As I previously commented, a story on Channel 9 News recently spruiked Emotional Freedom Technique in treating food cravings. I took a not so wild guess that the study was not properly designed, and lacked an adequate placebo. A brief Google search revealed earlier research by the same author which suffered this well-known and understood flaw. In email correspondence, the author has confirmed my suspicions. Her defence seems to be that others are doing placebo trials and we should wait for those. But this is disingenuous and unnecessary.
Proper trials of meridian based therapies have been conducted many times, particularly for the more fashionable acupuncture. The balance of evidence plainly shows that it does not matter where the needles go. Let’s put this simply: There are no acupuncture points. There are no meridians. There is no chi. Inserting needles into the skin may have a mild local analgesic effect, but this is not acupuncture. Ritualistic tapping on the body can provide a distraction that might aid in overcoming food cravings, but this is not EFT.
One example of the failure of Emotional Freedom Technique is Assessment of the Emotional Freedom Technique: An alternative treatment for fear published in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (Spring – Summer 2003, Volume 2 Number 1) by Wendy L. Waite and Mark D. Holder. Their abstract states:
The effectiveness of the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), a treatment for anxiety and fear, was assessed. One hundred nineteen university students were assigned and tested in an independent four-group design. The groups differed in the treatment each received: applied treatment of EFT (Group EFT); a placebo treatment (Group P); a modeling treatment (Group M); and a control (Group C). Participants’ self-reported baseline and post-treatment ratings of fear were measured. Group EFT showed a significant decrease in self-report measures at post-treatment. However, Group P and Group M showed a similar significant decrease. Group C did not show a significant decrease in post-treatment fear ratings. These results do not support the idea that the purported benefits of EFT are uniquely dependent on the “tapping of meridians.” Rather, these results suggest that the reported effectiveness of EFT is attributable to characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies.
And their conclusion:
In summary, the present study establishes that certain techniques used by EFT may be useful in the treatment of fear. However, this effectiveness appears unrelated to the unique features of EFT and instead derives from components shared with more traditional therapies already established as effective treatments for specific phobia. The clinical significance of EFT, including the duration of treatment effectiveness, still needs to be ascertained.
The Waite and Holder study was a well designed trial with proper placebo groups, and their findings mirror the large majority of such studies. It does not matter where you tap/stick needles/twiddle toothpicks. Given the well known problems with the idea of meridians, it’s the sort of study that Griffith University should have done.
Peta Stapleton and Griffith University have pimped fundamentally flawed studies to the media over the last couple of years, and have unfortunately attracted a fair amount of credulous press. They have done their little bit to cloud the public understanding of science, and provided undeserved credibility to the quacks who promote such bogus therapies.