Monica Pignotti, MSW

If you Google "Monica Pignotti" Please Read This First

To anyone Googling my name, "Monica Pignotti" please read this posting before reading anything else. There has been some false and potentially very damaging information posted about me on Digg.com that is completely false. I tried to have it removed, but have found it is up again and Digg refuses to take it down even though there is no documentation to support what was posted. Contrary to what the blurb in digg.com says, I, Monica Pignotti, MSW, am most definitely NOT being sued for defamation or anything else and I am not being "investigated" and there certainly is no "class action" against me. If everyone who ever criticized or expressed skepticism with regard to an unfounded claim on the Internet was sued, the courts would be very, very full! If this didn't have such a grave potential consequences, I would be laughing it is so utterly ridiculous. I have started a new blog to refute the disinformation from digg.com that can be accessed by clicking on this link.

There was another other false story that was up on digg.com that they finally removed was that in 2001 (eight years ago) a completely baseless law suit against a group of 30 people (I was one) was filed and it was so frivolous that the judge immediately dismissed it in 2002 before it ever even got to the beginning stages. People can read about the actual facts by clicking on this link. A copy of the dismissal of the case is available by clicking on this link.

A few other points about information coming up about me on Google searches:

1. Scientology. It is true that I was involved in Scientology in the 1970s. I joined at the age of 17 and left the organization over 30 years ago and no longer subscribe to any of the beliefs. To people who wish to judge me for a big mistake I made as a teenager that has followed me all my life, I would only ask that you consider whether you would want people to judge you 30+ years later for bad decisions you made in your teens, early 20s and how you would experience that. Perhaps the most ludricrous accusation comes from certain "attachment" therapists I have criticized -- to get back at me, they are spamming usenet groups about my past association and accusing me of trying to "hide" it when I have been nothing less than up front about it. These are the same people who have repeatedly tried to have critical websites about them taken down, unsuccessfully it would seem.
2. Thought Field Therapy. I was involved with TFT (20 years after I left Scientology -- contrary to the rumor mongers, I did not leave Scientology for TFT -- one had nothing to do with the other) and have written about it extensively on this blog but sometimes when people Google my name they somehow get the idea I am currently involved. I am not currently involved, severed my association with TFT and the Callahans over five years ago. It is ironic that my detractors, who currently practice and promote bogus therapies that quite possibly are much more harmful, would criticize me. Pot, kettle, black, it seems. The key difference is that I have admitted to and learned from my mistakes whereas my detractors obviously have not and continue to promote and practice bogus therapies.

Someone recently commented to me that I seem to get very enthusiastic about things I have become involved in and then do a 180, implying that I am a disloyal person not to be trusted. The fact is that I have a number of affiliations I have been consistently loyal to. I just don't do blind loyalty very well and if something or someone violates my values, I will not continue my support. I did not make these changes on a whim. On the contrary, I agonized and thought long and hard about the decisions I have made, which were not easy ones but ones I felt I had to make to preserve my integrity.Blowing the whistle on Callahan and his misrepresentations and unsupported claims was one of these.

Since that time, I have published a number of scholarly articles that are critical of TFT and its unsupported claims and other questionable practices as well as reviews on empirically supported practices. Here are the references (note that I am not posting these to brag or be arrogant -- I am posting these as evidence that I am very serious about not only having consistently stayed away from questionable practices for the past 5 years but also having a committed position on educating the public):
Peer Reviewed Publications (the first will soon be published in an APA journal):

1) Pignotti, M. & Thyer, B. A. (in press). Some Comments on "Energy Psychology: A Review of the Evidence": Premature Conclusions Based on Incomplete Evidence? Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice.

2) Pignotti, M. & Thyer, B. A. (2009). The use of novel unsupported and empirically supported therapies by licensed clinical social workers. Social Work Research, 33, 5-17.

3) Pignotti, M. (2005). Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology vs. random meridian point sequences: a single-blind controlled experiment. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4(1), 72-81.

4) Pignotti, M. (2005). Regarding the October 2001 JCLP Special Issue on Thought Field Therapy: Retraction of conclusions in the article “Heart Rate Variability as an outcome measure for Thought Field Therapy in clinical practice.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 361-365.

