“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” – Albert Einstein
This blog expresses my (Monica Pignotti) opinions and analysis based upon evidence and facts, as I understand them. See my other blog, Monica Pignotti: The Truth for rebuttals to the internet smear and disinformation campaign about me initiated by people who are obviously upset by my evaluation of certain mental health practices. Go here to read a Statement of Support from social work, psychology and other mental health professionals.
The intent and purpose of this blog is to provide the readers with information and points of view that they might not otherwise be provided with by proponents of the therapies I am discussing who may sincerely believe they are helping people. It is not the purpose of this blog to give any specific advice on specific professionals and it is not the purpose of this blog to dissuade anyone from seeing any particular professional or to recommend any particular professional and my positive or negative views ought not to be interpreted in that manner. My purpose is to provide the reader with accurate information so that the reader can make more informed choices, should they or anyone in their family need help from a mental health professional, but the choices are yours and yours alone to make. The opinions I express on this blog are solely my own and ought not to be interpreted as advice. I would urge people to consult a wide variety of sources of information before consulting any mental health professional. The decision you make is yours and yours alone.
Additionally, nothing in this blog is intended to be legal advice in any way, shape or form. I am simply expressing my opinions on certain cases. As a human being, I make no claims of being infallible. If any reader believes that I have made any factually incorrect statements, I welcome feedback and correction, as long as adequate evidence is provided.
Twitter has been very active lately about a controversy that arose on the list serv for the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology. Thus far, no one has posted specifics on the post that started it all, so with the author’s (Scott O. Lilienfeld PhD) permission, I am posting it here so people can read it and decide for themselves whether the post was disempowering to minority participants or an instance of systematic racism, as assertions to that effect have been made. The list serv’s policy allows for public posting of posts to the list, so I am reproducing it here, for now, without further comment. It is important to note that the author of this post is a two-time President of SSCP, plus SSCP has an award named in his honor.
I will not comment further at this time, other than to say I have known Dr. Lilienfeld for over 15 years and yes, he is a very rigorous critic, but he is also one of the kindest and most civil people I know in the field. I will leave it to others if they want to post their responses to him, as there were many. Suffice it to say for now that the post was characterized as “racial dog whistling” and highly offensive because he pointed out the methodological problems of one of the studies listed on a spreadsheet connected with the organization and cautioned the people who put this together about being political (not because it dealt with race as is being mischaracterized, but because Trump was specifically mentioned in one of the recommended articles). It is worth nothing that most of the people who were voicing their concerns the most vehemently were young self-admittedly highly privileged white women. In any case, people can read it for themselves, posted in full below, and decide if his post constitutes “racial dog whistling” or anything else he has been accused of.
For those who don’t know the acronym, BIPOC stands for Black, indigenous people of color.
From Scott O. Lilienfeld to SSCPnet on June 17, 2020
Subject: BIPOC-Authored Psychology Papers Spreadsheet
Here is the link to what is being referred to and what follows are his two posts, in full:
Dear All: I am writing to the SSCPNET with considerable hesitation. Indeed, I’ve gone back and forth today about whether to write at all.
On the one hand, I’m delighted to see more discussion on this listserv of diversity issues, especially if they are approached from a rigorous scientific perspective, and one that encourages open debate and discussion. I was appalled by the recent murder of George Floyd and others, and I very much hope that high-quality psychological science can ultimately help to shed at least some light on these deeply disturbing events.
On the other hand, I am concerned by what appears to be a sharp turn toward political views and away from psychological science on this listserv. To list just one example, one of the recently recommended resources refers to the “brilliant” psychological work of Claude Steel (sic) on stereotype threat, with no acknowledgment or even hint that such research has been marked by considerable difficulties with replication.
