parlance as "looney". ;)

ChristineR

26th March 2006, 07:52 AM

Thank you rjh01. Okay, Randi is not all that patient and understanding.

Say I found 20 people with chronic migraines. Let's also say that I learnt the basics of EFT and treated ten of them with EFT. Ten of them I treated by doing the same amount of tapping and touching, but in the WRONG place.

Would the ten treated people have fewer migraines than the ten others? You say I should try this test. It would be quite a bit of work for me. I'm not a doctor who deals with migraine patients everyday. I don't think I know twenty people with chronic migraines. I'd like to know if you've this test. If you have, and you got the expected result, then I think it would be worth a non-believer (me) doing the test.

Psiload

26th March 2006, 08:24 AM

I sympathize with Randi.

Imagine you're the dean of admissions at a college. Instead of getting properly-submitted applications from prospective students, you instead get letters and e-mails like...

Dear sir or madam,

I'm real smart and I can do cool stuff. I don't want to go through all the bother and hassle of filling out a proper application unless you can assure me that I will be accepted. I'm not lazy, and I will work really, really, really hard. Will you let me in your college?

Sincerely,

Sparky aka "Bubbles"

P.S.- If I really do need to submit an application, could you tell me what I need to put on it so that you'll let me in? I mean, I know you have an instruction sheet on how to fill out a proper application on your website, but it's like really long and there's lots of words n' stuff that I don't understand. If you could just help me, or even just do it for me, that would be SO cool. Thanks a bunch.

Poor Randi.

Mendeli

27th March 2006, 12:41 AM

I'm also trying to imagine how one would find a group of people with simultaneous headaches, and I'm unable to....

Huh? There ought to be a whole lot of married men near JREF headquarters. Get their wives for the test!

edit: oh and Sam... are you Serious Sam by any chance? Just noticed the one-liner! :D

Hellbound

27th March 2006, 06:47 AM

Actually, emailing Randi was the first mistake. You should have emailed the challenge address, challenge@randi.org, rather than emailing randi directly. This would have been known if you have read the challenge faq, http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html. Randi has little patience for those who want to take the million dollar prize but, for whatever reason, don't seem to care enough to actually read the rules for it.

Psiload

27th March 2006, 07:01 AM

ChristineR

27th March 2006, 07:59 AM

Pepper, "EFT" does not qualify for the challenge. In order to qualify for the challenge you have to make a definite, testable claim like

I can cure a person with type I diabetes soley by the use of EFT. Ten subjects will be selected by the JREF. At least three of them will have a diagnosis of type I diabetes. These patients will be examined by a doctor chosen by the JREF. Claimant agrees to pay all reasonable medical fees. The claiment will treat the patients and controls. After the treatment, the doctor will again examine the patients. Success constitutes at least one successful conversion from type I diabetic to normal.

Note that this says nothing about EFT or how it works. It just says that a doctor will examine a person before and after the treatment, and if the doctor agrees something changed, you get a million dollars.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 05:15 PM

Pepper, "EFT" does not qualify for the challenge.

Then why did Randi tell me it did?

Pepper

Pepper

29th March 2006, 05:45 PM

Here is the exchange between Randi and me. I’ve removed unneeded repetition, like quoted and requoted text of the emails, and my sig. And I can't post links yet, so they have been removed or modified.

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper"
Subject: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: jref

If I could demonstrate that EFT (Emotional Freedom
Technique) works, would I win the million bucks? It
involves tapping on points while focusing on a
problem.

www emofree com

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:20:10 -0400

What "points," what "problem"?

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

Thank you for your quick reply.

There are various points on the body, the top of the
head, near the eyebrow, the side of the eye, near the
collarbone. They are listed in detail in the manual on
the site. The problem can be emotional, like a phobia,
or physical, like pain.

Best wishes,
Pepper

...

From: "James Randi"
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:27:58 -0400

I don't understand, and I', not going to take a course in understanding
what you're trying to get at.

What's the claim, and who's making it?

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

I'm making the claim. I'll use a headache as an
example of a "problem". You rub a spot on your chest
as say, "Eventhough I have this headache, I totally
accept myself." Then you tap on the top of your head
with your fingers and say to yourself, "this
headache". Then you tap near your eye, nose, collar
bone, under your arm, on your fingers, and then a
point on your hand. This will get rid of the headache.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:59:10 -0400

This is a silly game. I'm not interested. Grow up.

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

Gee, now I know why nobody has won the million bucks!
Somebody makes a claim, and you just call it a silly
game and say you're not interested! Everyone else I've
explained EFT to understands it. And I even gave you a
link to the site that has a manual to download that
gives all the details, instructions and claims. I've
read claims and counter claims on the net WRT your
challenge. Now I know the truth, you are just plain
full of it!

And you still didn't answer the question. IF I could
demonstrate EFT works, would I get the million bucks?

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:24:14 -0400

The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed.

I'm not about to read any manual! I'm far to busy for that, and it's
YOUR job to tell me what you'd do to "prove" this idea.

Try thinking, just for a change:

1. I'll use a headache as an example of a "problem".

What "headache"? WHO has the headache? How will you establish that
the
person -- whoever -- has a headache?

2. You rub a spot on your chest as say [sic] "Eventhough [sic] I have
this headache, I totally accept myself."

Why am I saying this? Does the person with the headache have to be in
the room?

3. Then you tap on the top of your head with your fingers and say to
yourself, "this headache".

Whether I have the headache, or someone else does, either in the room
or
at a remote location? Does the person with the headache have to know
that I'm saying this?

4. Then you tap near your eye, nose, collar bone, under your arm, on
your fingers, and then a point on your hand. This will get rid of the
headache.

How will you establish this?

YOU HAVE GIVEN A FUZZY DESCRIPTION OF A SILLY, MAGICAL, SONG_AND_DANCE.
Answer the questions above, and we'll go from there.

And, if I am the "subject" with the headache, how do you know whether
(a) I have or don't have a headache, or (b) that it's gone away, or is
still there.

THINK!

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

--- James Randi wrote:

> The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed.

Still? This is the first time you've said "yes".

> I'm not about to read any manual! I'm far to busy
> for that, and it's
> YOUR job to tell me what you'd do to "prove" this
> idea.

I first wanted to know that IF I could prove it works,
if would get the million bucks or not. I can prove I
can pass gas, but I assume I wouldn't get a million
bucks for that.

> Try thinking, just for a change:

I am thinking. Again, I was just trying to establish
if EFT would qualify for the challenge! That's it.

> 1. I'll use a headache as an example of a
> "problem".
>
> What "headache"? WHO has the headache? How will
> you establish that the
> person -- whoever -- has a headache?

And you claim I just want to play games? Anybody on
earth could have the headache, and you'd establish
that the same way one always does, by asking. That is
how it's established, no?

>
> 2. You rub a spot on your chest as say [sic]
> "Eventhough [sic] I have
> this headache, I totally accept myself."

OooOooooOoooo, spelling flames. You must be so much
smarter than me!

> Why am I saying this?

It's the EFT protocol.

> Does the person with the
> headache have to be in
> the room?

Yes.

>
> 3. Then you tap on the top of your head with your
> fingers and say to
> yourself, "this headache".
>
> Whether I have the headache, or someone else does,
> either in the room or
> at a remote location? Does the person with the
> headache have to know
> that I'm saying this?

Yes.

>
> 4. Then you tap near your eye, nose, collar bone,
> under your arm, on
> your fingers, and then a point on your hand. This
> will get rid of the
> headache.
>
> How will you establish this?

How do they do it will all other headache treatments?
Don't they just ask?

> YOU HAVE GIVEN A FUZZY DESCRIPTION OF A SILLY,
> MAGICAL, SONG_AND_DANCE.

When I point you to a step by step detailed
description of the process, you say you don't have
time to read it. When I try to give a quick overview,
you say the description is "fuzzy".

> Answer the questions above, and we'll go from there.
>
> And, if I am the "subject" with the headache, how do
> you know whether
> (a) I have or don't have a headache, or (b) that
> it's gone away, or is
> still there.
>

I had always assumed when they do studies for headache
medicines, they just ask the people if they have a
headache or not.

> THINK!
>
> James Randi.
>

I am thinking.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:06:10 -0400

Bottom line:

Describe to me an experiment that would show this idea curing a
headache. Certainly, if you suggest to someone that they no longer
have
a headache, that is open to the person being affected by pure
suggestion, since headaches are subject to suggestion.

I can't imagine a proper test of the claim. If you can, tell me about
it.

The ONLY kind of test that could be done, is to not tell the person
when
the "magic" is being applied, or not applied -- but you say that they
have to be aware of it, so suggestion is always there.

This cannot be tested. If you think it can, describe the test.

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

--- James Randi wrote:
> Bottom line:
>
> Describe to me an experiment that would show this
> idea curing a
> headache. Certainly, if you suggest to someone that
> they no longer have
> a headache, that is open to the person being
> affected by pure
> suggestion, since headaches are subject to
> suggestion.

So you use a placebo to control for suggestion. Maybe
a phrase like "Alakazam you're cured", or a "sugar
pill".

You have one group of people get the EFT treatment,
and one get the placebo. Compare results.

> I can't imagine a proper test of the claim. If you
> can, tell me about
> it.
>
> The ONLY kind of test that could be done, is to not
> tell the person when
> the "magic" is being applied,

But the procedure involves TAPPING. What you're asking
for is like asking someone to prove acupuncture works,
but they aren't allowed to use needles.

> or not applied -- but
> you say that they
> have to be aware of it, so suggestion is always
> there.

Yes, suggestion is always there. It's there with EFT,
aspirin, and chemotherapy. So, you control for
suggestion with a placebo.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:13:14 -0400

I can see this will take a long time to get through to you....

For a control, simply arrange to have the "tapping" done in the wrong
way -- just as acupuncture test controls are done by inserting the
needles in the wrong spots....

"So you use a placebo to control for suggestion. Maybe a phrase like
"Alakazam you're cured", or a "sugar pill". You have one group of
people
get the EFT treatment,
and one get the placebo. Compare results."

But since you say that the subjects have to know what you're saying,
they would have to be unaware of what the correct "magic words" are
supposed to be: ""Even though I have this headache, I totally accept
myself." Would "Though I actually have this headache, I absolutely
accept myself" be a "control" because it's not the same words?

If, instead of "tapping" near the eye, nose, collar bone, underarm, on
the fingers, and a point on the hand, we tapped near the eyebrow, lip,
neck, and elbow -- would that be a satisfactory "control"?

(Aside: I'm suspecting that this is a joke, though April 1 has passed.
That anyone who can spell and operate a computer, actually believes
that
just saying magical words and tapping can cure a headache, has to be
unbelievable.)

(Also aside: If the magic words were spoken in French, and the person
wore gloves or "tapped" using a stick, would it still work? I'm trying
to find out just how silly this can get.)

I'm also trying to imagine how one would find a group of people with
simultaneous headaches, and I'm unable to....

This is going to be a hoot when it runs on the web page. I just hope
the readers will believe that I didn't make it up....!

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

--- James Randi wrote:

> I can see this will take a long time to get through
> to you....
>
> For a control, simply arrange to have the "tapping"
> done in the wrong
> way -- just as acupuncture test controls are done by
> inserting the
> needles in the wrong spots....

Fine.

>
> "So you use a placebo to control for suggestion.
> Maybe a phrase like
> "Alakazam you're cured", or a "sugar pill". You have
> one group of people
> get the EFT treatment,
> and one get the placebo. Compare results."
>
> But since you say that the subjects have to know
> what you're saying,
> they would have to be unaware of what the correct
> "magic words" are
> supposed to be: ""Even though I have this headache,
> I totally accept
> myself." Would "Though I actually have this
> headache, I absolutely
> accept myself" be a "control" because it's not the
> same words?

The exact words are not important. It's the focusing
on the problem and accepting yourself while tapping
that's important.

> If, instead of "tapping" near the eye, nose, collar
> bone, underarm, on
> the fingers, and a point on the hand, we tapped near
> the eyebrow, lip,
> neck, and elbow -- would that be a satisfactory
> "control"?

I'd have to see where.

> (Aside: I'm suspecting that this is a joke, though
> April 1 has passed.
> That anyone who can spell and operate a computer,
> actually believes that
> just saying magical words and tapping can cure a
> headache, has to be
> unbelievable.)

Not a very scientific approach.

> (Also aside: If the magic words were spoken in
> French, and the person
> wore gloves or "tapped" using a stick, would it
> still work? I'm trying
> to find out just how silly this can get.)
>
> I'm also trying to imagine how one would find a
> group of people with
> simultaneous headaches, and I'm unable to....

How do they test headache cures?

> This is going to be a hoot when it runs on the web
> page. I just hope
> the readers will believe that I didn't make it
> up....!
>

Just don't forget to post the web site
so people can read the manual
and get the full explanation of how to use the
technique. Then they can judge for themselves.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:59:43 -0400

Oh, depend on it! The webpage WILL be published! I wouldn't deprive
my
readers of such a hoot!

I'm tired of this now. I want you to get crazy and start claiming that
I won't test this claim, so I'll have the background to ask my readers
whether I should have even entered into a discussion with you....

Please....

James Randi.

...

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

--- James Randi wrote:
> Oh, depend on it! The webpage WILL be published! I
> wouldn't deprive my
> readers of such a hoot!

Good. Please let me know when you do it.

>
> I'm tired of this now. I want you to get crazy and
> start claiming that
> I won't test this claim,

Are you going to test the claim?

so I'll have the background
> to ask my readers
> whether I should have even entered into a discussion
> with you....
>
> Please....
>
> James Randi.

It's become clear to me that you're not really
interested in what is right or true.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:16:48 -0400

Probably next week it will appear on the web page -- the 15th.

James Randi.

...

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

Good. From the start you tried to make this a
personality contest between the two of us, just
putting me down. Yawn. I'm just interested in the
truth. I don't care if those who read your site think
I'm the stupidest thing to ever walk the Earth, or
even if I AM the stupidest thing to have ever walked
the Earth, I am not the topic, EFT is. I just hope
they go to the site, read the info, and test the
technique for themselves.

And now I know why nobody has won the million bucks.

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:20:27 -0400

Enjoy your delusions.

James Randi.

...

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
To: randi

And they would be what, exactly?

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Would this count for the million bucks?
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:51:52 -0400

Your choice.... That you now "know why nobody has won the million
bucks," or that saying magic words and tapping will cure headaches....

James Randi.

...

Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pepper" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Your basic dishonesty
To: randi

From your site:

Ms. Wagner of Whole Foods says:
"For balance, I also looked at the National Center for
Homeopathy's website
, which gave the
obviously differing view."

You said:
""Differing," yes, but no proof other than anecdotal,
Ms. Wagner. No number of stories will make up for a
good set of scientific data."

WTF!? Just click on the link, it shows controlled
studies in peer reviewed journals. Including Lancet!

Why go after Whole Foods? Homeopathy is approved by
the FDA. Why shouldn't they sell FDA approved
treatments? If you don't think they are useful, don't
buy them. Duh. But why shouldn't other people have the
option?

Pepper

...

From: "James Randi" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Pepper'"
Subject: RE: Your basic dishonesty
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:05:20 -0400

Again, another delusion of yours -- that you obviously enjoy.

If ANY homeopathic claim were demonstrated for us, we'd give the
million-dollar prize. NO HOMEOPATH has ever applied. Why do you
suppose....?

"Pepper," I'm busy getting the material together that we exchanged
during the week, to use on my web page next week. You're trying to get
off the subject now, so our correspondence is at an end.

'Bye. You're blocked.

James Randi.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 05:48 PM

Congratulations, you got what you wanted.

Well, yes, I did. I wanted to know why nobody had ever won the million dollor prize.

Pepper

ChristineR

29th March 2006, 05:51 PM

ChristineR

29th March 2006, 05:53 PM

Penny

29th March 2006, 06:18 PM

If this question/response is represented truthfully...

I'm making the claim. I'll use a headache as an example of a "problem". You rub a spot on your chest as say, "Eventhough I have this headache, I totally accept myself." Then you tap on the top of your head with your fingers and say to yourself, "this headache". Then you tap near your eye, nose, collar bone, under your arm, on your fingers, and then a point on your hand. This will get rid of the headache.

This is a silly game. I'm not interested. Grow up.

