" 

 :: You condem ""lack of efficacy, circular logic, and inability to answer the studies that show it is a combination of placebo and distraction and, frankly, it's sheer silliness.""  

 :: It is nice that you have so honestly put forth your objections. Re: Silliness: now that seems to be important to you. It signifies you do not take it seriously and denounce it, maybe you cannot take something like this seriously. 

 :: Placebo is your word: the  quackwatchers (Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) state: "" ...suggest that the reported effectiveness of EFT is attributable to :characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies"" , not placebo."" Overall, these findings suggest that certain components of EFT were effective,""  
 :: BTW: Do you forget that placebo works?? and is used lots of times in medicine?? What about using an antibiotic for a viral cold? Using knee surgery - scraping  
 ::  for arthosis - See http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html 

 ::So, you deny its efficacy - ie that it works efficiently  what 2 studies have shown up till now have shown it to work, and more will follow.... 
 :: because EFT does not answer?  Who is EFT, Who needs to answer and for whom?  

 :: Re: unproven working methods - Who says you need to prove every theory behind every intervention before you can use it? Scientific explanations have changed and evolved since the middle ages, and will continu to do so. Clinical practice is what gets done by clinicians. Evidence based is not what gets done, clincal experience is what gets done. I have often said to my patients and student: if eating grass as the cows do would do work, I'd have you all eating grass. 

 :: Re: distraction: Boy, this is one of the bigger errors in the conclusions or assumptions. You should try this. Take a person with a phobia, like a phobia for car driving, and distract them while you drive with them, and see if their phobia gets any less. It does not. Anybody can say that it is distraction, but distraction never yields a lasting result, EFT does. 

  
 :: BTW the SRMP research kinda sucks: they screwed up how you do EFT. The collar bone breathing exercise the did is used in about 5 % of the clients, when somebody gets stuck during processing. If such a large percentage of the n poplulation of that study did not respond to EFT, EFT was not properly administered. I am going to assume - and errors will allways be made by assumptions - that they did not divide the issues into aspects and tap on each aspect. They tried to apply EFT to all the containers (too general, broad /large) 
 :: Never the less, the SRMP did show that tapping works, tapping the body, tapping a doll while being busy with the phobia even works, what does not work is making a toy. 

 :: Now, about the line for line changes, please give me feedback:  

 :: My text   psychotherapeutic intervention tool that intends to desensitize emotions by tapping on the body. It has a background in 
 :: complementary medicine and has recently gotten a western scientific explanation as well.  
 :: Your text: Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a psychotherapeutic tool based on a theory that negative emotions are caused by disturbances in the body's energy field and that tapping on the meridians while thinking of a negative emotion alters the body's energy field, restoring it to ""balance.""  

 :: An encyclopedia needs to seperate fact from opinion, and state the facts and opinions as 
 :: such. Now you propose to put that EFT is based on a theory (blah blah) and I contend: What 
 :: IS eft? EFT IS an intervention, a tool that intends to desensitize emotions and feeling. 
 :: Then state some of the theories as to why it works, the most common ones. There are several 
 :: more theories, some quite good actually, like the Emotrance theory by Silvia Hartman.  

 :: remove the theories and separate them fom the practice. 
 :: Some proponent claim EFT is based on this theory. 
 :: Others dont care. 
 :: And those on the BSMA website say EFT is just one of several ways to adding sensory input 
 :: to an emotional memory. 
 :: If not all proponents claim EFT is based on this theory, and even the science does not 
 :: agree with it, why say EFT is based on this theory. 

 :: I removed the section about Gary Craig being the first to be trained in VT? So  
 :: what? relevance? Even if he had been the last to be trained in this VT, I still dont see  
 :: the relevance to EFT.  

 :: Re: But sticking needles into nervous tissue and simply tapping on those points have completely different physiological effects 
 :: Needles are NOT stuck in nervous tissue. Do you know so