Even more worrisome, in my view, is the fact that some of the recommended resources adopt explicitly political stances. I am confused, because the SSCP leadership has recently underscored the need to encourage a welcoming, inclusive environment for its members. For example, one of the resources recently recommended for SSCP members says the following:
“When I returned to the classroom two days after the (2016) election, the tension was palpable. I was TAing for an American Lit class at the time, and I could tell that the professor (a liberal white guy) was uncomfortable and unsure of how to address the elephant in the room. On one hand, there were students who’d voted for Trump. On the other, we had queer students, undocumented students, students wearing “F**k Trump” shirts, all of whom were seething with anger. I knew things were going to be intense after that, and that I would have to decide how I was going to approach this as an educator—would I stay quiet so as to not ruffle feathers, or would I stand up for what I believe in, which is that aligning yourself with Trump is aligning yourself with the denial of basic human rights and dignity? I knew that if I chose the path of least resistance, I’d be doing a disservice to the students whose lives and voices were at risk. I choose to teach resistance.”
I assume that at least some SSCP members (not me, incidentally…) are Trump supporters and would not find such writing to be especially welcoming. It’s also not at all clear to me how such writing (along with much of the other recommended writing) is relevant to clinical psychological science.
I had further assumed that the role of SSCP was not to promote specific sociopolitical viewpoints, but rather to provide a forum in which rigorous but respectful debate regarding such scientifically contentious issues as implicit biases, implicit bias training, diversity workshops, stereotype threat, microaggressions, and so on, were fostered. But several of the recent messages to the listserv seem instead aimed at promoting specific sociopolitical viewpoints, as well as at implying that certain controversial psychological questions are settled.
I have much more to say, but will stop here. I hope only that SSCP will not lose its bearings as an organization focused squarely on clinical science. If it continues to move further away from clinical science, I will be seriously reconsidering my membership in this organization.
….Scott
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
And a follow up response also on June 17, 2020 after a very heated discussion had ensued:
Subject: contributions by BIPOC scholars
Hi All:
Well, I hadn’t expected my message to the listserv to stir up a hornet’s nest, but I hoped that it would at least stir up some much-needed discussion and debate, so I suppose in that respect it served its purpose. I thank those who responded to me on the listserv, to the numerous people who responded to me backchannel with supportive messages, and to the one person who responded to me backchannel with a critical but civil message. I especially thank the graduate students and postdocs who took to the listserv to voice their disagreement with my message, as I recognize that it takes courage to do so.
I have many, many thoughts in response to these multiple messages, but in the interests of time I will focus on only one of them here.
To be clear, I am of course 100 percent in favor of posting resources that are helpful in combating racism and racially motivated violence. As Bill Sanderson and Richard Gist observed in their messages, this point should perhaps go without saying, but it doesn’t hurt to make it clear. And I am of course also 100 percent in favor of posting contributions by BIPOC scholars. These are all worthy goals on SSCP’s behalf, and I fully support them.
Where I part ways with a number of my fellow posters to the listserv is that I believe strongly that such resources should be evidence-based or at least broadly consistent with the extant evidence. Perhaps the major reason I joined SSCP so many years ago – in addition to its pro-science advocacy – is that was something of an oasis (hardly a perfect one, of course) in which scientifically based information regarding clinical psychology and allied fields was valued. I was disappointed that none of those who wrote to the listserv to take issue with my message attempted to address, let alone rebut, my substantive point regarding the decidedly mixed research evidence for stereotype threat effects, which as I noted were highlighted prominently in one of the resources sent to the listserv.
One of the posters maintained that although I criticized a number of the resources provided, I did not provide constructive remedies. This is not true, so I will reiterate what I wrote in my initial message, namely, that resources sent to the listserv, including those sent by the SSCP leadership, should strive to be consistent with the best available science. In doing so, they should aim to make listserv members aware of large bodies of research evidence that are inconsistent with the claims advanced. In no way, shape, or form did I imply, let alone suggest, that SSCP should take down these resources; instead, I am arguing that SSCP be certain to also present listserv members with evidence that may not be consistent with the claims advanced in these resources.