Personally, I'd describe that as more than a "slightly rude" response. Of course it's a ridiculous claim. But if you set up a challenge in order to prove that these sorts of claims are ridiculous and false, in my opinion you lose some credibility by dismissing potential applications on the basis that they sound ridiculous.

I realise this guy hadn't followed the application rules, but my understanding of the purpose of his initial email was to determine if his "field" is acceptable for the challenge, rather than an application in itself.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 06:32 PM

Yeah, he was sort of rude. So what? You didn't come up with a coherent claim, and you were fuzzy.

Headaches are pretty hard to test. Are headaches the only thing you claim to be able to cure? If so, we can probably come up with a coherent protocol, but it won't be simple.

You claim I didn't come up with a coherent claim, but it's clear you understand exactly what the claim was. :)

And, no headaches aren't the only thing I claim EFT can cure. I just used them as an example. At this point, I'm not interested in coming up with a protocol, coherent or otherwise. Randi has blocked me, and I now know why nobody has won the million bucks. The challenge is meaningless, that's why.

Pepper

Jon.

29th March 2006, 06:34 PM

You claim I didn't come up with a coherent claim, but it's clear you understand exactly what the claim was. :)

And, no headaches aren't the only thing I claim EFT can cure. I just used them as an example. At this point, I'm not interested in coming up with a protocol, coherent or otherwise. Randi has blocked me, and I now know why nobody has won the million bucks. The challenge is meaningless, that's why.

Pepper

Perhaps if you claimed to cure something more objectively verifiable than a headache, like warts or varicose veins or ingrown toenails (we don't need to mess with the health of people who are seriously sick), it would be easier to come up with a workable protocol.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 06:35 PM

No one can win the million dollar prize for an untestable claim. You talk to people, you touch them, then you ask them if they feel better, they say yes. Do you think you deserve a million dollars for that? Do you think that says anything about energy fields?

But the claim is testable. They could say "No". And you could test it against a placebo. HOW EFT works was not the issue, IF it works was.

Pepper

Pepper

29th March 2006, 06:42 PM

If this question/response is represented truthfully...
Personally, I'd describe that as more than a "slightly rude" response. Of course it's a ridiculous claim. But if you set up a challenge in order to prove that these sorts of claims are ridiculous and false, in my opinion you lose some credibility by dismissing potential applications on the basis that they sound ridiculous.

I realise this guy hadn't followed the application rules, but my understanding of the purpose of his initial email was to determine if his "field" is acceptable for the challenge, rather than an application in itself.

That's right. I wasn't applying. I was just asking if EFT would qualify for the challegne. And I think Randi had lost all credibility when he turned down Rico Kolodzey who claimed he could live on nothing but air and water, he told Kolodzey:
"Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter."

What if the guy can do this? Why not test? The guy made a clear, testable claim. I admit, I don't think the guy can do it, but again, why not test?

Pepper

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 06:46 PM

But the claim is testable. They could say "No". And you could test it against a placebo. HOW EFT works was not the issue, IF it works was.

I have to tell you, Pepper, I could only read a few pages of that before I got bored, and you made no testable claim. It's not Randi's job to make your claim for you, and he gave you much more help than you deserve. How on earth could you post that here and think somebody would take your side? What exactly is your point? That you completely wasted Randi's time and didn't like the words he spoke to you? This is the real world, kid, and people aren't gonna hold your hand, so quit your bitchin'.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 06:50 PM

edit: oh and Sam... are you Serious Sam by any chance? Just noticed the one-liner! :D

No. Why Randi chose to call me "Sam", I have no idea.

Pepper

Pepper

29th March 2006, 06:51 PM

I have to tell you, Pepper, I could only read a few pages of that before I got bored, and you made no testable claim.

I claimed EFT could cure a headache. That's a clear, testable claim.

Pepper

Soapy Sam

29th March 2006, 07:00 PM

Pepper. It's been almost a year.

In that time, you have no doubt acquired more evidence to support your belief that EFT works? And you have had time to work out a test protocol in considerable detail. If so, let's have it, but please bear in mind- this is an internet forum provided by JREF, it is not JREF itself. If you wish to take the challenge you need to follow the application procedure, which is temporarily stalled due to JR's illness and the departure of Kramer.

Yes, like many busy people, Randi can be brusque to the point of rudeness, especially with people he sees as wasting his time. Some people here may regret that, but that's how he is. Tell me, did you expect him to simply hand the money to you with a smile?
Is this intended to put people off? Of course it is. JREF is a very small organisation. They have to be selective about testing challengers. There are many truly deluded people out there who would beat a path to the door otherwise.

But you are not one of them. You have evidence that EFT works and you've had almost a year to figure out a test protocol to prove it. In some detail, I imagine.
You had your answer. The EFT claim is eligible if you can come up with an adequate testing protocol- but that is YOUR responsibility, not his, and you must do so through the existing channels.

So what are you waiting for?

ChaosEngineer

29th March 2006, 07:02 PM

The exact words are not important. It's the focusing
on the problem and accepting yourself while tapping
that's important.

OK, there's your problem. There's nothing magical about reducing pain by relaxing (or "accepting yourself") and concentrating on a distraction ("tapping"). The "focusing on the problem" part is a red herring; you'll get better results if you don't try to think about the headache.

You could have saved a lot of time if you'd explained your general method up front. I think the problem is that you got bogged down in specifics and Mr. Randi thought that your cure was caused by a specific pattern of words and taps.

How do they test headache cures?

Clinical trials involving hundreds of people, in situations where the subjects have no way of finding out whether they've taken the cure or the placebo. It costs a lot of money, so normally you have to convince a bioresearch firm or a university to sponsor you.

If you want to apply for a research grant, make sure to put a nice clear explanation in your application. (Maybe get a friend to help proofread it.) Labs aren't very patient with people who submit sloppy applications. If anything, they're even less patient than Mr. Randi. (Although they're more polite and probably won't insult you, at least not to your face.)

CriticalThanking

29th March 2006, 07:27 PM

NPR did a story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5309328) today on what I think is the same technique, though it is referenced as TFT if I heard it correctly. The person interviewed did her own study and found no difference from the placebo group. In the piece they talk about the self-reporting problem with emotional issues.

Pepper, you have your choice - you can b*tch about how poorly you have been treated, or you can read the FAQ and submit a protocol. The NPR piece is a good example of someone dispassionately testing their own beliefs in a credible manner. There are many here who will sincerely help you refine your protocol. There are many others who will flame you for going after Randi/JREF. The former would be honest, potentially worthwhile in many ways, and intellectually interesting. The latter would be sad, a loss to some, but likely entertaining. It is your choice.

CriticalThanking

Soulend

29th March 2006, 08:27 PM

I think possibly the e-mail exchange got off to a bad start. You were vague about your claim and it was written in a rather informal manner...leading Mr. Randi to think it was a joke. I'm sure he gets all sorts of off-the-wall e-mails.

Although the challenge is in limbo while Mr. Randi is recovering, I would devise a double-blind test procedure, preferably using subjects with some ailment or condition which can be clinically verified - if any exist which can be helped through EFT. The protocol can then be tweaked as neccesary to be acceptible to both parties.

themyst

29th March 2006, 08:55 PM

And, no headaches aren't the only thing I claim EFT can cure. I just used them as an example.

Hi Pepper

1) Are you saying you can heal people using nothing but EFT?
2.0) You mention that headaches are only an example, could you please give us a list of what you believe you can 'cure'?
2.1) When making the above list, could you write the list in descending order of your ability to 'cure' said item.

I believe most of us here would be willing to help you put together a procedure that will assist you in challenging JR for the $1m BUT we need you help by having you answer our questions in a truthful and precises way.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 09:28 PM

themyst

29th March 2006, 09:38 PM

I don't know how I can make this any more clear. I'm not interested the challenge.

You are not interested in $1m ??????

or are you just not really interested in finding out the truth (whatever that may be) about your abilities because we can still go through the motions with you, helping you set up a protocol that you can test yourself at home without anyone but yourself any the wiser.

The $1m is not there for people to win, winning the $1m is a by product to helping people think skeptically about life.

If you lived your life in a skeptical manner and you discovered this 'ability' of yours and followed a proper scientific method yourself, then the $1m is only a matter of paperwork.

BTW when I say the $1m is not there for people to win does not mean it can not be won, it can.

Ducky

29th March 2006, 09:53 PM

Pepper:

There is a claim that EFT can cure cancer. As a cancer patient I would be very interested to know how. Please explain this to me.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 09:57 PM

You are not interested in $1m ??????

I'm interested in a million, just not in Randi's meaningless challenge. I've tested EFT and know it works.

I am on a search for truth. I had wondered why if there are paranormal abilities why nobody had won Randi's million. So, I decided to find out for myself. Now I know.

Feel free to try EFT on yourself. I doesn't have to cost you a dime, and like you said, nobody but you will be the wiser.

Ducky

29th March 2006, 09:58 PM

Feel free to try EFT on yourself. I doesn't have to cost you a dime, and like you said, nobody but you will be the wiser.

I'm sorry, but before I submit to a medical treatment I like to know as much about it as possible. can you please explain how EFT will cure cancer?

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 10:16 PM

I claimed EFT could cure a headache. That's a clear, testable claim.

No, it's not. You just don't seem to get it. If Randi's guilty of anything, it's for writing pages of text that didn't teach you anything.

themyst

29th March 2006, 10:17 PM

I've tested EFT and know it works.

Could you tell us how you went about testing this??

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 10:20 PM

Pepper

29th March 2006, 10:20 PM

I'm sorry, but before I submit to a medical treatment I like to know as much about it as possible. can you please explain how EFT will cure cancer?

I think you are full of it. But just in case you aren't, go to the website. www dot emofree dot com and download the manual, it goes into detail about how to apply EFT. You can try it, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to pay, and I can't imagine there would be any side effects. I would never suggest you give up whatever other treatments you are using. If you don't wish to try it, that's your choice.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 10:25 PM

Randi doesn't handle the challenge applications. I don't see how you can claim he is dishonest or that the million dollar prize is meaningless. Unless you mean that it's meaningless since nobody can win it. Further more, how could you more prove your point by actually proving whatever it is you think you can do? You would surely win a Nobel prize and make plenty of money. Funny how this hasn't happened, isn't it?

You don't seem to realize that you're not the first person to post here claiming that the have super magical powers, but don't want the million dollar prize. Your actions are no suprise to us; we see you for the fraud you are.

I claim Randi is dishonest because he lied. And I've never claimed to have magical powers. Super, or otherwise.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 10:27 PM

No, it's not. You just don't seem to get it. If Randi's guilty of anything, it's for writing pages of text that didn't teach you anything.

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

themyst

29th March 2006, 10:29 PM

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

Not Testable!

That is why I asked for a list, to see if there is anything that can be testable.

Pepper

29th March 2006, 10:39 PM

Not Testable!

So, does aspirin cure headaches?

themyst

29th March 2006, 10:50 PM

So, does aspirin cure headaches?

Maybe but it has never cured any headache I have had and I have a lot.

BUT what it has proven to do is to thin one's blood and help in lowering the chances of a heart attack.

There are some benefits to aspirin that are provable and some that are conjecture with a high state/amount of evidence to back up the conjecture.

Ducky

29th March 2006, 11:01 PM

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 11:20 PM

So, does aspirin cure headaches?

No, not all of them.

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 11:23 PM

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

That's right, that claim is both not clear, and thus not testable.

First off, 'this method' doesn't refer to anything.

Now, let's pretend that we can all read your mind and understand exactly what your saying, and you think 'this method' = 'drinking water'. Now, I had a headache the other day, and I drank some water, and the headache went away.

Now, does drinking water cure headaches?

Admiral

29th March 2006, 11:24 PM

Aspirin (or my preference, Motrin), can be tested using placebos. Once group is given aspirin, and the other a sugar pill that is identical to aspirin in appearance.

The reason EFT is different is simple: giving the control group a sugar pill would NOT be identical to tapping themselves. It's possible that people simply react to the experience of taking a pill differently than tapping themselves. The point of the control group is to balance out the placebo effect. Suggest a way to do this for EFT, and you have a testable protocol.

Please remember- curing a headache through relaxing is not paranormal. Curing a headache through telling someone to feel better is also not paranormal. If your claim is simply that by relaxing and clearing one's mind (along with some tapping, which may or may not be useless) can cure a headache, it is not paranormal at all and is therefore not eligible for the Challenge.

themyst

29th March 2006, 11:26 PM

Maybe but it has never cured any headache I have had and I have a lot.

BUT what it has proven to do is to thin one's blood and help in lowering the chances of a heart attack.

There are some benefits to aspirin that are provable and some that are conjecture with a high state/amount of evidence to back up the conjecture.

[edit] Here is some info on the contents of the tablets I do use for headaches. Also before you saying that this is proof that the below cures my headache, how do you know that I am not just a junkie lying about having a fictional headache to get some Codeine.

I believe that was the point JR was making, how can you prove that someone has a headache. Before you can prove to cure a headache, you have to prove that the person has the headache in the first place.

If there is no headache, then there can be no cure. It is easier to prove to cure cancer as it is easier to prove to suffer from cancer.

SUNCODIN TABLETS

1971 Analgesics - Combinations Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd SUNCODIN TABLETS S2 SUNCODIN TABLETS Per tablet: Paracetamol 400 mg Codeine phosphate 8 mg Phenyltoloxamine citrate 12 mg Caffeine 32 mg A2.8 Analgesic combinations

strathmeyer

29th March 2006, 11:27 PM

I claim Randi is dishonest because he lied. And I've never claimed to have magical powers. Super, or otherwise.

a) What lie did Randi tell?
b) Earlier you said that you could make EFT work. Now it seems like you're saying you can't. Is isn't that a lie?

rjh01

30th March 2006, 03:40 AM

Do I smell a troll?

Indolent Wretch

30th March 2006, 05:33 AM

I think you are full of it. But just in case you aren't, go to the website. www dot emofree dot com and download the manual, it goes into detail about how to apply EFT. You can try it, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to pay, and I can't imagine there would be any side effects. I would never suggest you give up whatever other treatments you are using. If you don't wish to try it, that's your choice.

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.

C'mon, 50 words or less --> 'How does EFT cure cancer?' <--

And don't fob me off with an apparently unanswerable and equivalent question like how does love cure rabies, or why does aspirin make my dog feel better. Answer the question above in 50 words or less, not a detailed answer just the gist of it. The question above. You can see it there, above, I've highlighted it in bold so that you can't miss it, it's got arrows on either side.

Pretty please

If you manage it I PROMISE that I'll read the site your trying to direct us to, Promise, I'll read the whole thing and give you a completely honest opinion. But first 50 words or less, 'How does EFT cure cancer?'

Even if you think you can't adequately answer the question in 50 words, just give it your best shot. 'How does EFT cure cancer?'

Just in case you refuse I'll ask some other slightly more basic questions in a possibly vain attempt to get some response:

Do you know what cancer is?

Do you know what energy is?

Do you understand Albert Einstein's matter/energy equation?

Do you understand how that equation has nothing to do with human health?

Do you understand that just because something was discovered 5000 years ago doesn't mean it's worth anything?

Do you understand that some people exploit sickness in others in order to make money?

While we are here lets see if we can find anything on Gary Craigs EFT advisory board:

Henry Altenberg, MD - Psychiatrist (not much use for cancer)

Daniel J. Benor, MD - Wholistic Psychiatric Psychotherapist (???)

Irene A. Cohen, MD - Psychiatrist integrating Chilel qigong, energy balancing with sound tubes, color and movement (????????????!!!!)

Judith Friedman, MD - Other than the Emofree site the only reference I can find is a one line book review of a bringing up teenagers self help book may be some sort of psycologist (clearly the cure for cancer is coming from here)

Gary Peterson, MD - Found a website 'Gary Petersons Energy Healing Resources' where among other things he refers to 'Chinese Meridien Selected Acupoints Diagram' (Quack)

Eric Robins, MD - Has written a book, wehay now we are getting somewhere, title is 'Your Hands Can Heal You: Pranic Healing Energy Remedies to Boost Vitality and Speed Recovery from Common Health Problems', oh what a disappointment, I was hoping for some study into the prevention and elimation from the body of invasive cancer cells. (Nutjob)

Raul Vergini, MD - An Italian homeopath (Oooo don't go there) who seems to believe that arthritis is cause by having negative emotions. Yep, another world beater.