5) Pignotti, M. (2005). Callahan fails to meet the burden of proof for Thought Field Therapy claims: Rejoinder to Callahan. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 251-255.

6) Pignotti, M. (2005, Fall/Winter). Thought Field Therapy in the media: a critical analysis of one exemplar.  The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 3(2) p. 60-66. Full Text for this article available by clicking on this link.

Invited Articles/Book Chapters:

7) Thyer, B. A. & Pignotti, M. (in press).  Science and pseudoscience in clinical assessment. In C. Jordan & C. Franklin (Eds.).  Clinical assessment for social workers:  Quantitative and qualitative approaches (third edition).  Chicago, IL: Lyceum Press.

8) Thyer, B. A. & Pignotti, M. (2008).  Treatment plans for clients with social phobia.  In A. R. Roberts (Ed.).  Social Worker’s Desk Reference (2^nd edition) (pp. 545-551).  New York: Oxford University Press.

9) Pignotti, M. (2007). Questionable interventions taught at top-ranked school of social work. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 5, 78-82.

10) Pignotti, M. & Mercer, J. (2007). Holding therapy and Diadic Developmental Psychotherapy are not supported and acceptable practices: A systematic research synthesis revisited, Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 513-519.

11) Pignotti, M. (2007). Thought Field Therapy: A former insider’s experience. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 392-407.

The survey that I recently published in the Social Work Research journal showed that three-quarters of my respondents (LCSWs throughout the US) had practiced at least one novel unsupported therapy within the past year, so my own experience with TFT is not all that unusual at all. The only thing that is unusual is that I no longer practice TFT or other novel unsupported therapies.

3) My age and my career. In 2006, I went back to school to get my PhD in Social Work (I have had a masters in SW since 1996) and successfully passed my dissertation defense on June 18, 2009. I am obviously older than most PhD students and some people tend to stereotype people such as myself as not being serious and just doing this as some kind of lightweight hobby. However, the fact that I completed in three years, a PhD program that takes people, on average 5 years to complete defies this stereotype. Even worse, some have falsely assumed the outdated model of retirement at age 65 (which is so not going to happen for me) and falsely assume I would have a very short "career". Given that people today are living longer and longer with a better quality of life (my own mother is 88 years old, still working and sharp as a tack!) I am very serious about my own career plans and my long-range plan is for a professional career that will involve working for at least the next 20-25 years or longer. Given that the average adult changes careers three times in their lifetime, this is comparable if not longer than the length of a career many younger people would have in this field. I love the quote from Albert Ellis, who kept working well into his 90s almost up until the time of his death: "I'm not the retiring type". I completely relate. Neither am I. I have no desire, no plans and no financial ability to retire at age 65.

4) None of this should be taken to conclude that I have no sense of humor. Sometimes people have intensity and being serious about what one does confused with no sense of humor -- another form of online attack I have gotten from people who have never even met me. People who know me well can assure you that I am able to have a good laugh as much as anyone else.

I urge anyone who has any questions about anything posted about me on the Internet to please not assume it is true or jump to conclusions about me. I will be more than happy to discuss any questions people who are in a position to make important decisions about me might have about material they read about me online.

Update: On a more humorous note, the latest is that my current detractors cannot even get the instrument I played/studied in high school and college correct. I played/studied the cello, not the viola. I mentioned a viola teacher who was/is a Scientologist in one of my write-ups so they just jumped to the conclusion that I too had played viola when I have never even studied the instrument. I simply stated that I was studying music, in this write-up as the instrument I played was not really relevant to the main topic of my essay, which was Scientology. An insignificant bit of minutia, but it illustrates the sloppy style of making unwarranted assumptions and jumping to unwarranted conclusions these people do that manifests in more serious ways, such as when they jump to false conclusions about the bogus therapies they practice. They also got my timeline completely wrong -- again, showing their propensity for making up narratives to suit their agenda, that have little to do with reality.