So, when SSCP members present and strongly endorse sites that laud research on stereotype threat, I am contending that they also at least acknowledge evidence that questions the robustness and external validity of stereotype threat effects (e.g., https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2019-shewach.pdf). Similarly, although I am completely in favor of providing readers with writings on the IAT as suggested readings, as one of the sites endorsed by the SSCP leadership did, I am also in favor of providing them with research that questions the robustness and real-world power of the IAT (e.g., https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-14256-002 and see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-48911-001 for a different perspective). When psychological issues are scientifically controversial, I believe that it does listserv members a disservice to portray them otherwise.
Hence, I am favor of providing SSCP members with more information, not less, and in particular in providing them with a more scientifically balanced picture of the extant literature. I strongly suspect that SSCP members would hold their fellow members to the same standard were they to provide the listserv, for example, with an extensive compilation of resources on the efficacy/effectiveness of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) that listed only studies or meta-analyses that were critical of DBT, or an extensive compilation of resources on the efficacy/effectiveness of SSRIs that listed only studies or meta-analyses that were supportive of these medications.
I was also disappointed that the resources provided to the listserv did not at least point readers to the contributions of BIPOC scholars (psychologists, psycholinguists, social critics, among others) who have taken issue with some of the scientific claims advanced here, such as those of Craig Frisby, Frank Worrell, John McWorter, Shelby Steele, and others (please note that I do not agree with all of the writings of these scholars either, nor do they all agree with each other!).
In short, I stand by my initial concern that I very much hope that SSCP does not drift from its scientific bearings and that the listserv remains a forum in which scientifically contentious issues can be debated and discussed vigorously and freely.
Take care and all the best. …Scott
Response to Steve Hassan: When it Comes to Harmful Unethical Practices Indeed I Will Not Be Silenced
Steve Hassan’s recent blog article dated March 31, 2016 states that:
The ‘refusal to be silenced’ often causes issues. When disagreements arise between activists, the resulting fallout can have damaging consequences. Public infighting and social media attacks dilute the core message and alienate the many who are looking for real help. Divisions and mudslinging sessions between former members serve as leverage for the very groups activists claim they are combating.
He then goes on to say we need to focus on the “greater cause regarding activism and undue influence.” That focus is all well and good, but should it be at the expense of turning a blind eye when we see harm being done? That is the question I would like to explore here.
First, I need to point out that he is handing us a type of “package deal” by conflating “mudslinging” and any kind of disagreement or criticism, referred to as “divisions.” When it comes to mudslinging and petty bickering I couldn’t agree more that it should be off limits. There is a major difference, however, between petty bickering and “mudslinging” vs. legitimate criticism and exposure of practices that could be harming consumers. And yes, believe it or not, ex-cult members who become counselors are not immune, if anything they are even more vulnerable to taking on such behaviors, given what was learned in the cult. I offer just a few examples (there are general categories, not accusations of anyone in particular):
- If a practitioner is charging very high fees, much higher than their colleagues, that consumers need to go into debt to afford unless they are very wealthy, yet there is no research evidence that their approach is superior to any of their lesser charging colleagues, this needs to be exposed. This is particularly egregious if the person is using their knowledge of undue influence to manipulate a person into paying high fees (for example, guilt and fear induction by asking the person if they would hesitate in paying a high fee if their loved one had cancer or saying that horrible things will happen to their cult involved loved one if they don’t do the practitioners particular highly priced brand of intervention – when in fact, the family does have options for how/whether to intervene).
- If a practitioner is abusing others, such as taking advantage of the person sexually (which has been alleged regarding some high profile “deprogrammers” from the 1970s. In 2008 in Philadelphia, there was even a presentation on this topic at an International Cultic Studies Association called “The Anti-Cult-Cult”.
- If the practitioner is engaging in other unethical behavior such as violating client confidentiality, misrepresenting their credentials, engaging in dual relationships as I blogged about previous was the case with a licensed social worker who counseled ex-cultists and eventually lost his license due to his unethical behavior documented by his State Board.
- Making unsubstantiated claims about their intervention (e.g. that it is superior to all others, that it is the only way to save their loved one, that it has been shown to be effective when only very preliminary pilot studies have been done).