Dr. Joseph Mercola - Runs a website that promises to tell you your metabolic type instantly over the net, in actuality they want your email address, can't think what for. Uses the word guarantee a lot, and always in capitals. (Used car salesman of a doctor), also apparently the author of the total health program, so I can't imagine why so many people are still sick.

Cheryl Richardson, author - Yep, author, of life changing books no less, especially if you trip over one and fall down the stairs, smiles a lot, wants you to buy a fairy chime with a card from her webstore. Next week Stephen King announces that he has discovered the cure for AIDs.

Christopher Hegarty, PhD - Ooo nasty, in charge of a Alternate medicine magazine called (vomit) 'Quantum Touch'. Apparantly the answers within have allowed Reiki practioners to 'improve' their art, such a recommendation (Quack Nutjob, if you ever get cancer Pepper turn away from this man and just keep running)

Nancy Steele, PhD, TSTA - Seriously into Redicision Therapy and thinks EFT is the best thing she's learned in 40 years, one wonders what she's been doing all this time. Apparantly can cure someone of a fear of heights in 2 minutes, I'm sure Derren Brown can do it quicker. Does anyone really believe these case histories?

Curtis Steele, MD, ABPN - Another psychiatrist, has no training in any medicine applicable to cancer, 'whose interest is to facilitate the innate healing response that lies within people' sounds like a mission statement of a Miss World contestant, also a lousy photographer.

Patricia Carrington, PhD - Psychiatrist, member of the association of Meridian Energy Therapies, some links to Reiki that most scientifically based of all medicines.

Inci Erkin, MD - Prescribed some 'tapping' for his secretary who had piles, considerate employer. Also practices AAMET (Meridian Energy Therapy) maybe its the same thing, who can tell, energy this, quantum that, negative the other. Google seems to link him to a site called women-viagara-larger-breasts dot biz. Much though I appreciate the idea he certainly isn't going to be tapping my wifes breasts, thank you very much.

Myron Koch, MD - Another psychiatrist, only ever mentioned in relation to EFT, never seems to have achieved anything else.

David Lake, MD - has extensive training in Gestalt Therapy, Hypnotherapy, Analytic Psychotherapy, Provocative Therapy, and EMD/R, so clearly he isn't just a one trick pony, when my smoking finally gets me I'll let him tap my lungs whilst fondling my meridians. Anyone know what provocative therapy is?

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.

Oooo Pepper in case you forgot...

C'mon, 50 words or less --> 'How does EFT cure cancer?' <--

Thats HOW, not why, not read this, not 'free your mind'. HOW, as in HOW does it work, HOW. Not the method of practioning, HOW it works, HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW!

CriticalThanking

30th March 2006, 06:16 AM

Pepper,

I listened to the NPR story again. I did look on the website you recommended and found the differences they claim between TFT and EFT (emphasis mine):
TFT uses similar principles as EFT but asks the student to learn 10 or 15 different tapping routines (called algorithms), each of which is designed to cover a specific issue such as trauma, phobias, depression, etc . Anything not covered by those individual routines (e.g. insomnia, TMJ, dyslexia, etc.) requires a diagnostic process. EFT, by contrast, uses only one comprehensive tapping routine to cover all issues (not just 10 or 15) and doesn’t require diagnosis.

In following the link at the end of the quoted section above, we come to what may help develop a protocol:
[TFT] would only work once in a while but sputter miserably most of the time as the presumed requirement for "order" is consistently violated. The only "order" involved in the EFT Sequence is to go down the body. This makes it easy to memorize. There is no other reason. It's the same "order" for every case. You can do it backwards if you want and it will still work.
I see several opportunities for a protocol. The practitioner could go "up the body". Alternatively, the practitioner could go in the "correct order" but intentionally tap points that have nothing to do with EFT. Why not both as another test?

Calahan claims that TFT can cure malaira. I did not see that on the list of EFT claims, but since the emofree site claims "EFT has potential use for just about every known physical and emotional ailment," I would think malaria and [for Fowlsound] cancer would be in there. The hard part in the US would be finding lots of cases of malaria, but there are certainly enough cases of cancer around. Because so many of emotional claims, I would recommend staying with specific physical issues, like cancer. I don't see a problem with adding EFT therapy to existing treatments (NOT AS AN ALTERNATIVE), and see if the recovery/mortality rates are different in a statistically significant way.

Again - I don't care what you think of Randi or the million (although that money sure would fund your curing a lot of people and get bring positive attention to EFT). You would be doing mankind a tremendous service by showing the efficacy of this treatment in a controlled setting.

So this is my last plea - sit and gripe (and get flamed), or develop a protocol, whether for the JREF challenge or your own study. The former suggests you need an EFT treatment for anger, the latter shows maturity.

CriticalThanking

Piggy

30th March 2006, 06:28 AM

I see several opportunities for a protocol. The practitioner could go "up the body". Alternatively, the practitioner could go in the "correct order" but intentionally tap points that have nothing to do with EFT.
The first won't work. EFT claims that the order is only to make it easier to memorize and that it'll work no matter the order.

The claims about meridian points, tho, might do it. Unless, of course, EFT claims that the specific meridian points really aren't necessary, either.

As was pointed out already, if they're only claiming that relaxation, mood stimulation, and sympathetic contact with another human are helpful in staying healthy (which is really only a claim that stress, depression, and isolation tend to be harmful) then there's nothing paranormal or even new here.

ChristineR

30th March 2006, 07:17 AM

Pepper, I understand why you're upset. For better or for worse, this is Randi's challenge and you have to play by Randi's rules.

I think the best way to test an EFT cure for a headache would be to find a group of people who are get frequent headaches. Teach half of them to do EFT on themselves and teach half of them to do EFT, but tapping in the wrong place. You would not be able to teach the subjects because you might give them subtle hints that the technique should not work. Ideally, even the teacher wouldn't know if s/he was teaching the correct or the sham technique.

Then the subjects would have to keep a diary of their headaches and their response with EFT. They'd have to put numerical scores on their experiences. Then someone would have to crunch the numbers and see if there was a statistical improvement in the outcome.

This is a lot of work, but I think if you had told Randi that you were planning to do this he might have listened to you. What you said was "I can cure headaches with EFT." That's too vague to be testable.

Now practically speaking: is there a way to do EFT on a healthy person that would get some sort of interesting response?

Thing

30th March 2006, 08:41 AM

CriticalThanking

30th March 2006, 10:10 AM

The first won't work. EFT claims that the order is only to make it easier to memorize and that it'll work no matter the order..Good catch - I misread that.

As was pointed out already, if they're only claiming that relaxation, mood stimulation, and sympathetic contact with another human are helpful in staying healthy (which is really only a claim that stress, depression, and isolation tend to be harmful) then there's nothing paranormal or even new here.That is why Pepper needs to stay away from headaches or other conditions with potential self-reporting issues. The website he keeps pointing people to claims it works on almost any physical ailment. Cancer sticks out as a good candidate.

Diabetes is a potential candidate, but can be problematic. The EFT website only refers to improving the blood sugar levels of patients, not curing them. It might be harder to isolate the relaxation effects of the treatment. I don;t know enough about the type of diabetes or the "levels" of the disease to know if certain candidates would be better than others.

Pepper - any comments?

ETA - Pepper: Piggy, Christine, and I (and others) are trying to help you come up with testing protocols. Such protocols are required regarless of whether you are taking the JREF challenge or designing a study that could be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Positive results from such a test with good controls would go a long way to getting EFT accepted by "mainstream science."

CT

Pepper

30th March 2006, 11:10 AM

I'm sorry, where was I rude or stand offish to you? I asked you to simply tell me more about how EFT cures cancer, and you accuse me of lying to you? It is well established both on this forum and in my blog I am a cancer patient.

Is there a specific reason you would accuse me of lying and refuse to answer my direct question about how EFT cures cancer?
.

My bad. Please accept my appology.

I never claimed EFT cures cancer. But you have nothing to lose by trying.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 11:14 AM

Pepper doesn't seem to be pursuing this path. I can think of one reason why, but it's not very complimentary to Pepper. Perhaps there are others...

Somebody tells me flat out they have blocked me, so I decide not to try to contact them anymore. That says something not complimentary about me!? You must love stalkers!

ChristineR

30th March 2006, 11:20 AM

Pepper, you do not have to deal with Randi. First of all, he's in the hospital. Secondly, Randi is not usually involved in the challenge testing directly (although he does give advice). Too many claiments say that their abilities don't work when Randi is around. Simply stating that you do not want Randi to be present at your test will probably be enough. You could put it in your application. "James Randi will not personally be present at the preliminary test because he intimidates the claiment and may impair the procedure." Your paranormal ability isn't any less paranormal if it can't be demonstrated in the presense of a cranky magician.

TimmyBerry

30th March 2006, 11:26 AM

Oh! Oh! I sense a pattern. :)

Pepper: "I do EFT, which involves curing all sorts of stuff!"
Forum members: "Tell us how EFT works!"
Pepper: "Randi is a poopoo-head."
Forum members: "... And how does that relate to EFT?"
Pepper: " I guess EFT doesn't cure all sorts of stuff, after all..."

... This is going nowhere.

RobT

30th March 2006, 11:50 AM

this has been going nowhere since Randi got rightly hacked off with the silly exchange on email. Indolent Wretch needs an answer before this moves on.
There's no point in reading another post that doesn't tackle those questions or even just one.

aggle-rithm

30th March 2006, 11:54 AM

I claimed EFT could cure a headache. That's a clear, testable claim.

Pepper

About ten years ago my wife and I attended an est-like seminar. There were strict rules attendees were supposed to follow; one of them was a prohibition against any kind of over-the-counter drugs, including aspirin. The speaker promised a drug-free way to get rid of headaches, for those who couldn't deal with the pain.

She had everyone with a headache stand up and do various breathing and stretching exercises, asking them to focus on various affirmations that would lead to the banishment of the headache. My wife was among those who stood up.

As the exercise continued, she asked people to sit as their headaches disappeared. One by one, they sat down, including, eventually, my wife. It really worked! Their headaches were gone! Or so it seemed.

I asked my wife later if it really worked as well as it appeared. She said, "No, I still have my headache. I just got tired of standing."

There is also the inclination to deny a headache if one feels they are "supposed" to feel relief. I know I would feel I was being rude and ungrateful if someone were trying to relieve my pain, and I told him flat out that it wasn't helping.

My point is: There are MANY factors that could lead someone to lie about whether they really had a headache or not, and no way to control for them all. I suspect the way drug companies do it is to work with an extremely large sample size, so that this type of "noise" doesn't mar the results.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 11:56 AM

Simply stating that you do not want Randi to be present at your test will probably be enough.

Could you please tell me what part of, "I'm not intereted in the challenge." isn't clear? I really don't get it. People keep acting like I saying I want to apply for the challenge.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 12:01 PM

Oooo Pepper in case you forgot...

C'mon, 50 words or less --> 'How does EFT cure cancer?' <--

Thats HOW, not why, not read this, not 'free your mind'. HOW, as in HOW does it work, HOW. Not the method of practioning, HOW it works, HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW!

Thanks for the laugh. But two minor points. 1. I never claimed that EFT cures cancer. 2. I never claimed to know how it works.

CriticalThanking

30th March 2006, 12:03 PM

Could you please tell me what part of, "I'm not intereted in the challenge." isn't clear? I really don't get it. People keep acting like I saying I want to apply for the challenge.Unless you are asking the folks here to help you develop a protocol for use in real testing, why are you here? You haven't responded to those of us wishing to see you do actual testing. If you wish to just b*tch about Randi or JREF, I will be happy(?) to put you on ignore or take my own potshots. You either want this stuff tested somewhere or you don't. I'm done until I hear something constructive from you.

CT

RobT

30th March 2006, 12:03 PM

good that's the end of that then we can all get on with our lives safe in the knowledge that EFT can't be proved to work, ipso facto it doesn't, so I will file it with God etc.
and go back to moving the bibles from the reference section in the library to the fiction.

aggle-rithm

30th March 2006, 12:03 PM

Could you please tell me what part of, "I'm not intereted in the challenge." isn't clear? I really don't get it. People keep acting like I saying I want to apply for the challenge.

Maybe the word "intereted"?

Sorry, that was low.

The reason people keep encouraging you is that you clearly believe you have been thwarted from applying for the challenge, and THAT is why you are not interested. You seem to think this happens to every person who takes the challenge. They are trying to convince you otherwise.

CriticalThanking

30th March 2006, 12:04 PM

And Pepper, you are correct. HOW is not important until you can prove EFT can cure a physical ailment. Until then...

CT

strathmeyer

30th March 2006, 12:13 PM

Thanks for the laugh. But two minor points. 1. I never claimed that EFT cures cancer. 2. I never claimed to know how it works.

Then how do you know that it does work?

Pepper

30th March 2006, 12:20 PM

Unless you are asking the folks here to help you develop a protocol for use in real testing, why are you here?

To show that Randi is dishonest, and his challenge is meaningless.

Psiload

30th March 2006, 12:45 PM

To show that Randi is dishonest, and his challenge is meaningless. And this will promote the cause of EFT how?

roger

30th March 2006, 12:46 PM

To show that Randi is dishonest, and his challenge is meaningless.And you tried to do that by dishonestly presenting yourself as an applicant, wasting his time, and not responding substantively to his questions.

My irony meter just broke.

ChristineR

30th March 2006, 12:50 PM

Sorry Pepper, but your transcript indicates that you either did not understand the challenge or were unwilling to follow its rules. The challenge is real, people take it all the time. So you haven't convinced me of a thing. I assumed that you were here because you had a bad experience and didn't understand why, and I thought I could help by showing you where you went wrong. You're not the first person to criticize Randi for rudeness--it happens all the time, even among the diehard celebrity skeptics. Nonetheless, if your goal is convince people Randi is dishonest and the challenge is meaningless you have failed.

I suppose you could argue that the challenge is closed to people who are too insecure to tolerate Randi's personality--a legitimate complaint, but beside the point. You don't get to change the world, but if you can do what you say you can, you can get Randi to give you a million, and a bunch of strangers here were ready and willing to give you support in facing him. Strangers who love the guy, in fact! So no, I'm not buying your complaints. Feel bad about the insults, admit what the real problem is, and deal with it.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 01:08 PM

And you tried to do that by dishonestly presenting yourself as an applicant, wasting his time, and not responding substantively to his questions.

My irony meter just broke.

Read the exchange. I wrote to ask him if EFT would qualify for the challenge. All he had to say was "Yes. Now apply." or "No. It doesn't" But he didn't do either. That was HIS choice.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 01:11 PM

Nonetheless, if your goal is convince people Randi is dishonest and the challenge is meaningless you have failed.

Well, if pointing out actual lies he has told doesn't convince you he's dishonest, nothing will. Maybe your feelings for him are getting in the way of your objectivity.

ChristineR

30th March 2006, 01:20 PM

C S Costa

30th March 2006, 01:48 PM

Alright already!
You win.
Randi is a liar.
The challenge is a fraud.
And EFT is the cure for everything.
Feel better now?
You sure convinced me.

It's true :)

CriticalThanking

30th March 2006, 01:50 PM

To show that Randi is dishonest, and his challenge is meaningless.Thank you for the clarification. So far, you have failed in that. It has been pointed out to you that people have taken and continue to take the challenge. You have yet to point out a lie. Rudeness, yes. Lie, no.

Neither of these things is relevant to EFT or its acceptance. Several of us have offerred sincere help with testing EFT in the venue of your choosing. You apparently think public whining is more important than EFT. Ok. You are classifying yourself as troll. In that case, [RULE 8] off. At least you had the brain cells to apologize to Fowlsound. What a shame you choose not to use them for learning about EFT as well. I had higher hopes.

Have a nice day,

CT

PS - Wow! My first post involving [Rule 8].

LordoftheLeftHand

30th March 2006, 02:31 PM

Well, if pointing out actual lies he has told doesn't convince you he's dishonest, nothing will. Maybe your feelings for him are getting in the way of your objectivity.

Well I've read through this thread a couple times and I still can't see where Mr. Randi lied to you. Please show me and be very clear for those of us who are not too bright.