Skeptic and Anti-Quackery Web Rings

Member Skeptic Web Ring

Skeptic Ring [ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ] Visit a complete list of WebRing memberships here

Member Anti-Quackery Web Ring

Anti-Quackery Ring [ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]

Table of Contents

Table of Contents (most recent entries first, click on entry to read)

Roger Callahan Blog an Invaluable Educational Resource (for pseudoscience, that is) 

Roger Callahan Blog Threatens me with "Legal Proceedings" 

Releasing the Bonds of the "Cult Mind Control" Narrative 

Steve Hassan and his Counseling Claims 

Inaccurate Statements by Steve Hassan to CNN 

Scientology Critics and the Death of Jett Travolta 

Misleading Claims about Tapping and Weight Loss on CBS The Early Show; 

Monica Pignotti does NOT consider TFT a "Cult" 

Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology Trade Secret to be Revealed 

How Thought Field Therapy Proponents Evade Media Questions 

Matrimania Jumps on the Neurobabble Bandwagon 

Open Letter to Anonymous: There are Worse Things than Scientology 

Remembering Cathy Cariotaki and the Stanford Prison Experiment 

New Thought Field Therapy Forum Bans Monica Pignotti 

Singled Out 

Clarification on my Published Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology Study re Number of Rounds 

Article on My Experience with Thought Field Therapy 

Buyer Beware: Goodtherapy.org 

Holding Therapy Recommended in Book on DSM 

Roger Callahan does indeed charge $120,000 for Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology 

Link and my Comments on NPR Program on TFT 

National Public Radio Program on Thought Field Therapy 

Response to a Callahan Fan 

Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology Study Published 

Petition to Support Albert Ellis 

Attachment Therapy Parenting Cited at Murder Trial 

A Mother's Denial, A Daughter's Death 

Soliciting Testimonials 

Thought Field Therapy in the Media 

Thought Field Therapy Hall of Shame Awards

Therapism: Just Say No! 

Therapists and Treatment Effectiveness 

Dr. Bratman's "Rogue's Gallery of Confounding Treatment Effects" 

Trade Secrets in Mental Health Practice 

Thought Field Therapy and Animals: Truth is Stranger than Satire 

Cat Therapy Bill 

Dog Shrink Cartoon 

Dr. Katz 

Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology : Business as Usual 

Law and Order SVU Gets it Wrong About Trauma 

Why are Mental Health Professionals Clearing Drugs 

Rebuttal to Feinstein's Response to my LTE in Psychotherapy Networker 

Debunking Thought Field Therapy 

Letter to the Editor Psychotherapy Networker 

Introduction 

Radio Interview on TFT: A Former Insider's Perspective 

Roger Callahan Blog Threatens me with Legal Proceedings and Fails to Make the Distinction between Criticism and Stalking

I visited Roger Callahan's blog, which is open to the public today, and received this message:

Your hack attempt has been logged and forwarded to our Legal Council.

Further attempts will result in legal proceedings.

This was followed by a link to a document providing the definition of "stalking" which, curiously enough, does not fit what I have been doing in any way, shape, or form.

So here is the most appropriate response to your threats:

However, for those who need it, I will elaborate further. Apparently the Callahans are incapable of telling the difference between stalking and simply visiting and responding to a blog, that invites the public to respond. The blog invited a response, and I responded, questioning and criticizing their claims. The blog did not say "be the first to respond, except for Monica Pignotti" it simply stated "be the first to respond" and so I accepted the invitation and responded. This is free speech, not stalking. I made no threats, I simply criticized and exposed them by writing about what it was like to be a former TFT insider and cited my own published research on TFT. As a result, I am now blocked from the website and threatened with legal proceedings. What are Roger and Joanne Callahan afraid of? Free speech?

As for "hacking", Here is the definition of "hacking"

Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hacking

Callahan's blog had no security mechanisms on it, it was open to the public and I simply clicked on the link. That is not hacking. Unless they want to make it a closed website to all but their own true believers (which would defeat the purpose of their promotions and desire to spread TFT to the rest of the world) going to an open website, clicking on a link, and responding to a blog is not "hacking".

So here is a newsflash to Roger and Joanne Callahan: If you do not want people to visit your website, then make it private. Rest assured I will not be intimidated by your threats and I will continue to do what I have been doing for the past five years, engaging in criticism and expressing my opinion about TFT, which I believe is a pseudoscientific therapy that makes grandiose claims in the absence of evidence. I am a woman who is more than a half a century old, with no history whatsoever of any kind of violence towards anyone. No rational person can consider that a threat -- it is simply a statement that I will continue to exercise my right to free speech and criticize and challenge your ridiculous, unsupported claims, nothing more, nothing less. What I am doing, speaking out and expressing my opinions about TFT and discussing my previous experience in TFT does not fit the legal definition of stalking in any way, shape, or form and no rational person outside your circle of true believers will buy that. If you think you can win in a court, you are truly out of touch with reality, but it's more likely that you know you cannot win and are just trying to frighten me. Well, think again because I am not doing anything illegal by expressing my opinions and talking about my personal experience with Thought Field Therapy, including publishing scholarly criticism and research (for example: the first and thus far the only peer reviewed published controlled study on TFT).

