Letters To The Editor

A Critical Analysis of Thought Field Therapy

My therapy, TFT, has been previously criticized in the Skeptic. I have responded to that critique and it will be seen that some of the mistakes of Herbert and Gaudiano (SI, July/August 2000) are covered in my response to that earlier article. Please see especially, e.g., the gross error of interpretation of all three critics (writing in Skeptic and SKEPTICAL INQUIRER) of my concept of psychological reversal (PR) who wrongly believe PR is an excuse for failure. Briefly, PR is not an excuse for failure but rather a very powerful means to significantly increase success rare. This simple and crucial fact can easily be replicated by anyone.

Therapists who follow my procedures (Callahan Techniques [R]) are aware that we have nor used affirmations (referred to as cognitive) for a number of years. I have found such cognitive devices to be completely unnecessary and misleading; they were an unfortunate hangover from my former cognitive therapy days.

I would recommend that Professor Herbert and his student Brandon A. Gaudiano carefully read the SI article that follows theirs by Professor Mario Bunge, "Absolute Skepticism Equals Dogmatism." I will explain why.

An unusual feature of my psychotherapy that is unprecedented is that an honest skeptic can easily replicate my experiments (therapy) by following a few simple directions which describe my therapy algorithms or "recipes." It is correct that training in my procedures will increase success rate, but it is not necessary to rake my training to give a general test of my claims. All that is needed is to follow the simple step-by-step directions I provide. It only takes a matter of minutes to do and the therapy results are usually immediate.

My algorithms are quite simple. Using my algorithms, grandmothers cure young grandchildren, children cure other children, lay people are curing themselves, their relatives, and friends. Some psychologists, however, are curiously reluctant to try my easy step-by-step procedures.

I was recently invited to discuss my work with an e-mail list called "Scientific Clinical Psychologists." Surprisingly, not one scientist on the list was willing to test my easily testable therapy. Professor Herbert indicated on the list that his only interest in trying it would be to "disprove" my claims, but nevertheless, he was opposed to anyone even trying my procedures.

In Professor Bunge's article "Absolute Skepticism Equals Dogmatism," Bunge observes "Once a fact has been reported, someone must examine it critically and attempt to replicate it independently." Although this has been done many thousands of times throughout the world, the psychology establishment appears curiously reluctant.

I have provided the means for true scientists to independently replicate my facts. Many highly select psychologists choose not to do my very simple experiments. Does this sound somewhat like the scientists of Galileo's day who reportedly refused to look through his scope?

Roger J. Callahan, Ph.D.

Founder, Thought Field Therapy

Roger@tftex.com

Brandon Gaudiano and James Herbert respond:

We stand by our assertion that such TFT concepts as "psychological reversal" (PR) and "energy toxins" are convenient attempts to explain away treatment failures. We believe that these concepts are used in an effort to reduce self-reported distress ratings by providing opportunities to retry tapping procedures, thereby increasing the demand characteristics of the therapy. For example, in a recent television appearance on a BBC/TLC show entitled "Phobias: Prisoners of Panic" (aired August 1, 2000), Callahan used a PR tapping treatment after the initial phobia "algorithm" was ineffective. When that too failed to resolve the woman's phobia and she discontinued the treatment, Callahan proposed that her T-shirt must be toxic, and suggested that she would need to remove her clothing for tapping to be effective. There is currently no solid evidence to view such concepts as anything more than post hoc attempts to explain away null effects.

Callahan states that he has been developing this therapy for over twenty years now, but has only in the past few years stopped using affirmations in his therapy. However, many TFT-trained therapists, as well as other "energy" therapists, continue so use the affirmations with tapping. For example, we recently reviewed a training video from a CT- TFT trained therapist who used affirmations in a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. "Energy" therapists frequently combine TFT with techniques borrowed from established therapies. This highlights the importance of testing a TFT protocol in controlled conditions in order to determine what, if any, "active ingredients" the treatment contains.

Callahan's characterization of the second author's comments in an academic Internet discussion group is simply inaccurate; we will be happy to forward a copy of Herbert's comments to any interested reader upon request. In these discussions, Callahan was repeatedly asked to provide controlled data to support his bold assertions regarding the extraordinary effects of TFT, which he failed to produce. He seemed puzzled as to why these scientifically minded psychologists were not impressed solely by dotes.