LLH

roger

30th March 2006, 02:35 PM

Read the exchange. I wrote to ask him if EFT would qualify for the challenge. All he had to say was "Yes. Now apply." or "No. It doesn't" But he didn't do either. That was HIS choice.You NEVER specified a claim.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on your part as to what constitutes a claim in this context. It's not a vague statement in the lines of "I can use X to cure Y". It's a precise statement that might go something like this: "Given a group of 20 people with condition Y, previously validated by independent doctors as having the condition, split them into a control group of 10 and a test set of ten, I will do X to the experimental group, and over a 3 day interval the experimental group will show a z% improvment compared to the control group."

Now that's a claim Randi can say yes or no to. How the heck can he say yes or no to anything you wrote to him about. You had no intention of applying, you did not try to apply, and now you complain that he didn't take your non-application seriosly. Well, guess what? We're not taking you seriously either.

You've certainly shown that if someone doesn't try to legitimately apply for the prize that they may not be accepted. Color me shocked.

ETA: and of course if I presented that claim above, Randi would return with a bunch of questions - how do you plan to show that z% improvement? Are the doctors blinded to the trial. Etc. Someone intent on the $1M would answer, rather than bitch and moan. He tried to get you to give him information to allow you to apply, and you refused. TFB.

Thing

30th March 2006, 03:37 PM

Pepper, pay attention: your current attempts to discredit Randi are failing because you look like a ridiculous blowhard with a vague claim he won't back up. If you made your claim specific and demonstrated it in the manner that the challenge requires (without entering it since you're not interested in so doing) then your arguments might have some force. So why aren't you doing this? Don't you want to be taken seriously?

petre

30th March 2006, 03:42 PM

The wisdom he seeks lies deep in the heart of Africa, behind a tree.

Go look, you have nothing to lose!

Pepper

30th March 2006, 03:50 PM

I've just re-read the exchange, and I noticed the insults. Please point out the lies, because I haven't found them. By the way, I have never met Randi, and I'm not sure I'd enjoy the experience if I ever did.

Near the end of the exchange, the part about homeopathy. And here:
http://www.randi.org/jr/042205modern.html
Randi claims I didn't provide him with any notion of what EFT is, any reference, or any description, when clearly I gave him a link to the EFT website in my first email.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 03:55 PM

The wisdom he seeks lies deep in the heart of Africa, behind a tree.

Go look, you have nothing to lose!

Yes, I do. It costs a great deal of money to go to Africa, as well as a great deal of time.

The irony is you "skeptics" have turned out to be as much of a bunch of true believers than any born agains I've run into.

HappyCat

30th March 2006, 04:37 PM

When you say a headache is testable, how do you know that the person who claims to have a headache actually has one? How do you know that they are telling the truth about the relief of their headache after the test is done? There is no way to measure the pain one feels from a headache, so there is no way to measure when the headache has been relieved. Furthermore, there is no way to determine that EFT is the actual cure for the headache. Headaches tend to go away with time, with or without treatment. How do you know that the headache didn't just go away on its own, but that EFT is the ONLY possible way that headache could have been releived? These are the questions that make headaches very difficult to test, if not impossible.

I read the website you provided (www.emofree.com). It says that EFT can cure diabetes. I know that you are no longer interested in applying, but had you used this, since blood sugar levels can be concretely tested, I am sure that it would have made a much better protocol for testing. And even though you are blocked from e-mailing Randi personally, I am sure that if you sent in a properly notorized application with a solid proceedure to cure diabetes to the JREF, they would still test you. This challenge is not meaningless, it is simply Randi's way of asking you to do what you claim you can.

Lamuella

30th March 2006, 05:19 PM

I don't know how I can make this any more clear. I'm not interested the challenge. I now know it's meaningless, and that Randi is dishonest. Also, he has blocked me. And I consider that the end of the matter, I'd consider that the end of the matter even if I did want to apply for the challenge.

What can EFT cure or help? I don't have a list. I'll just say what the person who came up with it says when asked, "Will EFT work on...?", "Try it.".

Pepper

Wow. How astonishingly scientific.

Pepper, can you imagine an employee at Glaxo Wellcome telling people if they want to know if a new drug works on a condition that they should just try it?

By making only the claim that EFT might help you if you try it, EFT is relying on placebo effect. People will think they are doing something about their problem, and so will feel better.

The reason you got such a gruff response from Randi was that you weren't laying out a specific test. You were saying "will {vague and undefined buzzword} qualify for the million dollar prize?" and forcing him to do all the legwork in working out what you are talking about.

As many people have said, if you are applying for the challenge, you need to put together a very specific and testable set of conditions. You need to say what you can do and the conditions in which you can do it.

"Will this qualify for the prize?" is a terrible question, because Randi cannot know whether it will qualift until he sees your detailed description of what you claim to be able to do and under what conditions. Your description of what you could do was vague and unspecific. You for some reason thought that Randi should do all the legwork and find out exactly what your abilities were. That's not how it works.

As for your claim that he was "dishonest", he seems more like someone who grew tired of dealing with nonspecific flimflam and decided you were wasting his time.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 05:42 PM

I read the website you provided (www.emofree.com). It says that EFT can cure diabetes. I know that you are no longer interested in applying, but had you used this, since blood sugar levels can be concretely tested, I am sure that it would have made a much better protocol for testing. And even though you are blocked from e-mailing Randi personally, I am sure that if you sent in a properly notorized application with a solid proceedure to cure diabetes to the JREF, they would still test you. This challenge is not meaningless, it is simply Randi's way of asking you to do what you claim you can.

I couldn't find where the site said EFT can cure diabetes. I found this:

QUESTION: "What response have you had with EFT with Fibromyalgia or Diabetes, if any?"

RESPONSE: We have no miracle cures here. However, we have had good results with the symptoms of various degenerative diseases, including Fibromyalgia.
http://www.emofree.com/articles/degenera.htm

A lot of people have written a lot of different things on that site, so it might say there is a cure somewhere else.

I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. Perhaps I haven't made that clear. :)

Lamuella

30th March 2006, 05:49 PM

Search on Google for "emt diabetes". I found these quotes on emofree.com in the first 20 seconds of searching (but can't post URLS because of my postcount):

Diabetes treatment through the Emotional Freedom Technique creates dramatic turn-around.

Michael is a 59 year-old obese male. Suffering from leg ulcers, advanced diabetes, leg and back pain.

After EFT:
Michael's insulin need dropped from 3 shots per day to 1 shot per week.
His sugar level dropped from 400 to 109.
His leg ulcer is healing and the blood pressure to his feet has increased.
The leg and back pain are gone.
His energy level has increased dramatically.

And if you're not interested in applying for the challenge:

1) what are you complaining about?
2) Why did you bother asking if something was suitable for the challenge?

Jon.

30th March 2006, 05:49 PM

I couldn't find where the site said EFT can cure diabetes.

On the front page. Here (http://www.emofree.com/diabetes.htm) is where the link takes you.

I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. Perhaps I haven't made that clear. :)

Then what is your purpose here? :confused:

Are you just vindictive? If so, why do you keep ducking the question of whether EFT can cure anything that can be observed objectively?

Piggy

30th March 2006, 05:55 PM

I wrote to ask him if EFT would qualify for the challenge. All he had to say was "Yes. Now apply." or "No. It doesn't" But he didn't do either. That was HIS choice.
Actually, it wasn't his choice. He couldn't tell you if it would qualify, given what you'd told him. No one could have.

Telling him to go look something up isn't fair on your part, Pepper. If you want to ask him "If I do this, would it be elligible?" then you have to explain to him exactly what it is you intend to do. "Cure a headache" isn't exact. That's a result, not a procedure -- the prize requires a procedure. Making Randi run around in search of a procedure isn't kosher, especially when he's not the one who'll judge it.

I've read that site and the PDF, btw, and there are no testable claims and protocols to be had, so it would have been for naught if he had followed your advice.

Let me give you another example of a testable claim: Increasing daily dietary fiber by 10% over 12 months will result in a 10% reduction in LDL cholesterol if all other aspects of the diet remain constant.

From there, a test protocol can be developed.

Now, you may not have said anything about being effective against cancer or diabetes, but the Web site you keep referring people to does. And that's why folks here have brought it up in an attempt to define a testable claim that could win the prize. (You can't have it both ways, Pepper. Either we're dealing with your claims and the site's claims, or just your claims.)

I suggest this.

First, shrug off Randi's rudeness. He doesn't control the testing anyway, so who cares? Ditto for anyone on this forum.

Select another ailment that EFT is effective against which has an objectively measurable marker and which is not as temporary as headaches (I liked the suggestion above which involved blood glucose).

Then, define your "placebo" -- that is, something which is indistinguishable from EFT from the point of view of the subject and the administrator, but which is not EFT. (For drug studies, it's usually a sugar pill or something of that sort -- neither the people giving the test nor the people taking the test have any way of knowing if they're getting the real thing or a "dummy".)

Once you do that, we can talk about how to set up a valid test.

As has been mentioned, if performing EFT on the "meridian points" can be shown to do something objective like lower blood glucose or reduce tumors in a certain number of subjects, while doing the identical process on random points does not have this effect on a (statistically significant) lower number of subjects, then you're looking at a million bucks!

Pepper

30th March 2006, 07:35 PM

And if you're not interested in applying for the challenge:

1) what are you complaining about?
2) Why did you bother asking if something was suitable for the challenge?

At the time I asked if EFT would qualify, I was interested. I'm not now.

Piggy

30th March 2006, 07:41 PM

At the time I asked if EFT would qualify, I was interested. I'm not now.
Please go back and read post #100.

It explains (or offers an explanation) why your question wasn't answered the way you wanted it to be answered.

Sure, you get some snipers here, but keep in mind, from the point of view of this board (which will not be judging your protocol) your claims are pretty amazing. So we're... you know... skeptical.

And Randi won't be judging the test either, so his response isn't really relevant either.

There are people here who will be more than happy to help you set up a protocol to test your claims. In fact, I'd bet that most everyone here would. But you gotta meet this board halfway. What you're seeing is frustration from folks who have seen evasion and excuses again and again and again. So be patient with us, please. Surely, if your claim is valid, it's worth a little patience.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 07:41 PM

Actually, it wasn't his choice. He couldn't tell you if it would qualify, given what you'd told him. No one could have.

Telling him to go look something up isn't fair on your part, Pepper. If you want to ask him "If I do this, would it be elligible?" then you have to explain to him exactly what it is you intend to do. "Cure a headache" isn't exact.

Then why when I asked him this, "And you still didn't answer the question. IF I could demonstrate EFT works, would I get the million bucks?" did he answer, "The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed." I've posted our email exchange.

And perhaps I haven't made it clear, I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. :)

Piggy

30th March 2006, 07:52 PM

Then why when I asked him this, "And you still didn't answer the question. IF I could demonstrate EFT works, would I get the million bucks?" did he answer, "The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed." I've posted our email exchange.
I dunno. I ain't Randi and I've never met him. I also have no way of knowing if the entire email exchange was posted -- you said you edited it. But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter b/c Randi doesn't judge the challenge. So who cares what he said or how rude he was. Maybe he was constipated and not gettin' any. That won't keep you from winning.
And perhaps I haven't made it clear, I'm not interested in applying for the challenge.
Oh, no, you made it clear. But what I'm saying is, you should be interested. I think you're confusing Randi and this forum with the challenge, which isn't judged by Randi or by the forum. All the negativity you're feeling -- doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.

Do you think Einstein, Edison, or Curie allowed themselved to be stopped in their tracks by the naysayers?

Look, here's the deal. Don't worry about asking Randi anything. He just puts up the money. He decides nothing. And none of us on this forum decide anything.

Let us help you develop a testable claim and protocol. But you have to understand that it is going to be rigorous. That's for your protection as well as the JREF's.

If you're not up to that, then hey, you're not up to that.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would not be interested in a million bucks for showing they can do what they've already done.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 07:53 PM

On the front page. Here (http://www.emofree.com/diabetes.htm) is where the link takes you.

Then what is your purpose here? :confused:

Are you just vindictive? If so, why do you keep ducking the question of whether EFT can cure anything that can be observed objectively?

No claim of a cure I can find. Can you quote where it is?

I'm not ducking the question. Someone asked me how EFT can cure cancer. I never said it could, and never said I knew how EFT works. How is that ducking the question?

ChristineR

30th March 2006, 07:54 PM

Well, the National Center for Homeopathy has eight peer-reviewed articles about homeopathy. One showed positive results, but the study size was small and the authors were pretty cautious about the results. The chance of the positive results being due to chance alone was about one in twenty. Similar criticisms apply to the vertigo study.

One compared homeopathy to acetaminophen for osteoarthritis. The patients liked the homeopathic remedy better. However acetaminophen isn't all that effective against osteoarthritis and it has side effects. So the study is interesting, but apparently not well controlled. Similar critcisms apply to the varicose vein, and fibrotis study.

The diarrhea study has been criticized. A lot of people believe it was botched. Even so, that leaves about two really convincing studies in the last twenty years. When Randi says all the evidence is anectdotal he's painting with a broad brush. He really should have said it was all anectdotal, except for a few flukes.

The Lancet article from 1986 is counterbalanced by numerous Lancet articles that reviewed homeopathy studies and concluded that it doesn't work. I was unable to find any comments on this article, so possibly it was just a fluke.

Despite all this, if one of these researchers had applied to Randi before his test and had gotten lucky--then Randi would have had to fork over his million.

Piggy

30th March 2006, 08:01 PM

No claim of a cure I can find. Can you quote where it is?
I can.

It's on this page (http://www.cancer-pain-management.emofree.com/), which claims: "it was both observationally and intuitively clear that EFT contributed materially to the healing of approximately half of these cancer clients."

This is a claim that EFT can contribute materially to the healing of cancer in 50% of cases.

Note that this is not a claim merely of correlation, but of material contribution to healing.

It is a claim that if you follow EFT, you can measurably increase your chances of beating the disease compared to those who do not practice EFT.

Pepper

30th March 2006, 08:07 PM

I can.

It's on this page (http://www.cancer-pain-management.emofree.com/), which claims: "it was both observationally and intuitively clear that EFT contributed materially to the healing of approximately half of these cancer clients."

When did cancer become diabetes?

Pepper

30th March 2006, 08:12 PM

Blindwatcher

30th March 2006, 08:15 PM

Ahh, fibromyalgia.
Well, this is a great disease to do a test on... considering the pathogenesis is unknown and the disease has a correlation with psychiatric illnesses. It also tends to respond favorably to SSRI's, which, by a strange coincidence, also are fairly effective at treating depression, OCD, anxiety, and other psychiatric illnesses.
*cough* psychosomatic *cough*
Excuse me.

Sorry, just had to put in my two cents. :D Back to lurking.

Piggy

30th March 2006, 08:25 PM

When did cancer become diabetes?
Oops. Sorry. Got my claims mixed up.

But hey, if you can do it for cancer, why not go with that?

Again, it doesn't matter if someone on this forum said you claimed something you didn't (either intentionally or by accident). On message boards, that happens. We ignore the cranks and glean what's useful.

As for diabetes, there are interesting pages called Using EFT for diabetes (http://www.emofree.com/diabetes.htm) and Can we cure cancer, MS, diabetes, etc. (http://www.emofree.com/articles/canwe.htm)

The anecdotal evidence is strong and the mood is hopeful.

So let's set up a test.

Hell, why not?!

It works, doesn't it? And no one who's misunderstood you or been rude to you will be a judge. In fact, you'll agree on the protocol and judges. You can exclude anyone you feel is biased!

Piggy

30th March 2006, 08:31 PM

themyst

30th March 2006, 09:37 PM

At the time I asked if EFT would qualify, I was interested. I'm not now.

To show that Randi is dishonest, and his challenge is meaningless.

Then you are on the wrong board, please go to another board. I know the JREF Forum has many boards to suit your purpose. For the above, this is not the place. Try one of the following instead.

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
or
Humor
or
Abandon All Hope
or
General Skepticism and The Paranormal

This board ("Million Dollar Challenge") is for those interested in the ....... wait for it ..... Million Dollar Challenge.

To say you are not interested in the $1m and to post here is asking for trouble. Please go to another board until you are ready to try for the $1m. We will wait here for you and when you return we will help you to the best of our ability to set up a valid claim for the $1m.

Indolent Wretch

31st March 2006, 01:13 AM

Thanks for the laugh. But two minor points. 1. I never claimed that EFT cures cancer. 2. I never claimed to know how it works.

No but the site you keep referring to that champions your form of healing, that invented the form of healing from what I can read DOES.