If you attempt to initiate legal action against me for simply visiting a website and responding to a blog that invited responses, you will make complete fools of yourself and be laughed out of the courtroom so go ahead and make my day, initiate legal proceedings and get yourself negative publicity for highly cult-like behavior.

It seems the Callahans just never learn about their frivolous legal threats and saber rattling.

First, they threatened and tried to sue Gregory Nicosia for allegedly violating their contract for training others in TFTDx. The Callahans lost, Nicosia won. TFT could not be trademarked. The Callahans have a rather amusing habit of making trade secrets out of material that was previously published. When it was exposed that much of what they called TFTDx trade secret at the time was published in James Durlacher's book, Freedom from Fear Forever, that Callahan himself wrote the Foreword to, the Callahans had no case against Nicosia. They lost, big time.

Then, they threatened Gary Craig with lawsuits, who also refused to be intimidated by them.

About a year ago, they threatened Chris Milbank for training others in Voice Technology, revealing the secret. Chris refused to back down, the Callahans either backed down or withdrew their threats. In any case, they failed to stop Chris.

Now, I am the target with the most ludicrous of all their threats. They threaten me with "legal proceedings" for simply responding to a posting on Roger Callahan's blog, and accuse me of stalking and hacking when what I did not fit the definition of either. If posting a negative, critical response on a blog was "stalking" the courtrooms would be packed with lines around the block. But some people just never learn.

Roger Callahan Blog: An Invaluable Educational Resource (for examples of pseudoscience, that is)

The Callahan blog may have been able to block the IP address of my personal computer, but as long as their blog is a free, open web address, they cannot identify and block the IP addresses of students, libraries, and others I have been educating on the subject of telling the difference between science and pseudoscience in mental health practice. Callahan's blog is chok full of great examples of the latter.

The latest example is Ildiko Scurr's write up of Joanne Callahan's TFT Bootcamp. The Callahans rented out space from the UK's Royal Society of Medicine (anyone can rent space from them) to hold the bootcamp. Ms. Scurr's writings are particularly instructive, as she holds a string of fringe certifications but, as far as I have been able to determine, no mainstream mental health credentials, licensure, etc. but the UK recognizes some of these nontraditional certifications as they have state control of much more than we do here in the US.

In any case, Scurr, during her 7 year or so association with TFT, has apparently been using it to treat everything under the sun and some of her write-ups are quite entertaining, while others are sad and rather disturbing, particularly her write-up about how she treated a cancer patient by having the person tap on past life trauma, entitled Using Thought Field Therapy with a Cancer Case.

Ms. Scurr also runs a TFT Lounge where she makes it clear that people who cannot "appreciate the miracles" she is "telling the world about" should "stop reading now". She instructs such doubters to learn how to love themselves more before visiting again - in other words, anyone who doesn't believe her so-called "evidence" doesn't love themselves. This is the sort of true believer the Callahans attract these days. During the 1990s the people he attracted were mostly mental health professionals who lacked adequate education in how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, but these days the world of TFT seems to becoming more and more populated with the Scurr types. They still have such mental health professionals as well, but many of those people have been turned off by the Callahan true believer attitude and trade secrets have gone to more free and open alternatives such as EFT.

Getting back the Callahan blog I have now been blocked from but that is still open to the rest of the world, Ildiko Scurr has a write-up of Joanne Callahan's TFT Bootcamp held at the rented Royal Society space. Scurr rejoices that the sociey had no new carpets or flourescent lights to act as "energy toxins" to disrupt people's sense of wellbeing. Scurr states that the algorithm level "ensures an 80% success rate with all simple psychological problems" (Paragraph 5) and assures us that Joanne "backed up everything with real case studies and evidence of research" (Paragraph 6). This is a classic example of a pseudoscience masquerading as science, misportraying anecdotes and reports of cases that are less than what the research textbooks would consider "case studies" as "case studies" and calling poorly done studies that used no control group, carried out by enthusiastic devotees and the Callahans as "research evidence". Of course Scurr, given her background, would be incapable of making such distinctions, just the sort of person the Callahans seem to value these days.