- Engaging in mental health practices that have been shown to be potentially harmful
- Practicing beyond the scope of their licensure or education (for example, someone without a mental health degree engaging in mental health practice or someone with a license making diagnoses in areas that are outside their area of expertise or diagnosing someone they have not personally met with)
People can feel free to comment and add to my list, which I in no way intend to be exhaustive.
The fact is that like any human beings in any profession, there are bound to be ones who behave unethically and harm others. This is particularly true of people coming out of destructive cults who may still be acting out some of the behaviors they learned in the cult or perhaps were people who were inherently narcissistic or psychopathic to begin with and are now acting out what was done to them in the cult.
To say we must not speak publicly about this because it is bad for the “cause” is very cult-like and seems to be just the opposite of what Hassan is alleging when he implies people who do this, who blow the whistle on their own or speak out, need to heal themselves. I would contend that people who remain silent and do not speak out against abuses, whether they are comrades in the cause or not, shows that the person might have some healing to do. When we consent to a code of silence against harm that is being done, we create a very unhealthy group dynamic and that applies to people fighting cults as much as it does to people who are members of such groups.
Now it should go without saying that I agree that petty personal attacks and mudslinging are not helpful. However, where I part ways with Hassan is his inference that somehow unintentionally reinforcing the erroneous belief system of cult members that if we challenge and expose someone, we are somehow “unhappy” is more important and takes priority over exposing harm being done to consumers.
Sometimes things can get said in the heat of a spirited discussion that would be better left unsaid and we’re all guilty of lashing out like this at times and again, I wholeheartedly agree, abstaining from that kind of behavior would be a good idea, but I don’t see Steve Hassan making any such distinction, so I would have to ask him the following. Are there any circumstances where you would deem it appropriate to speak out against a colleague who was on “your side” who may have made valid contributions to the movement, but is in some way is harming others? If so, what would those circumstances be? When, if ever, do you think it would be unethical to remain silent and courageous to refused to be silenced? Readers can also feel free to comment on this as well.
At long last, the book I have co-authored with Bruce Thyer, Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice, published by Springer, is due to be released by the end of the month. In the meantime, the Foreword by Eileen Gambrill, the Preface and Chapter 1 are all available free online. Click here to read.
Self-proclaimed “cult expert” Steve Hassan appears to be cashing in on people who work with human trafficking victims, a much more popular and potentially lucrative cause than cult victims whose popularity have declined since their heyday in the 1970s-80s. His latest is that he has incorporated his BITE model (which is based on other people’s ideas cobbled together and lacks evidence even for cults, let alone human trafficking) and developed with Sowers Education a copyrighted proprietary system called Ending the Game (C) (don’t forget that copyright symbol!) claimed to be of help to people who work with human trafficking. What evidence is there for the efficacy of this program? None! (other than perhaps testimonials). They seem to think this is okay since there are no evidence-based approaches yet for working with human trafficking victims. Apparently they think this lack of evidence means they can jump the gun and market an expensive, proprietary copyrighted program when really the ethical thing would have been to offer it at no cost as an experimental program and test it with full informed consent.
The program has three levels of licensure. According to this website of Sowers Education accessed on October 18, 2014, for $399 a month or $5588 a year (plus $1199 setup fee), you can license ETG (C) and be a “Hero”. Apparently he got the “Hero” idea from psychologist Phil Zimbardo, but Zimbardo doesn’t charge people to license some proprietary system – such systems are hallmark indicators for pseudoscience and not something Zimbardo would be involved in. He just used the term in a project he has to study why some people speak out where others remain silent. What Hassan is doing with this is something very different, he and his colleagues are selling a system for $5588 a year or $399 a month. Can’t afford this? No problem! For only $229.00 a month or $3118 (plus $599 setup fee) a year you can step down a level and become a “Lifesaver.” Still too expensive? No problem! You can step down yet another level and for $99 a month or $1588 a year (plus $499 setup fee), you can become a “Abolitionist” It’s good, better, best!