Accordingly, you can use it for just about everything. That is one of the most astonishing things about it. You use the same basic procedure for your fear of public speaking as you do for improving your golf score. You can also use it for everything from the common cold to cancer.

Their bolding not mine.

Another question, do you believe it is right to perform a treatment on a person when you have absolutely no knowledge of how the treatment works?

dogbite666

31st March 2006, 01:45 AM

ChristineR

31st March 2006, 05:01 AM

The no-food guy incident has been discussed on these boards ad infinitum. The only way to test that is to lock a person in a cell for weeks. That's expensive, not to mention inconveinient. And then what? The guy starts to get sick. A doctor orders that the test be stopped. The claimant objects--just a few more days, and he'll be a millionaire.

Then he dies. Sorry, the JREF isn't going to do it. I wish that Randi hadn't written that e-mail, but he's right, the man is a fool.

Jekyll

31st March 2006, 06:28 AM

Then why when I asked him this, "And you still didn't answer the question. IF I could demonstrate EFT works, would I get the million bucks?" did he answer, "The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed." I've posted our email exchange.

Because a headache getting better isn't evidence of anything happening.

Now if you could cure a significant illness that doesn't just clear up on its own that would be a demonstration of EFT, and earn you the million.

Which you don't want.

aggle-rithm

31st March 2006, 06:59 AM

Then why when I asked him this, "And you still didn't answer the question. IF I could demonstrate EFT works, would I get the million bucks?" did he answer, "The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed." I've posted our email exchange.

"IF I could demonstrate EFT works" is a loaded phrase. It implies several things: A complete description of EFT, a complete description of a scenario in which EFT could be OBJECTIVELY demonstrated, and any other protocols mentioned in the challenge rules. So it's a big IF, and I think Randi was saying just that: if ANYTHING paranormal COULD be demonstrated, then it would, naturally, qualify for the challenge (providing it didn't involve something dangerous or irresponsible like starving oneself).

However, YOU would have to demonstrate that it works, not Randi. And it would have to be a demonstration such that no judging is necessary, that the results are self-evident. IF you could do this then you would win. The challenge, unfortunately, is not about wishful thinking or about "there may be something there, we need more study!" It's about concrete evidence that you can do what you say you can do. That's all.

Recently, comedian Ron White was on a TV special in which he complained about his gardner, who was trying to tell him that two leafless trees were still alive "at the core". He responded, "Let me tell you what I'm looking for in a tree. I want a tree that I can tell whether it's alive or not, even if I don't know sh_it."

That's exactly what Randi expects. The results should be clear even to an ignoramus, and not something that has to be interpreted through pseudo-scientific techno-babble, rose-colored glasses, or new-age mumbo-jumbo.

Hellbound

31st March 2006, 07:14 AM

Well, I think I've said all I care to say about this topic...twice. (at least) Thanks for helping me in my quest for truth. And if after reading what's on this link, you still believe Randi's test is meaningful, what can I say?
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Pepper,

Randi was rude to you, and rightly so.

You came to his door, asking for $1,000,000.

Yet, you didn't care enough to read the rules of this $1,000,000 challenge beforehand (too lazy or too stupid, we'll never know). This is obvious. You not only emailed Randi directly (instead of the challenge@randi.org address clearly given in the rules), and you obviously did not read the FAQ because you bring up another breatharian (whi, himself, is guilty of trying to get the $1,000,000 without even putting in the basic 15 minutes of reading to understand the rules).

Breatharians (and similar "I can live without food" people) are not elligible for the challenge. This is clearly stated in the rules.

This is not running away.

This is because this has been repeatedly tested, and found to fail every time. Of course, this applies to most other things the challenge covers, as well. However, tests of "foodless" claims take weeks to conduct, at a huge expense in time and manpower, and open up the possibility of harm. Randi has made it clear that he does not want to cause harm to another by feeding their delusions. Not to mention that a test of this sort, when it fails, could obviously open up issues of liability.

So, essentially, you're complaining because Randi expects people who want his money to actually take the time to understand how to get it (I'm sure you could miss half a sitcom or soap opera to do the reading, or is $1,000,000 not enough to miss your "must see" TV?), and because Randi does not want to cause harm to anyone, even those opposed to him and his mission.

Sorry, Pepper, but I feel no sympathy nor respect for you. You've slandered Randi (he didn't lie to you), wasted his time, shown an amazing apathy and lack of respect (by not even bothering to understand the basics of what you were asking him for), and then want to come out here and continue your slander by misrepresenting Randi's actions and complaining that "Randi didn't give me a chance at his money even though I didn't read the rules or follow anything remotely resembling the correct procedure."

Go whine and b**ch somewhere else. You sound like the same type of people who think thier weekly welfare check is a right, instead of a privelege.

petre

31st March 2006, 08:23 AM

At the time I asked if EFT would qualify, I was interested. I'm not now.

No, you weren't interested then either. You had hoped to find some way to invalidate the test, since its existence threatened your desire to believe EFT works.

So you contacted the wrong person, and asked the wrong questions. Still, the replies you got weren't enough to make you confident that you could dismis the challenge.

So you came here, seeking to bolster your conviction. You had made up your mind before even posting that anyone that didn't agree with your view was a blind follower.

I hope your experience was everything you were looking for.

Ripley Twenty-Nine

31st March 2006, 09:44 AM

Pepper,

you said that all you wanted to know is if EFT is elligable for the $million challenge. Randi answered this in his third email to you:

"The answer is still yes. That hasn't changed."

So stop bothering people on this forum and staying that the challenge is a waste of time. Fill out an application form and apply. Obviously your going to make more excuses for not applying which will simply confirm to everyone here that you know your silly EFT lark is bu11****
Ding ding ding ding ding!

Pepper, I hope you read this. Your original question to Randi was if EFT would be eligible if you could demonstrate it. HE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION! HE SAID YES!

The rest of the exchange was him trying to explain to you that you need to come up with a clearly testable claim. He was under absolutely no obligation to do this. YOU come to the Challenge Coordinator with the claim. Not Randi. After you question had been answered, you should have spoken to the Coordinator about a protocol. You didn't do this.

LotusMegami

16th April 2006, 11:48 PM

This reminds me of the time in kempo class when one girl overexerted herself and got a terrible headache. Our sensei, a firm believer in chi and pressure point healing, assigned his assistant brown belt to massage her temples, then down her arms to her fingers.

It doesn't take anything paranormal to make that feel good.

Especially since he was totally hot.

LotusMegami

16th April 2006, 11:59 PM

They always have an excuse.

Most Likely Reasons No One Has Won the Challenge

1. Nothing paranormal exists.
2. Paranormal stuff exists, but nobody knows about it yet.
3. Paranormal stuff exists, and people know about it, but consider
the knowledge religious and sacred, therefore not something to
be shared with the entire world.
4. Paranormal knowledge unhinges the mind, like in Lovecraft's works.
This would explain why woos are so often incoherent and irrational.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 01:23 PM

The_Fire

17th April 2006, 02:07 PM

5. The first tests are conducted by associates of the JREF, the organization with the founder who has a million bucks on the line. <sarcasm>No conflict of interest there...</sarcasm>

Thats funny, I could have sworn I saw the word "independant" somewhere......

ChristineR

17th April 2006, 02:14 PM

Pepper, it is possible that one of the independent testers fabricated data or otherwise cheated and caused someone to fail a test. If you know of such a case, please tell us about it and explain how it was done.

In this case I would advise the testee to get his own independent testers. For example, he or she might contact some psychology, physics, or math professors at a local university and ask to be retested. In addition I would advise the testee to ask his testers to consult with CSICOP or the JREF to assure that the testee is not allowed to cheat.

If you cannot tell us about such a case, you really should retract your statement.

DrMatt

17th April 2006, 02:43 PM

Nucular

17th April 2006, 03:05 PM

I might be joining this thread a little late, but I'm choking looking at that silly site.

From the "How do I introduce EFT to skeptics?" (http://www.emofree.com/faq/introduceEFTtoskeptics.htm) page...

We can, of course, convince skeptics of the power of EFT simply by generating so many good results that they run out of ways to explain it away. But that is doing it the hard way. It is much more efficient to "Build Bridges to Believability" that extend from this strange appearing process to the skeptics' belief systems. Properly done, these bridges create curiosity rather than arouse avoidance.

Sooo.... responsibly doing proper studies and testing is too hard, so we'll try to dupe the poor dumb sceptics with our clever linguistic skills. Such as...

EFT is like [a method the skeptic believes in] with the addition/advantage of [a useful feature of EFT].

The logic here should be clear. The sentence first mentions something the client believes in and then links it to EFT. It allows the client to "see EFT through his/her own filter."

You will, of course, need to have a conversation with your skeptics to find out what methods they find believable. Once found, however, versions of the above sentence will allow you to Build Bridges to Believability that are customized for individuals.

Examples are given below. Please note that I don't always follow the precise wording of the above sentence but consistently maintain the concept. This language flexibility provides more power and usability to the process.

EFT is like hypnotherapy but adds extra power to the process because it integrates the body's subtle energies.

EFT is like talk therapy with the advantage that it allows us to get to the issues faster and resolve them more thoroughly.

EFT enhances massage therapy by adding an important emotional relaxation process.

EFT blends perfectly with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy because it helps bring up the issues faster and creates more (and deeper) Cognitive Shifts behind the scenes.

And as a final nail in the coffin of any appearance of genuineness or respectability,

Another possibility that may have wide appeal, especially for those who consider Albert Einstein an authority (almost everyone), would be something like this....

EFT is an obvious extension of Einstein's discovery in the 1920's that all matter, including the human body, is composed of energy.

Oh, yes, blindingly obvious.

Hey Pepper, why didn't you use this astounding psychological treatise on the art of rhetoric and belief change in your dealings with this board? This one might have helped...

4. Let the client develop their own explanation for why it works. This is especially useful for those whose scientific or medical training is so well ingrained that they simply must explain everything in terms of their own models. In such cases you might say...

We're not sure why this works so well. Perhaps you can help with the explanation after you experience it.

Oh wait...

You can test EFT for yourself for free and see if it works.

What can EFT cure or help? I don't have a list. I'll just say what the person who came up with it says when asked, "Will EFT work on...?", "Try it.".

Feel free to try EFT on yourself. I doesn't have to cost you a dime, and like you said, nobody but you will be the wiser.

Thanks for the laugh. But two minor points. 1. I never claimed that EFT cures cancer. 2. I never claimed to know how it works.

Et cetera ad nauseam.

What a loathsome little page. No commentary needed, really.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 03:46 PM

If you cannot tell us about such a case, you really should retract your statement.

My statement that if you are an associtate of an organization that has a million bucks on the line, and you are judging the test there is a conflict of interest?

Pepper

17th April 2006, 03:47 PM

Thats funny, I could have sworn I saw the word "independant" somewhere......

Where?

Nucular

17th April 2006, 03:50 PM

My statement that if you are an associtate of an organization that has a million bucks on the line, and you are judging the test there is a conflict of interest?
The mutually-agreed protocol precludes any kind of judging, as the results will be self-evident. The observers would not be members of the JREF, but probably another sceptical organisation near to you. As I understand it, you would have the opportunity to involve other independent observers of your choice, provided there was no possibility they could disrupt or aid cheating.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 03:57 PM

Thanks. You just saved me from reading the rest of the thread.

Yeah, why bother with the facts? Seems like "skeptics" are the real true believers.

From your own testimony, James Randi was elaborately patient with you but you weren't listening. There's a reason why he had to discontinue his patience with you: there's lots of people who have actually put into writing their testable claims. If you bothered reading the challenge, you'd know by now that the most important thing for you to do is consult your own medical doctor. This is not a game show, it's a challenge.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. When I wrote to him, I just wanted to know if EFT would qualify for the test. He could have just said, "Yes, now go apply", or "No, it would not." HE chose to do what he did. And if he isn't interested in talking with people about his million dollar challenge, he can 1. Not have it. 2. Not post his private email in public. Duh.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 04:02 PM

What a loathsome little page. No commentary needed, really.

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.

Nucular

17th April 2006, 04:07 PM

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.
No, I did that with bottom-candles, and we shall never speak of that little episode again.

Seriously though, you seem to be missing a very basic fact: trying something, anything like this, on yourself, is not evidence for anything. How would I rule out the placebo effect, Hawthorn effect, spontaneous remission, poking myself in the eye?

If you believe EFT works because you've tried it on yourself and it seemed to, then you've made a schoolboy error - the same error so many alt.health applicants/posters to this board have made. A proper test - which would take more than myself, and would take longer than 20 minutes - would rule out other possible explanations of any observed effects of whatever thing it is you've chosen to try.

Do you understand the importance of this, and what such a test might look like?

juryjone

17th April 2006, 04:20 PM

I have to admit I haven't read a couple of pages of this thread, but after reading the entire correspondence between Randi and Pepper, I would like to retract what I said a year ago here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=997092&postcount=2). The gist of that post was to say that I thought Randi was a little rude and could have made a couple of statements that might have made it clearer to Pepper why he needed to go back and rethink his proposal.

Now that I've seen the entire exchange, I can see that Randi did himself a disservice and edited out those explanatory comments he made. Yes, he was still rude, but as DrMatt, Ripley and others have pointed out, he told Pepper exactly what Pepper says he wanted to hear, and even was forthcoming about troubles with the potential detailed claim and protocol.

I can admit I was wrong. Pepper, how about you?

Pepper

17th April 2006, 04:26 PM

No, I did that with bottom-candles, and we shall never speak of that little episode again...Do you understand the importance of this, and what such a test might look like?

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.

ChristineR

17th April 2006, 04:26 PM

There was a period in my life when I was very ill, and in fact almost died. During this time I got advice from many, many well meaning people. Every bizarre remedy and procedure under the sun was recommended to me. They didn't work. Not only did I waste a lot of time and money, the emotional damage was severe. If I told someone "your procedure is a bunch of unscientific crap" I got yelled at for being rude to someone who was just trying to help. If I nodded and said "Sounds interesting" I had to deal with the gut wrenching sensation of watching someone smile smugly and try to get me to act thankful and happy when in fact I knew that my pain and suffering were going to continue.

Sorry Pepper, no free ride. There is nothing in EFT that seems new or interesting, nothing that seems worth the time it would take to learn it. If it really does work you can show it in some absurdly simple tests. Then I'll try it. It never fails to amaze me that Randi is willing to give away $1,000,000 to someone for merely showing that an alledged medical procedure is distinguishable from placebo. All you have to do is show that EFT does anything that patting someone on the back and stroking their heads doesn't do and you'd be filthy, bleeding rich!

And all you can say is that we should try it for ourselves and see that it feels nice? Please.

Nucular

17th April 2006, 04:32 PM

Does it work because of the placebo effect? I don't care.
And there's the problem, right there. If what you are doing is just a placebo, then why the grand claims and mumbo-jumbo? Why not just a big red sugar pill?

And do you think it's in any way ethical to give someone a treatment which doesn't do anything, but to tell them it does?

If this post still sounds like someone trying to be horrid to you, you should probably read up on the placebo effect, and make sure you know what it is.

Because if that's how your magic thingy 'works', then it's not really doing anything at all.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 04:33 PM

I can admit I was wrong. Pepper, how about you?

Wrong about what, exactly? When I first wrote to him, I just wanted to know if EFT would qualify for the test. I was not applying for the test, nor setting up a protcol for a test. Everybody else I have told about EFT understood what it was, and what it's supposed to be able to do. I had no reason to think Randi would be any different.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 04:39 PM

And there's the problem, right there. If what you are doing is just a placebo, then why the grand claims and mumbo-jumbo? Why not just a big red sugar pill?

Because mumbo-jumbo is free, and I can use it 24/7, anywhere. Where would I get big red sugar pill?

Nucular

17th April 2006, 04:45 PM

Because mumbo-jumbo is free, and I can use it 24/7, anywhere. Where would I get big red sugar pill?
Many things are free. Why use mumbo-jumbo?

The point is, if it's the placebo effect, then it's self-delusion. Are you comfortable with self-delusion as an explanation for your amazing discovery? If so, fine, but don't try and push your delusion to other people.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 04:46 PM

And all you can say is that we should try it for ourselves and see that it feels nice? Please.

Randi's test is meaningless. Associates of his organization judge the first tests. Next.