It might seem like I am being rather harsh on poor little Ildiko, but if the reader is getting that sense, go back and read her article on treating the patient with cancer that I linked to above, and hopefully reasonable people will see why she and other TFT true believers need to be called out on what they are reportedly doing.

The Callahan blog also has an amusing anecdote about treating a chiropracter's dog's diarrhea with surrogate TFT by long time TFT proponent Mary Cowley, who holds her PhD from the University of Humanistic Studies but no licensure in psychology or any other mental health profession, last I heard. Cowley's writings are just as instructive as Scurr's. As bad as it is for consumers that such people are out there, treating vulnerable people with serious problems, it really is helpful to have such vivid teaching examples of pseudoscience in action.

Definition of a Psychologist: Response to Spammers

I don't usually make it a practice to respond to spammers but I just can't let this one go unchallenged. The spammers claim to be licensed clinical psychologists and APA members, which given the ignorance they display is doubtful. Two of the posters on Jean Mercer's Psychology Today blog who were harassing her with this spam were using names of actual psychologists (one of them was misspelled, which was a dead giveaway). When the real psychologists with those names were tracked down, they said that the postings did not come from them, so this is false information. When they apparently complained to PT, they took down the false postings so now the spammers are posting all over the public usenet [which also repeats the usual lies about me, alleging political connections I do not have], screaming "censorship" not understanding that false impersonation is not acceptable on a professional blog and repeating the myths I debunk below. For the benefit of lay people who may honestly have common misconceptions about the psychology profession I wanted to set the record straight and provide some references for the correct definition of who may use the title, psychologist. Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• Not all psychologists are clinical psychologists, thus not all psychologists see clients/patients. Clinical psychology is but one sub discipline of the psychology profession which includes social psychology, experimental psychology, developmental psychology and other forms of psychology that are not clinical. The APA states the following definition, provided on their website:
  • Definition of "psychologist"
    APA policy on the use of the title "psychologist" is contained in the General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services, which define the term "Professional Psychologist" as follows: "Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school."
• Not all psychologists are APA members. A number of highly reputable psychologists have decided not to be members of APA for a variety of reasons. For example, recently a number of psychologists have been opposed to the APA's policy on interrogations and resigned in protest. About 20 years ago, a number of psychologists resigned from the APA because they did not feel it was holding high enough scientific standards and started an organization, the American Psychological Society, now known as the Association for Psychological Science (APS). Psychologists can elect to be members of the APA, the APS, both, or neither and it has no impact whatsoever on their ability to call themselves psychologists, provided they meet the definition of having a doctorate degree in psychology.
• APA membership has nothing to do with licensure. A person is not required to be a member of the APA to be licensed as a psychologist. If they have the degrees required by their state and pass the requisite examinations and have the required hours of supervision, they can be licensed even if they do not belong to any professional organization.
• Not all members of the APA are licensed psychologists. Many are social, experimental, or developmental psychologists who do not see clients and thus have no need for licensure. For example, past APA President Philip Zimbardo is a highly respected social psychologist who has no need to hold a clinical license. By the false definitions these spammers have been using, Zimbardo, would have to be disqualified for the same reasons they are alleging Mercer ought to -- neither have clinical licensure. However, the spammers are wrong and Drs. Mercer and Zimbardo both are allowed to call themselves psychologists, as per the APA definition and this holds true whether or not they are APA members.
• I realize that this may be understandably confusing to lay people, but I wanted to make an effort to set the record straight, given the misinformation that is being put out there.
• If what the spammers stated was correct, then about half the bloggers on Psychology Today would have to be banned, since many are psychologists other than clinical and do not hold licenses.