I'm sorry to hear about your suffering, and I'm glad you are still around. I would NEVER tell anybody to use EFT in place of standard medical treatments, just to add it.

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 04:48 PM

The mutually-agreed protocol precludes any kind of judging, as the results will be self-evident. The observers would not be members of the JREF, but probably another sceptical organisation near to you. As I understand it, you would have the opportunity to involve other independent observers of your choice, provided there was no possibility they could disrupt or aid cheating.

Pepper, did you read this?

Psiload

17th April 2006, 04:57 PM

Randi's test is meaningless. Associates of his organization judge the first tests. Next.

I'm sorry to hear about your suffering, and I'm glad you are still around. I would NEVER tell anybody to use EFT in place of standard medical treatments, just to add it.

Please see:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Now... could you point out to us the part where the "judging" took place during this particular test?

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:04 PM

Many things are free. Why use mumbo-jumbo?

The point is, if it's the placebo effect, then it's self-delusion. Are you comfortable with self-delusion as an explanation for your amazing discovery? If so, fine, but don't try and push your delusion to other people.

If it works, even by placebo effect, then it works. It works because I believe it will work. Actually, when I first tried it for feelings I had about my looks, I didn't believe it would work.

And I'll "push" EFT as much as I like, if you don't like that, that's your problem.

petre

17th April 2006, 05:11 PM

Please, he doesn't care if he's right or not, all he wanted was an answer that made him feel good. He's not comfortable with the idea that Randi would accept a public test in which self-evident results would grant the challenger $1 million because that fact alone would shake his belief. And then the placebo effect wouldn't work for him anymore.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:16 PM

Please see:

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Now... could you point out to us the part where the "judging" took place during this particular test?

"At the JREF last week, we tested a dowser" WE (JREF) tested. We have only their claim that he failed the tests, they have a million bucks on the line. Maybe you and I just mean something different when we are talking about "judging" a test.

Piggy

17th April 2006, 05:16 PM

Pepper, I'm not speaking for Randi or the JREF here, or even the forum, just me personally, but I do want you to be aware that by the time you develop a protocol, the prize will already be won by veterinary therapeutic touch (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55269)!

Psiload

17th April 2006, 05:17 PM

Psiload

17th April 2006, 05:20 PM

"At the JREF last week, we tested a dowser" WE (JREF) tested. We have only their claim that he failed the tests, they have a million bucks on the line. Maybe you and I just mean something different when we are talking about "judging" a test. Once again... please point out to us where, in the course of the test, a judgement was passed which determined wether the claimant had passed or failed.

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 05:25 PM

"At the JREF last week, we tested a dowser" WE (JREF) tested. We have only their claim that he failed the tests, they have a million bucks on the line. Maybe you and I just mean something different when we are talking about "judging" a test.

I believe Pepper is implying that, since the JREF or its associates conduct the tests, they can report wathever they want. Even lies.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:27 PM

Please, he doesn't care if he's right or not, all he wanted was an answer that made him feel good.

1. I'm a she.
2. I wanted a "Yes" or "No" answer. That's why I asked a "Yes or no" question when I first wrote him.

And if you are so great at mind reading, why not try out for the million bucks? LOL.

Pepper

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:29 PM

I believe Pepper is implying that, since the JREF or its associates conduct the tests, they can report wathever they want. Even lies.

"Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."

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

ChristineR

17th April 2006, 05:30 PM

I believe Pepper is implying that, since the JREF or its associates conduct the tests, they can report wathever they want. Even lies.

Tests are videotaped, documented and witnessed, but in theory, it could happen. However it would be very easy for the testee to prove that the JREF was lying simply by repeating the tests. Then the claiment would sue the JREF and win. Nothing like that has ever happened. No claiment that I'm aware of claims to have passed the tests and has volunteered to repeat the tests for a more neutral party. If something like this did happen many respected celebrities and scientists would step up to repeat the tests.

Nucular

17th April 2006, 05:32 PM

If it works, even by placebo effect, then it works. It works because I believe it will work. Actually, when I first tried it for feelings I had about my looks, I didn't believe it would work.

And I'll "push" EFT as much as I like, if you don't like that, that's your problem.
No, it's the problem of the people who buy into your delusion. It's the problem of the people who might very well put their faith into something which you seem to understand doesn't do a damn thing, and whatever your reactive lip service about not advising people to use it instead of conventional treatment, if it's out there, people will.

If it 'works' by placebo effect, then it doesn't work, full stop. You seem to happily admit the possibility that it may be your delusion, and then show no scruples in becoming uppity when we voice our concern that you still seem to be happy to tell other people to use it for whatever ails 'em. And you claim to have no interest in trying it out to see whether it is your delusion or not.

Think think think Pepper, think about what it means for your hobby if it is just the placebo effect. And think about what it means that you're happy to tell people to use this 'technique' even if you were fully in the knowledge that that's the case.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:32 PM

Once again... please point out to us where, in the course of the test, a judgement was passed which determined wether the claimant had passed or failed.

"Another Failed Dowsing Test", sounds like a judgement was passed, to me.

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 05:33 PM

"Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."

www dot randi dot org/research/challenge dot html

I don't see anywhere that they can also modify that data to suit their "evil purposes".

Nucular

17th April 2006, 05:34 PM

"Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
It's absurd to interpret that as a waiver to say the JREF can lie about what occurred. It's a copyright issue, it doesn't exempt them from libel law, or the contract of the Challenge.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:38 PM

Tests are videotaped, documented and witnessed, but in theory, it could happen. However it would be very easy for the testee to prove that the JREF was lying simply by repeating the tests. Then the claiment would sue the JREF and win.

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes."

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

And as far as doing the test somewhere else...

"In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative,..."

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

Pepper

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 05:39 PM

"Another Failed Dowsing Test", sounds like a judgement was passed, to me.

No. The "failed dowsing test" conclusion was arrived at through a procedure that yielded self evident results. There were no judges involved. You lift the mug, ant the gold is there or it isn't. There was NO judging. Repeat after me please: THERE IS NO JUDGING INVOLVED. Thank you.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 05:47 PM

Think think think Pepper, think about what it means for your hobby if it is just the placebo effect. And think about what it means that you're happy to tell people to use this 'technique' even if you were fully in the knowledge that that's the case.

It wouldn't mean a damn thing to me. If someone is feeling depressed about something, and they feel better after using EFT, that seems like a good thing to me. Even if it worked just because they believed it would. The placebo effect is obviously powerful, otherwise they wouldn't control for it. So, why not make use of it?

If I were saying, "Pay me $ and I'll let you in on the secret treatment..." or "Throw away your medicine! Use EFT instead..." I could understand why you have such a hard on for me, but I'm just suggesting people try it.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 06:33 PM

Mojo

17th April 2006, 06:46 PM

"Another Failed Dowsing Test," Those words didn't type themselves on Randi's site, now did they? Somebody had to pass judgement.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.htmlThat is a comment on the result of the test. It is not a judgment determining whether the dowser passed or failed.

Nucular

17th April 2006, 06:53 PM

It wouldn't mean a damn thing to me. If someone is feeling depressed about something, and they feel better after using EFT, that seems like a good thing to me. Even if it worked just because they believed it would. The placebo effect is obviously powerful, otherwise they wouldn't control for it. So, why not make use of it?

If I were saying, "Pay me $ and I'll let you in on the secret treatment..." or "Throw away your medicine! Use EFT instead..." I could understand why you have such a hard on for me, but I'm just suggesting people try it.
You're suggesting people try something that probably has no effect beyond placebo.

1) Did you read psiload's post about informed consent?

2) Sick people will be putting hope into something that will have little or no effect

3) Sick people will be putting time into something that will have little or no effect - time that could be better spent, say, exercising, socialising, seeing a medical professional, etc.

4) If you successfully promote this thing, there will be people charging money for it. That's the world we live in, and it doesn't matter a bit whether you intend it or not. In fact the very site you sent us to is a moneyspinning one, selling training and advertising "master" practitioners.

5) It adds to the noise of all the other possible treatments out there - some of which work and some of which do not. If you're depressed, or you have cancer, or you have anything at all you want not to have, how to get rid of it? There's a million things out there for you to 'just try', many of them harmful, most of them useless, all of them pushed at some point or other by well-meaning people who think it worked for them, behind whom are suited psychopaths waiting to cash in. Six months to live? Guaranteed cure or your money back...

6) You're giving sick people the message that they can be helped by unscientific 'treatments': even if yours doesn't work, maybe there's something a bit like it that would? It's an endless path; where does it lead?

7) You're giving people the impression that your cure is scientific, and evidence-based, when it's not. You pretty much admitted you have no clue whether all the effects are placebo; yet you're happy to peddle this stuff to unsuspecting people with no qualms about informed consent, and you directed us to a site, as I pointed out earlier, which has a whole page dedicated to mis-selling your worthless product.

8) The site you linked to has on its front page a list of conditions that can be 'helped': "Pain Management, Addictions, Weight loss, Allergies, Children's Issues, Vision, Headaches, Panic/Anxiety, Asthma, Trauma, PTSD, Abuse, Depression, Dyslexia, Carpal Tunnel, Anger, ADD-ADHD, Fears/phobias, Eating disorders, OCD, Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Neuropathy, Fear of Flying, Claustrophobia, Agoraphobia, Anorexia/Bulimia, Sports and other Performance". If someone used your treatment for, say, blood pressure, and believes they've been helped; are you going to supervise their BP checks and try to ensure they stay on that pesky useless medication?

9) Abuse. Come on. Can't you see how useless 'treatment' for things like this are actually harmful, directly harmful? Uncovering and playing around with people's most traumatic, upsetting and hidden feelings and memories, with zero training or accompanying evidence base, or even it appears any moral compunction at all?

Pepper, can you add any? There are more reasons why you need to think through properly what your position is.

TjW

17th April 2006, 07:00 PM

I'd just like to point out here that if EFT is just placebo effect, then it is not paranormal. It's pretty well documented what placebos do and don't do.
If something is paranormal, I would expect it to work better than placebo.
I would not expect JREF to pay a million for something that's just YAP (Yet Another Placebo).

Pepper

17th April 2006, 07:01 PM

"Placebo" essentially means "lie". When you give someone a placebo you are lying to them.

No, it doesn't. "Placebo" means "power of suggestion". When they use a placebo as a double blind control, the person giving the placebo doesn't even know if they are giving a placebo or not. How are they lying?

I believe EFT works, so when I tell people it does, I'm not lying.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 07:20 PM

You're suggesting people try something that probably has no effect beyond placebo.

1) Did you read psiload's post about informed consent?

Yes, and?

3) Sick people will be putting time into something that will have little or no effect - time that could be better spent, say, exercising, socialising, seeing a medical professional, etc.

Such drama. We're talking under an hour if it doesn't work for them.

4) If you successfully promote this thing, there will be people charging money for it.

There are people charging for it now. They were charging for it before I even heard of it. I was wondering why you had such a hard on for me when I'm not charging for it, nor telling people to avoid conventional treatments.

If someone used your treatment for, say, blood pressure, and believes they've been helped; are you going to supervise their BP checks and try to ensure they stay on that pesky useless medication?

They can check their blood pressure, and see if they have been helped or not. Even if it's just a placebo effect, and gets them to relax a bit, that can help with blood pressure, no? I have high blood pressure, and I went through many of the scientific medications before I found one, well a combination, that worked.

Uncovering and playing around with people's most traumatic, upsetting and hidden feelings and memories, with zero training or accompanying evidence base, or even it appears any moral compunction at all?

I'm suggesting that people try it on themselves. I even say nobody will be the wiser. I wouldn't be uncovering anything.

ChristineR

17th April 2006, 07:27 PM

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes."

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

And as far as doing the test somewhere else...

"In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative,..."

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

Pepper

It's a legally binding contract Pepper. If Randi cheated he'd be in violation and you could sue him and the "established statutes" would be with you all the way.

Piggy

17th April 2006, 07:54 PM

I wanted a "Yes" or "No" answer. That's why I asked a "Yes or no" question when I first wrote him.
It has already been explained to you why he could not give you a yes or no answer when you first wrote. That's what the application process is for. Your first messages did not give enough information for him (or anyone else, for that matter) to judge whether your claim was eligible.

If a yes/no answer of the type you wanted could be provided by sending unstructured emails to Randi, then that's what the rules would state. There's a reason they don't.

And in any case, since Randi doesn't administer the test, his responses don't matter. He just ponies up the cash and sets the terms, which has already been done.

Piggy

17th April 2006, 07:56 PM

"Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."
Yes, but that's after the fact. That doesn't mean that JREF will be judging the test. It just ensures that JREF has the right to place video/photos etc. on its Web site and in its publications without being sued.

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 08:11 PM

Pepper, did you read post 160? Please DO.

Pepper

17th April 2006, 08:38 PM

Pepper, did you read post 160? Please DO.

Yes, I did. And this is my last post on this "issue". One of the meanings of "judging" is "To form an opinion or evaluation." Somebody had to form an opinion and/or evaluate the results, no matter how self evident they may or may not have been.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=judging

Pepper

17th April 2006, 08:48 PM

It has already been explained to you why he could not give you a yes or no answer when you first wrote. That's what the application process is for. Your first messages did not give enough information for him (or anyone else, for that matter) to judge whether your claim was eligible.

So, read post 23. What did I say between my first email, and the email where he said that the answer was still yes, that allowed him to answer my question? He even said he didn't read the EFT manual.

Rcintron

17th April 2006, 11:12 PM

Yes, I did. And this is my last post on this "issue". One of the meanings of "judging" is "To form an opinion or evaluation." Somebody had to form an opinion and/or evaluate the results, no matter how self evident they may or may not have been.

[dictionary dot reference dot com/search?q=judging

Who said anything about judging? Don't you get it? Nowhere in the rules of the challenge it says there will be any judging, so your dictionary reference is unnnecessary. You didn't read post 160. Bad girl, you Pepper, you. Now, please, with conviction repeat after me, no shyness now, repeat: THERE IS NO JUDGING INVOLVED IN JREF TESTINGS FOR THE 1,000,000 CHALLENGE.

Flange Desire

18th April 2006, 12:16 AM

Pepper:

There is no 'judging'.
Your test will be designed (by you) so that the result is clear to all.

If you cannot design a test to show a clear result, then you have nothing, and EFT is properly described as quackery.

Please spare us from all your spurious excuses for not demonstrating your claim - heard them all before many times.

steve s

18th April 2006, 01:23 AM

Piggy

18th April 2006, 05:50 AM

So, read post 23. What did I say between my first email, and the email where he said that the answer was still yes, that allowed him to answer my question? He even said he didn't read the EFT manual.
I couldn't answer unless you post the unedited emails. I don't see anything in between that would get me to say "yes" instead of "please read the Web site", so I still say that Randi could not have given you a yes or no to your early emails. Whatever was there to change his mind, I don't see it, but obviously something must have convinced him that the claim was bizarre enough to qualify.

But even if he didn't answer and then at some point changed tack and said yes totally out of the blue (again, I'd need to see the entire correspondence) I can't read his mind, I don't know if he just wasn't paying attention or didn't read the last email or confused you with someone else he'd said yes to or what.

But as I said, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Randi was rude and refused to answer then said he did answer or any of that because he only puts up the money and establishes the rules and that's already been done. The tests are done by establishing a protocol and running the test. There's no judging. If the results meet the goals established in the protocol, they do. If they don't, they don't.

Why are you so hung up on this email exchange with Randi?

Piggy

18th April 2006, 05:58 AM

One of the meanings of "judging" is "To form an opinion or evaluation." Somebody had to form an opinion and/or evaluate the results, no matter how self evident they may or may not have been.
Pepper, I think I'm actually starting to see what you're getting at here.

Now, personally, I don't see how opinion or evaluation could possibly come into play if, for example, I say I can tell you what the last 3 digits are going to be in the total volumes traded on the New York Stock Exchange as reported in the London Times for the next 21 working days.

But... if testing EFT, on the other hand, would require a degree of opinion and evaluation in judging the results, then we have a problem.

Is that your concern?

Btw, I know you said you wouldn't post on this again, so I won't take offense if you don't reply, but if you do, I'd be interested.

Psiload

18th April 2006, 06:03 AM

Pepper seems to be hung up on the what 'judging' and 'self-evident' results mean. As much as I hate sports analogies, perhaps one could help clarify.

Suppose a baseball pitcher claims that he can throw strikes 100% of the time. How would you test this? You could have an umpire 'judge' whether the pitches are balls and strikes, but that could lead to disagreements between the tester and testee. You need to remove the subjective opinion of the ump.

You could do this by setting up a box the size of the stike zone and have him throw at it. If the ball is in the box, it's a strike. If outside of it, then it's a ball. There's nobody's opinion involved. The results are self-evident to everyone. In other words, there's no judging. If he passes or fails the test, that's no a judgement. That's just the results of the self-evident test.

Steve S.Speaking of sports analogies... Pepper is under the impression that the JREF challenge is like the figure skating event at the olympics. A panel of judges evaluates the performance of the contestants and determines who is the "winner". This is not the case. A better comparison would be to the bobsled event. Their are no judges, just officials whose sole purpose is to insure that the contestants are sticking to the rules. The "winner" is decided by the clock. The final outcome is decided by a cold, impartial machine. It's the same with the JREF challenge, only instead of a clock, the final outcome is determined by statistics, which are every bit as impartial as a stopwatch.

I think that Pepper DOES indeed grasp this concept, but she prefers to be intentionally belligerent by failing to acknowledge the obvious.

ChristineR

18th April 2006, 06:31 AM

Having slept on this, I feel less upset and have some comments.

Medical claims are not easily applied to the JREF challenge. They can be done, but not as easily as some other claims.

To test a headache remedy the usual procedure is like this: find a bunch of people with headaches. Give some of them Aspirin, give some of them a placebo, and give some of them your new drug. Have them rank their pain, say from 0 to 10, before and after taking the pill. Afterwards, compare the improvements for the various pills.

There are a lot of potential problems here. For example, what I consider to be a pain of "five" you might call a "ten." How do you compare someone whose pain goes from 10 to 7 (30% drop) to someone whose pain goes from 5 to 3 (40% drop)? This is where judgement (and statistics) come in.

However none of this would apply to the JREF. Were you to do this test with a homeopathic headache remedy the criteria would be laid out beforehand. For instance, "the mean pain drop as measured as a percentage of the total original pain will be at least twice the corresponding drop in the placebo group." No judgement, just math. If this test were actually done, homeopaths might complain that the remedy worked but failed the test. This is perfectly possible, at least as far as the math is concerned.

To test EFT it would be necessary to devise a placebo which provides the non-paranormal benefits of EFT without actually manipulating the energy fields. For subjective tests like headaches, it would be necessary to create some sort of headache questionaire and score. Ideally you could use blood tests or joint mobility tests.

But none of this really applies, because Pepper is not going to take the JREF. More to the point, Pepper is not going to test EFT at all. The claiment should run his own tests before the JREF test, in order to determine what sort of improvements are seen. This would solve the problem I mentioned above, where the remedy works but does not meet the JREF test cutoff. If the remedy only works for minor pain, the criterion only counts minor pain. If the remedy works best on severe pain, the criterion favors sharp improvements in severe pain over mild improvements in mild pain.

It's important to note that these cutoffs are set jointly by the JREF and the claiment. The claiment chooses the circumstances that show the remedy in the best possible light. The JREF makes sure the criterion is statistically signifigant.

DrMatt

18th April 2006, 07:00 AM

Yeah, why bother with the facts? Seems like "skeptics" are the real true believers.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. When I wrote to him, I just wanted to know if EFT would qualify for the test. He could have just said, "Yes, now go apply", or "No, it would not." HE chose to do what he did. And if he isn't interested in talking with people about his million dollar challenge, he can 1. Not have it. 2. Not post his private email in public. Duh.

I'm not interested in all your theories. Either you can do your thing or you can't. If you can, do it. Put up or shut up. We'll theorize about your alleged ability and everything else only after you've shown that you really have such an ability.

gnome

18th April 2006, 07:14 AM

I claim Randi is dishonest because he lied. And I've never claimed to have magical powers. Super, or otherwise.
I don't think it's established that anything he said was an intentional untruth. But, to claim the challenge itself is meaningless, you would have to demonstrate that a properly submitted claim would not be handled in good faith. About that I believe you would be wrong, but I guess we won't know because you have decided to drop it due to a personality conflict.

That you and Mr. Randi do not get along (even if this is his fault!), proves nothing about the challenge itself.

ETA--misunderstood the length of this thread. This is so first-page.

petre

18th April 2006, 07:51 AM

Yes, I did. And this is my last post on this "issue". One of the meanings of "judging" is "To form an opinion or evaluation." Somebody had to form an opinion and/or evaluate the results, no matter how self evident they may or may not have been.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=judging

But, how do we know that the post 160 that you read is the post 160 that he was refering to? How do we know that you both judged the same post to be post 160? I don't think I can accept your judgement that you read the correct post 160.

gnome

18th April 2006, 12:54 PM

If I might--the "self-evident" results would usually be sufficient to legally force JREF to give up the prize money, even if JREF maliciously "judged" it to be a failure against all evidence.

falcon2424

18th April 2006, 05:48 PM

If it makes you feel better, you can think about it this way:

Randi is a Magician. That's his job.

He'd really like to see some magic tricks that make him think, "that's impossible." He's even willing to offer a million dollars if you can show him a trick that there's no way for him to explain.

This isn't a bet. He doesn't gain anything by seeing tricks that don't work, or he can explain.

To win the million, you need to show him a trick, with enough controls that he'd go, "wow, there's no way I could duplicate that!"

Pepper

18th April 2006, 06:59 PM

If I might--the "self-evident" results would usually be sufficient to legally force JREF to give up the prize money, even if JREF maliciously "judged" it to be a failure against all evidence.

So, let's just say, for sake of argument, during the preliminary test, I lift a table up 3 feet of the ground with the power of my mind, like I said I would. The JREF associate says I didn't. Then what? Sue them? For what? There is no prize money for the preliminary test. AND I've signed away my right to take an legal action against them.

LotusMegami

18th April 2006, 07:09 PM

The JREF has no incentive to lie. You have misunderstood what a skeptic is, and the purpose of the Foundation.

Those who are not trustworthy do not trust others, because they assume that everyone is as dishonest as they are.

gnome

18th April 2006, 07:15 PM

So, let's just say, for sake of argument, during the preliminary test, I lift a table up 3 feet of the ground with the power of my mind, like I said I would. The JREF associate says I didn't. Then what? Sue them? For what? There is no prize money for the preliminary test. AND I've signed away my right to take an legal action against them.

If you examine the legal waiver, it refers to damages you may suffer as a result of being tested--it is NOT signing away your right to enforce the agreement. I would avoid this argument if I were you. Historically, it is used mainly by people trying to excuse not taking the challenge by falsely claiming it is fraudulent.

I must admit I had not considered the case you suggest though. Points for coming up with a more original worry--any of our legal enthusiasts have an answer for this one? What if the JREF refuses (in violation of the agreement) to proceed with the formal test?

Pepper

18th April 2006, 07:30 PM

The JREF has no incentive to lie.

Other than a million bucks...no.

gnome

18th April 2006, 07:37 PM

While that question is being considered--bear in mind that JREF has done many preliminary tests--and each of them has failed, not because the JREF refused to acknowledge success--but because even with fewer controls they could not accomplish their claim.

ChristineR

18th April 2006, 07:41 PM

gnome, in the situation you describe the JREF would be in breach of contract as they did not fulfill the terms of their legally binding agreement. Then Pepper could sue not only for the million dollars but for damages associated with the breach. As there would be witnesses and videotapes and (perhaps most importantly) Pepper would be given the chance to levitate tables in front of the judge Pepper would surely win, get the million, humilate and discredit the JREF and change the world as we know it forever.

Sounds like a fair deal to me, well worth taking the chance that this unlikely worst case scenario will come to pass.

Pepper

18th April 2006, 07:52 PM

If you examine the legal waiver, it refers to damages you may suffer as a result of being tested--it is NOT signing away your right to enforce the agreement.

I'll admit, I'm no legal expert. And I will admit if I am shown to be wrong. But I can find nothing in the challenge rules that says a person who passes the preliminary test will automatically get a formal test.

"This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test."

NOT "If the applicant passes the preliminary test they will proceeed to the formal test."

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

So, again, I ask, if I lift up a table 3 feet off the ground with the power of my mind during the prelim, and the JREF associate says I didn't, then what? Sue? For what? There is no prize money for the prelim test.

Also, I think "the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against ..." means just that. It might not, as I admit, I'm no legal expert.

gnome

18th April 2006, 08:05 PM

I'll admit, I'm no legal expert. And I will admit if I am shown to be wrong. But I can find nothing in the challenge rules that says a person who passes the preliminary test will automatically get a formal test.

"This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test."

NOT "If the applicant passes the preliminary test they will proceeed to the formal test."

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

I am interested in further examination of this point.

Also, I think "the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against ..." means just that. It might not, as I admit, I'm no legal expert.
So, all the words that appear after that are meaningless? They surrender rights to legal action FOR THE ITEMS LISTED. The awarding of the prize, and the performance of the agreement itself, are not listed. In fact, the awarding of the prize is specifically excluded.

Again, I remind that this clause is habitually misstated by those wishing to discredit the challenge dishonestly. Stick to your more substantial question.

Pepper

18th April 2006, 08:30 PM

I am interested in further examination of this point.

I would be, too.

So, all the words that appear after that are meaningless? They surrender rights to legal action FOR THE ITEMS LISTED. The awarding of the prize, and the performance of the agreement itself, are not listed. In fact, the awarding of the prize is specifically excluded.

It says, "or damage of any kind." And, there is NO PRISE for the preliminary test.

Again, I remind that this clause is habitually misstated by those wishing to discredit the challenge dishonestly. Stick to your more substantial question.

Can you give an example?

Piggy

18th April 2006, 08:41 PM

So, let's just say, for sake of argument, during the preliminary test, I lift a table up 3 feet of the ground with the power of my mind, like I said I would. The JREF associate says I didn't. Then what? Sue them? For what? There is no prize money for the preliminary test. AND I've signed away my right to take an legal action against them.
First off, you'll have to get more precise about the situation, but let's say that you agreed to a protocol and met the protocol but JREF stonewalls you.

You haven't signed away all rights to any legal action against them for anything-at-all. It's not even legally possible for JREF to put you in that position.

Yes, you could sue them. And if you demonstrated that you had met the agreed-upon protocol but JREF had refused to continue the test anyway, thereby denying you the potential to claim the prize, then the remedy would be up to the court.

My guess is that you would be awarded court costs, some small amount of punitive damages, and the right to continue the test as agreed.

Piggy

18th April 2006, 08:44 PM

Keep in mind, Pepper, that if 2 parties sign an agreement, and one party voids that agreement through fraud, the fraudulent party cannot then legally insist on enforcement of the entirety of the contract.

So if you enter into a contractual agreement with JREF, and JREF commits fraud, the court will not allow JREF to insist that the clause about no claim of damages be enforced.

If JREF commits fraud, the court can impose damages.

vIQleS

18th April 2006, 11:06 PM

Other than a million bucks...no.

You seem to be under the impression that JR stands to lose $1 million.

This is not the case - if you win, James Randi will not have to sell his big screen TV and Ferrari to pay you the money.

There is 1 million dollars* sitting in a special 'bank account'. The sole purpose of this money is to be given to the first person who can demonstrate 'magic powers'. If you don't win it, no one gets to spend it or use it for any other purpose, it just sits there. (No one is even spending the interest)

*I've checked, and there's actually more like $2 million in the acct.

vIQleS

18th April 2006, 11:07 PM

Who said anything about judging? Don't you get it? Nowhere in the rules of the challenge it says there will be any judging, so your dictionary reference is unnnecessary. You didn't read post 160. Bad girl, you Pepper, you. Now, please, with conviction repeat after me, no shyness now, repeat: THERE IS NO JUDGING INVOLVED IN JREF TESTINGS FOR THE 1,000,000 CHALLENGE.

In fact, I believe that the rules state specificly that the results must be self-evident and not open to jugement or interpretation. ie. The potato swings for x minutes without stopping.

vIQleS

18th April 2006, 11:11 PM

I would be, too.

It says, "or damage of any kind." And, there is NO PRISE for the preliminary test.

The 'PRISE' (sic) for successful completion of the first test is the chance to undertake the actual test. If you 'win' the prelim and JR (or the testing agency) lies about it you can sue for the right to be tested, this is why the results have to be self evident.

Just because JREF has the right to use all the pictures and videos etc, doesn't mean you can't keep a copy for evidential purposes...

gnome

19th April 2006, 12:39 AM

"...or damage of any kind" does not divest the other party of the obligation to fulfill the agreement. What that is for, is that if you feel financially or personally damaged as a result of the outcome, that you can't sue them. For example, if your book drops off the bestseller list because you accept the test and fail, you can't sue JREF.

For examples on people simply latching onto that phrase to discredit the challenge, look here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51459

pinnochio switches to this argument when his original argument falls flat.

and here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=8723

An article attempting to debunk the challenge makes the same spurious claim.

Ducky

19th April 2006, 01:18 AM

My bad. Please accept my appology.

I never claimed EFT cures cancer. But you have nothing to lose by trying.

I'm late to respond, I apologise.

Whether you claim it or not, you endorse it, and it has been claimed that it does.

I have much to lose by trying. It would be a waste of precious time left on this earth if it did not work. I don't have time to waste.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 03:55 PM

I have much to lose by trying. It would be a waste of precious time left on this earth if it did not work. I don't have time to waste.

You might waste a couple of hours. But it might also be helpful in some way, even if it doesn't do sqat about the cancer. Take care.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 04:08 PM

"...or damage of any kind" does not divest the other party of the obligation to fulfill the agreement.

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?

Ducky

19th April 2006, 04:12 PM

You might waste a couple of hours. But it might also be helpful in some way, even if it doesn't do sqat about the cancer. Take care.

In what way could it be helpful if it doesn't do squat for the cancer? My question was how is it effective against the cancer.

It sounds like you aren't very sure of this treatment, but want to promote it anyway.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 04:34 PM

In what way could it be helpful if it doesn't do squat for the cancer? My question was how is it effective against the cancer.

It sounds like you aren't very sure of this treatment, but want to promote it anyway.

First, let me say, I'm not trying to argue with you. Second, it might help with stress, or pain.

I don't know if EFT will work for any specific case. It's hard to know that about any treatment. The treatments you've had for your cancer have passed scientific muster, I assume. But, sadly, they haven't worked for you.

And I promote EFT because I've had it work for me, and there is little downside, at worst, it seems, you will waste an hour or two. You can't say that about lots of other treatments.

Metullus

19th April 2006, 06:20 PM

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.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 06:26 PM

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.

DrMatt

19th April 2006, 06:26 PM

Actually, I think the interest might be disbursed periodically to JREF to cover some of the other prizes it gives out from time to time, like prizes to elementary school kids for provocatively effective science projects... But the status of the money and its purpose is a matter of public record, as a result of the American system of law governing Non-Profit Organizations.

Metullus

19th April 2006, 06:30 PM

Thank you. I admit I only read the rules.
You are welcome.

Admiral

19th April 2006, 08:14 PM

Hi, Pepper.

You're a reasonable and intelligent person. I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your attitude towards this discussion.

Still, I want to correct your perception of the challenge. The person who performs the test is NOT a "JREF associate." It is a trusted independent observer. This is clearly stated in the Challenge FAQ. This observer does not have a million bucks on the line. Admittedly, it is usually a skeptic- however, the idea that skeptics are so stuck in their way of thinking that they would lie, cheat, forge test results, destroy the videotape of the preliminary test, and possibly commit perjury (if you sued them for breach of contract, you could have them testify at a deposition.) This is all after they see you succeed in the preliminary.

Remember, this test requires no judging. It simply requires objective criteria for testing. If you stated that the ten subjects who were treated with EFT would improve, say, an average of three points higher than the average improvement of the ten subjects in the control group (who received something that seemed exactly like EFT but did not touch the proper points on the body, or had some other difference along those lines), then you would continue to the formal test. The investigator would not judge, he would simply record each person's ranking of their headache (and the subjects would appear on the videotape of the challenge, as well.)

Do you have any questions about this procedure, or any doubts about its fairness?

Pepper

19th April 2006, 08:31 PM

Do you have any questions about this procedure, or any doubts about its fairness?

OK, the person is an "appointed representative" or "member of the JREF staff". And I'm not saying the individual has a million bucks on the line.