I also want to put the spammers on notice that I will not tolerate this libelous spam on my blog. This is not censorship, as anyone reading this blog can see I have allowed some pretty harsh criticism of me to get posted here. I have to draw the line at spam and libel, though. Someone just tried to post some spam here under a pseudonym. His IP addressed traced back to the same IP address used by a sock puppet from Wikipedia who was trashing Dr. Mercer and got banned there as well [a sock puppet is someone who posts under multiple identities]. If this individual is reading that, rest assured that I know who you are. You are not a licensed psychologist yourself and your behavior is most unprofessional, which is probably why you don't have the guts to have a dialogue with me directly, under your real name. But I'll make a deal with you. If you want to respond to this posting using your real name, I will allow it through. Anything else, though, coming from this particular individual will be promptly deleted and reported as spam. I welcome dissent and disagreement, but I do not welcome repeated, intentionally false and defamatory statements that have been repeatedly refuted.

So-Called "Attachment Therapists" Attempts to Smear Critics

Certain so-called Attachment Therapists have been attempting to have critical material about them removed from websites, invoking DMCA when what was posted actually constitutes fair use. A survivor of this sort of bogus and dangerous therapy has a blog and gives the details of these attempts to silence critics. Since their campaign to silence critics by having critical material taken down has largely failed, thanks to courageous ISPs that refuse to succumb to their bullying tactics, they have now resorted to spamming usenet groups and the blog of Jean Mercer with utterly ridiculous nonsense that only exposes their own lack of critical reasoning skills. What I don't understand is why the people who run the Psychology Today blog have done nothing after weeks, to control these spammers. The repeated postings of the same material over and over clearly fit the definition of spam, yet they allow it to continue. There is no way to know for sure if they are, but some of these posters claim to be mental health professionals. I can see their allowing even the nonsensical postings to go through once -- that is free speech, but to allow repeated postings of the same material over and over is spam, not free speech.
They are also spamming the usenet with nonsensical, false assertions about their critics. Just to give an example of their poor critical reasoning skills: They managed to find the bogus counter-suit I and 30 other people got dragged into that was immediately dismissed it was so obviously bogus. The original suit had to do with a woman, Ileana Rosenthal, who had a breast implant case and was suing Stephen Barrett but the counter-suit I got dragged into had nothing to do with her -- it was about Hulda Clark, who has written a book claiming to have "The Cure for All Diseases". Several of us challenged her claims and the counter-suit alleged we were in some kind of grand conspiracy together. This was tossed out by the judge. Now these AT true believers got a hold of this. First they falsely alleged that I supported Ileana and then when someone attempted to correct them on this, they alleged that I was against Ileana and therefore I "worked with" some other people I have never even heard of (Berleau, Ebell from the CEI who apparently took some sort of position against Ileana's case) and they rant on and on about my alleged connections to them. The fact is I never took any position on Ileana's case -- what involved me in it was the position I took on Hulda Clark. Even if I had taken a position, however, it wouldn't follow that people who agree about the case "work together" or agree on everything. Obviously, these folks flunked logic 101. The best way to refute them is to just sit back and let them post their own self-refuting postings which display a stunning lack of even basic familiarity with logic and reason. Here is some of the discussion on Jean Mercer's Psychology Today blog, to give people an example of what I refer to. If these responders are the mental health professionals they claim to be, they certainly give the profession a black eye.

Update: The spammers went too far when someone falsely took on the identity of someone who is an actual person who is a psychologist and had nothing at all to do with this. When the person found out his name was being used by the spammers, apparently he complained and finally the spam was taken down. Of course, the spammers are now going to public usenet groups, crying censorship. Apparently they don't know the difference between freedom of speech and false impersonation. Give the continuous legal threats they have been making to critics for doing nothing more than speaking out about dangerous therapies, it is ironic they would have anything to say about freedom of speech.

Mary Cowley treats a Dog's Diarrhea with Surrogate TFT

Yes, TFT is claimed to treat just about everything under the sun. The latest is Mary Cowley's testimonial about how she treated a dog who was having diarrhea problems with TFT. The next morning, she reports, the dog's stool was normal. She thanks Dr. Callahan, of course.
I have 5 words for you, Ms. Cowley. Post hoc ergo propter hoc . Look it up.
Cute dog, though.

Misinformation on Panic Disorder

The latest on the Callahan blog is misinformation about panic disorder.The entry begins with passing along second-hand information from a conference where speakers reportedly said there was no "cure". Callahan, of course claims to have "cures" for all kinds of conditions. The problem is that he has a very different definition of "cure" from most people. His definition is complete elimination of self-reported subjective distress in the moment, no matter how short a time it lasts. In other words, a person who has momentary relief is considered "cured" even if it only lasts a minute. The speakers at the conference obviously had very different, more standard definitions. The fact is, however, that exposure therapy for panic disorder has resulted in a percentage of people who no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for panic disorder and unlike the TFT anecdotes such as the one presented on that blog, they have been actually followed up on for years and have remained free of symptoms.

Contrary to the conference gossip presented on the Callahan blog, the Merck manual says the following:

Some people recover without formal treatment. For others, panic disorder waxes and wanes over years.

Yes, some people recover with no formal treatment at all which is why it is important to do studies to control for that.

If people say there is no "cure" what that means is that they are being much more conservative in their definition of "cure" than Callahan, who has been proclaiming "cures" for years now for all kinds of things based on nothing more than anecdotes of momentary relief.
This blog entry also reported that someone had claimed that panic disorder is not caused by a trauma. That is correct. However, the author of this blog apparently misinterpreted this to mean people with panic disorder have never had trauma in their lives. That would be a ludicrous statement. Of course they have, as have most people. The point is that there is no evidence that it was the cause of the panic disorder. No one denies that a trauma can trigger a tendency a panic prone person already has to develop into a full blown disorder. That is not the same as causation. It is easy to dig for trauma in just about anyone and then make up a story about what "caused" just about any disorder. That doesn't make it so. Also, panic attack like symptoms can be a symptom connected with other disorders such as PTSD. With anecdotes such as the ones presented on the TFT blog it is impossible to know what was actually going on with the client, but the aggressive promotion of TFT based on anecdotes continues as it has for nearly 30 years.
Bottom line: Unless TFT proponents can produce randomized controlled clinical trials comparing TFT to an existing empirically supported treatment such as exposure therapy for panic disorder and show TFT to be superior, which they are far from doing, these anecdotes mean nothing.

The Callahan blog also shows a lack of understanding of the nature of panic disorder. It is not the symptoms, per se, that are the problem. The problem is that the person with panic disorder interprets normal body sensations that we all have as being catastropic and thus, that brings on the panic attack, so trying to eliminate normal body sensations that are inevitable is not a good treatment as it only reinforces the person's belief of impending doom. Callahan's attitude of having to eliminate all trace of every sensation appears to reinforce this sensitivity. Panic disorder is properly treated by expsure therapy where the person experiences the symptoms and learns that nothing bad will happen. In many cases, this has been shown to eliminate the panic attacks. Does it remove all traces of the symptoms? Probably not, since we all have body sensations -- we just don't interpret them in the way a person with panic disorder does. A person properly treated for panic disorder learns that and when successful as the treatment often is, the panic attacks cease.

I have seen people going through TFT treatment becoming obsessed with eliminating every little area of discomfort, leading to endless daily applications of TFT and since such anxiety senstive people are considered "complex" this often is not self-hep treatment or algorithms, but has resulted in people calling Callahan on the phone for his $600 per hour Voice Technology for literally years on end in some cases. So they're spending thousands of dollars for a treatment that has no controlled studies to support it and my controlled study that shows no difference between his so-called "technology" and completely random tapping sequences. Callahan hides behind the phone with his secret "technology" and has made highly misleading statements about its nature while keeping people with panic disorders and other disorders calling and calling, testing for toxin after toxin while the symptoms keep coming back. Contrary to what Callahan has exerted, it is very easy to completely eliminate symptoms of a panic attack because panic attacks usually only last for a few minutes. They peak and go away on their own. The problem is that for a person with panic disorder, they recur and there is no real evidence that Callahan's techniques prevent that.

Keep Libel Laws Out of Science

There is a very important case going on in the UK where science writer Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for criticizing them. This is the kind of case that can have a highly chilling effect on silencing critics of questionable practices and is highly relevant to those of us the US as well as the UK who have a strong interest in moving science forward and debunking those who promote bogus practices that masquerade as science. The organization Sense About Science has put together a webpage with more information and a petition people can sign to express their opinion about this outrageous case, where a critic is being sued for exercising his right to free speech. If you take the position that science moves forward through vigorous debate and criticism, Click on this link to read more about this case and sign the petition.