I doubt the fairness of the whole procedure, because I know from dealing with him that Randi is dishonest.

Flange Desire

19th April 2006, 08:48 PM

OK, the person is an "appointed representative" or "member of the JREF staff". And I'm not saying the individual has a million bucks on the line.

I doubt the fairness of the whole procedure, because I know from dealing with him that Randi is dishonest.

It could not be fairer.

Don't bother with the personality attacks - just claim the easy money.
$US 1 million is a hell of a lot of reasons to get over your personal feelings.

Metullus

19th April 2006, 09:22 PM

*snip*... because I know from dealing with him that Randi is dishonest.
An assertion for which you have yet to provide evidence.

Admiral

19th April 2006, 09:45 PM

OK, the person is an "appointed representative" or "member of the JREF staff". And I'm not saying the individual has a million bucks on the line.

No, the person is NOT. It is NOT a member of the JREF staff, it is not a representative of the JREF, the person is not paid by the JREF, associated with the JREF, or related to the JREF, except that they agree to perform a preliminary test.

For example, Cameron Johnson (whom you can read about here:http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38741) was tested in 2001 for the prelimary JREF test by a skeptic named Eric Carlson, a member of the now-defunct Carolina Skeptics.

Also, a preliminary test was performed May 28th, 2005, in England, for a woman named Angela Patel. The people who ran the test were Nick Pullar and Tony Youens. Mr. Pullar runs a skeptic group, and Mr. Youens is an independent investigator, but neither are in any way a representative or member of the JREF. You can read the report on the preliminary test here:

http://randi.org/jr/060305be.html

(it's in the middle of the page)

and read the correspondence between the applicant and the JREF here:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=34609

If you want other examples of prelimary tests and who conducts them, we could find more. However, I'm sure that any reasonable person would see that the test is not conducted by a representative of member of the JREF staff.

I doubt the fairness of the whole procedure, because I know from dealing with him that Randi is dishonest.

Please point out any time that Randi lied to you, or any time that he exhibited dishonest behavior.

It's true he was curt, but consider that you hadn't followed the rules of the challenge (you shouldn't have sent an email to him, but instead sent one to the challenge email address), and hadn't given him a specific claim. As we've repeated, "EFT" is not a claim in itself- "I can cure diabetes patients by having them tap themselves in a particular manner and recite certain words" is a claim (and a paranormal one.)

Anyway, point out any particular thing he said that was a lie, or stop calling him dishonest.

Please feel free to ask us about any other concerns regarding the challenge, or aspects that you find unfair.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 10:39 PM

Anyway, point out any particular thing he said that was a lie, or stop calling him dishonest.

I've done that.

Pepper

19th April 2006, 10:43 PM

It could not be fairer.

Don't bother with the personality attacks - just claim the easy money.
$US 1 million is a hell of a lot of reasons to get over your personal feelings.

My personal feelings are not an issue. I figured the challenge was meaningless after a few emails back and forth. I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. Randi blocked me. End of that issue. Is that clear?

And even if I were:
"While I’m recovering from recent surgery, the JREF will be unable to process any challenge-related activities. 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

themyst

20th April 2006, 12:02 AM

My personal feelings are not an issue. I figured the challenge was meaningless after a few emails back and forth. I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. Randi blocked me. End of that issue. Is that clear?

Randi can block you, he can hire guards to keep you away from himself, he could hide away in some mountain, it does NOT matter.

Randi does NOT do the $1m challenge, that is the JREF, Randi only put up some of the money, it is not even all his or even mostly his, it was donated by someone else.

Randi put up some of the money and setup the basic rules for applying for the challenge. That is it, that is where it ends.

You work with the JREF to design a test for your claim. An outsider** agreed by both you and the JREF test you claim (to be self evident). If that test passes then a panel agreed by both you and JREF will examine the claim.

Randi will take no part in this process and if you reach the final stage I am sure Randi would actually agree to leave the county while you do the test so that he has Zero affect on the outcome.

Randi has nothing to do with the test. The only reason that the test is on hold while Randi is recuperating is because the previous person at JREF who worked on the challenge has left the JREF.

Randi is not the person, never has been the person (from your perspective) nor will ever be the person you need to deal with.

[edit] **The person who you have agreed to assist in the challenge is not to test you claim, that is to be self evident, but is there to test and confirm that the agreed upon checks are in place.

Flange Desire

20th April 2006, 12:35 AM

My personal feelings are not an issue. I figured the challenge was meaningless after a few emails back and forth. I'm not interested in applying for the challenge. Randi blocked me. End of that issue. Is that clear?

You say that you are not interested in applying for the challenge, but the reasons for this are not very clear.
You have not been 'blocked' by Randi.

Surely $US 1 million is plenty of reason to want to demonstrate your claim?
Why would a few curt emails stop you from collecting an easy $US 1 million?

PS, the JREF challenge is a very meaningful way to educate.

Flange Desire

20th April 2006, 12:50 AM

I don't know if EFT will work for any specific case. It's hard to know that about any treatment.

One can determine, with high confidence, whether a treatment works or not.
Trials and tests for treatment efficiacy are performed every day.

True, it is not particularly easy to set up such trials,
but they are de rigeur for all non-quack treatments.

LotusMegami

20th April 2006, 01:56 AM

chillzero

20th April 2006, 05:20 AM

If I had cancer, and went to a doctor for treatment, I would certainly expect the doctor to know the likelihood of that treatment working for me, and the likelihood of it harming me.

That's how science-based medicine works. All treatments are tested exhaustively to determine effectiveness and safety. That's how science works. You gather evidence until you are certain.

True, the radiation and chemo might not work for me. I might still die. I might suffer a great deal more than I would have if I didn't get treatment at all. I might waste what little time I have here on Earth.

So that doctor had better know the odds, and choose the treatment best for me.

If I just want to relax and feel better, I'll get a massage. Or a pedicure. Or have fun selecting a nice wig. That will improve my morale, which is important. No woo required.

And, just as relevant - you would want to be sure that the doctor understands not only the illness, but the treatments advocated - that the doctor has more than a basic concept of how the treatment works, what it will do to you; what changes it makes to you in order to tackle the disease.

I wouldn't want a doctor to say, hey - try this, I know nothing about it, but hey - give it a go anyway.

Mojo

20th April 2006, 05:28 AM

Hi, Pepper.

You're a reasonable and intelligent person. Evidence?

Piggy

20th April 2006, 05:46 AM

there is little downside, at worst, it seems, you will waste an hour or two.
But there's another downside. In order to want to try EFT rather than, say, relaxation, a walk in the park with your dog, and a heart-to-heart with a close friend who doesn't mind if you get kinda weepy about your potentially terminal condition, you have to buy into all this nonsense about mystical energy.

If you understand that any benefit from EFT comes from relaxation, connection with another human being (when that's part of it), and reducing mental stress, then there are other ways of doing this that don't require mystical belief.

It is better to use methods that do not, as a side effect, warp one's perception of reality.

gnome

20th April 2006, 07:22 AM

I've done that.

Requoting things has been helpful in the past... if you want to convince us, you wouldn't mind spelling it out further when asked.

You might get people to leave it alone if you didn't assume that Randi's personality flaws tainted the challenge. If you simply said something like "I don't want to take the challenge, because I don't like James Randi and don't want to get involved in his project" then we'd surely leave it be. But when you make a claim that the challenge itself is flawed, you need to back that up.

NobbyNobbs

20th April 2006, 08:55 AM

ChristineR

20th April 2006, 08:58 AM

There would be no serious downside to EFT if it was the only unproven therapy ever pushed to the sick. Imagine if you will Pepper, being desperate, in pain, trying just to keep up with simple things like remembering to pay the bills, in danger of losing your job, in danger of maxing out your health insurance, being too sick to drive yet having to get to the doctors twice a week...imagine all this going on and then having complete strangers, people you meet briefly on a message board, strangers who see you in the supermarket, all your aunts and uncles, hundreds of people with no medical training, no special knowledge of your disease, all of them recommending some ridiculous cure, something with no scientific basis, things that often require enormous amounts of time and money, not to mention bizarre things like enemas (ugh!), no two of them agreeing with one another...and imagine when you tell them that no, you are not going to start giving yourself enemas three times a day they come back with "Well it can't hurt!" or "Mr. Schwartz is such a nice, caring man, he's great, I really like his advice" or "Don't you want to get better? You've got to keep a positive attitude or you'll never get better" or "It worked for Jill, you should see how great SHE looks now" or "You're taking such-and-such a drug! Oh no, that's horrible! Take vitamin C instead."

Try this: go to your local bookstore or library or even health food store. Pick a disease, and start looking it up in books. Write down EVERY herb, every "supplement," every procedure, every vitamin, every special diet, every treatment recommended. Note all the possible causes (constipation? blocked chakras? sublaxtions?) and appropriate treatments. Pick up a copy of the local "New Age" newsweekly. See if you can't find your disease mentioned in some of the ads or articles. Write those down too. Then imagine yourself really, really ill, looking at this list and looking at your dwindling bank account and wondering what to do.

Trust me, it can hurt. FIRST you provide evidence that EFT does something. THEN you can start harassing sick people.

Ririon

20th April 2006, 09:48 AM

...

Trust me, it can hurt. FIRST you provide evidence that EFT does something. THEN you can start harassing sick people.
Nominated.

Why? Well, I just thought it was great. And it can't hurt. :)

Admiral

20th April 2006, 02:41 PM

I've done that.

I apologize for my thickness, but I haven't noticed that post. I've seen a number of posts where you gave vague rants about Randi and the challenge- but nowhere in your exchange with him did he lie.

If you have already pointed out a place where he lied, please tell me the post number, or copy and paste it in again. If you can't find it, just repeat it. We never saw you post anything specific and clear. Give me a post number and prove me wrong.

And just to respond in advance to a possible answer you might have- Randi saying you hadn't told him enough about EFT is NOT a lie. Yes, you had given him a link to a site about EFT- however, the site made MANY claims, some of which were normal and some paranormal. For example, the claim that EFT can treat diabetes is paranormal, and the claim that it can treat headaches or cause back pain to stop is not. Therefore, he could not answer your question with the information you had given him. He wasn't lyinh when he said you hadn't told him enough about EFT.

So, could you give us the post number of a post where you specifically gave a lie Randi told?

Metullus

20th April 2006, 03:07 PM

I've done that.
I have once again read through all of your posts and your abridged email correspondence with Randi and I cannot find where you have identified a lie told by him. Unless I am missing something you have in fact not “done that”. Please show us where Randi was dishonest. If you cannot do so you owe him an apology.

ChristineR

20th April 2006, 03:14 PM

We been through this. Randi's lies are:

LIE:

There has never been a well designed study that supports homeopathy.

TRUTH:

In fact there have been, like eight.

LIE:

Pepper did not tell Randi what EFT is.

TRUTH:

In fact Pepper sent him a link, which had lots of vague talk about energy but no coherent testable claims.

Lamuella

20th April 2006, 05:01 PM

Lamuella

20th April 2006, 05:13 PM

I don't know if EFT will work for any specific case. It's hard to know that about any treatment.

It bloody well isn't.

All medications and medically recognized forms of therapy have gone through extensive testing precisely so we will know if they are likely to give a result or not, and in what cases.

"try this, it might work" isn't science, it isn't treatment, it's a pathetic attempt to gull people who are holding out for any hope, no matter how small.

Piggy

21st April 2006, 10:34 AM

I apologize for my thickness, but I haven't noticed that post.
I believe Pepper is referring to the email in which Randi says "The answer is still yes", although he had not previously said "Yes". Randi's lie was implying that he had already answered "Yes" when he had not.

Is that correct, Pepper?

gnome

22nd April 2006, 07:55 AM

I believe Pepper is referring to the email in which Randi says "The answer is still yes", although he had not previously said "Yes". Randi's lie was implying that he had already answered "Yes" when he had not.

Is that correct, Pepper?
Oh! What a liar! Obviously the whole thing is a fraud.

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 01:51 PM

But there's another downside. In order to want to try EFT rather than, say, relaxation, a walk in the park with your dog, and a heart-to-heart with a close friend who doesn't mind if you get kinda weepy about your potentially terminal condition, you have to buy into all this nonsense about mystical energy.

No, you don't. You can just try it and see if it works. And if it did work, you could always tell yourself it worked because it helped you realax, or whatever.

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 01:53 PM

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 01:57 PM

Evidence?

I have a degree in aerospace engineering from UCLA.

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 03:35 PM

Hi Pepper. You do not want to apply, yet you keep posting here. Thrice in a row even.

Would you please enlighten me to your motivation? Besides your claims that:

1. Mr. Randi "lied" to you.
2. The Challenge is a "fraud".

All the necessary aspects to your talking points have been repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

What point do you intend to make after that?

If I may suggest something: Apply. Now. Your educational background surely gives you the goods. Collect $1,000,000 and show Mr. Randi who's boss.
And help suffering people worldwide by proving beyond doubt that this EFT works. Thank you.

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 04:20 PM

If I may suggest something: Apply. Now. Your educational background surely gives you the goods. Collect $1,000,000 and show Mr. Randi who's boss.
And help suffering people worldwide by proving beyond doubt that this EFT works. Thank you.

The suffering people of the world can try EFT now and see if it works for them.

And I couldn't apply for the challenge, even if I wanted to. Other than that...

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 04:26 PM

The suffering people of the world can try EFT now and see if it works for them.
...

I did ask you to prove it.
I did not ask you to repeat what you've said at least a dozen times in this thread.

Can you prove it, under proper observing conditions?

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 04:34 PM

...
And I couldn't apply for the challenge, even if I wanted to.
...

You could apply if you wanted. If you met all necessary criteria and your application were rejected, you would have something to point to.
So far, you only did a lot of pouting.

I will go out on a limb here:
I think deep down you really want to apply. That's why you keep coming back.
But you fear that if your application got accepted, you would have to come up with more than just your pouting.
And you do not seem all that sure EFT will work in a controlled setting

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 04:39 PM

I did not ask you to repeat what you've said at least a dozen times in this thread. I did ask you to prove it.

You're not the boss of me. (I aways feel like I'm on a school yard playground when I come to this forum...)

Can you prove it, under proper observing conditions?

Maybe, I haven't tried.

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 04:40 PM

You could apply if you wanted.

No, I couldn't.

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 04:46 PM

You're not the boss of me. (I aways feel like I'm on a school yard playground when I come to this forum...)

I simply asked you for proof. No more, no less. (Yet you keep coming back.)

Maybe, I haven't tried.

You have One Million reasons to try.

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 04:47 PM

No, I couldn't.

No, Pepper, you wouldn't.

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 04:51 PM

No, Pepper, you wouldn't.

What does this mean?

"While I’m recovering from recent surgery, the JREF will be unable to process any challenge-related activities. We will not be accepting any new applications or working on the current crop until I’m fully recovered. This may take some time."

I thought it meant they aren't accepting any new applications for the challenge.

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

Nucular

23rd April 2006, 04:54 PM

So the challenge is temporarily offline. Are you interested in applying when Randi's back in the saddle?

Pepper

23rd April 2006, 04:59 PM

So the challenge is temporarily offline. Are you interested in applying when Randi's back in the saddle?

No. I thought I had made that clear...

William Smith

23rd April 2006, 05:03 PM

What does this mean?

"While I’m recovering from recent surgery, the JREF will be unable to process any challenge-related activities. We will not be accepting any new applications or working on the current crop until I’m fully recovered. This may take some time."

I thought it meant they aren't accepting any new applications for the challenge.

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

A bit of a semantic problem, I agree. I think it goes like this:

They will accept your written and notarized application via mail.
Then it will sit on the Challenge Facilitator's desk until he or she will commence work when Mr. Randi gives his OK.

Then, the newly appointed Challenge Facilitator will decide if you met the necessary criteria and if this should be the case, after that will accept your claim.

However, I do not speak on JREF's behalf. If you wish to clarify this matter, please contact Mr. Jeff Wagg at challenge@randi.org.
He has most likely all the information you need.

Pepper, the vast majority of Challenge Forum participants would like to see your claim tested. No doubt. We will assist you to the best of our abilities, should you pursue this path.

Nucular

23rd April 2006, 05:33 PM

No. I thought I had made that clear...
I thought that too, but then you said you couldn't apply, and took quite a long time to refer to the temporary state of affairs which has put the challenge on hold.

So you won't apply.