But wait, there’s more! If you sign up through December 31, 2014 you can get 20% off the setup fee and first month subscription. It’s all good! But wait, let’s take a step back and think about this. Is it? We don’t know because there have been no properly conducted studies to test the efficacy of this program, so we have no way of knowing whether it helps, does nothing, or makes people worse. Is the public really this gullible?
No specifics of what the proprietary curriculum consists of. Just hype. Who’s playing games here?
Was H.L. Meinken correct when he said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public”? Stay tuned. Honestly, we couldn’t make these things up. This sounds like satire but it’s for real.
I’d like to know when the “game” of mental health professionals engaging in these kinds of marketing tactics of proprietary non evidence based programs is going to end? Probably not in the near future, I am sorry to have to say.
And since I’ve already had two commenters (at least one known to be a follower of Hassan) insisting that testimonials are evidence, go here to read all about why they’re not. But hey, when I first began to criticize John Knapp, he and his followers also attacked me, but now, after a client filed a complaint with his state licensing board, Knapp’s license, after a process that took years, was finally revoked but before that, his devotes tried to make me the “hater” for being concerned and expressing it..
Update: I have been posting my criticisms of Steve Hassan under my own name. However, the same cannot be said for Hassan’s supporters/defenders who apparently lack the courage to use their real names and attack me personally under pseudonyms, failing to address the SUBSTANCE of the issues I raised. Enough is enough. My new policy will be to only approve comments from Hassan supporters/defenders if they use their real names with verifiable information that at least I can see – your email address will not be published but I must be able to know who you are and that you are not a pseudonymous troll or shill for the one I am criticizing. Note that this is not hypocritical because I have always used my real name when criticizing Hassan and others and I expect others to do the same. Same standards I hold myself to, no hypocrisy, just the expectation of full transparency. I will, however, make an exception to this rule in the case of victims, since I know how frightened victims are to come forward. Hassan defenders, however, will need to play by the same rules I play by. Use your name of no approval.
Guilford Press has just announced the Second Edition of Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology which can be ordered in hard back or a less expensive paperback and available October 2014.
I am honored to be the author, with Bruce Thyer of Chapter 7: New Age and Related Novel Unsupported Therapies in Mental Health Practice (Scott O. Lilienfeld, Jeffrey Lohr and Steven Jay Lynn, editors). This was the chapter that was authored by Margaret Singer in the first edition, so I am especially honored to have been asked to author this. The First Edition from 2003 was a major influence on my professional life and was very instrumental in the epiphany I had about Thought Field Therapy and also what is wrong with some of the “parts” therapies and other questionable spin-offs of the highly discredited therapies of the 90s that have morphed into other things – and a great deal more. Although not discussed specifically in the chapter, some of these same techniques have been used by self-proclaimed “cult experts”.
There are also updated chapters on the DID controversy, recovered memories, child and adolescent disorders including a chapter authored by Jean Mercer on “attachment therapy” as well as controversial treatments for autism and ADHD. This book will be well worth the read.
Update: The conference is this weekend.
I ended 2013 and am beginning 2014 with some good news received the day before Christmas when our proposal was accepted. I will be presenting at the upcoming Annual APS Convention in a symposium in May 2014 in San Francisco on New Developments in Science and Pseudoscience with Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven J. Lynn, Carol Tavris and Lawrence Patihis. I am honored to be part of this organization’s conference.
The Association for Psychological Science (formerly known as American Psychological Society) was started as a more science-based alternative to the American Psychological Association.
Scott LIlienfeld will be presenting on The Comeback of Facilitated Communication: Lessons for Psychological Science.
Steven Lynn will be presenting on Does Trauma Produce Dissociative Identity Disorder? Case Not Closed.
Lawrence Patihis will be presenting on A Scientist-Practitioner Gap in Beliefs about Repressed Memory and will present his latest research findings.
Social Psychologist Carol Tavris will be the discussant.
My presentation will be on Pseudo-Evidence Based Practice: Thought Field Therapy and Other Energy Meridian Tapping Therapies as Exemplars. Go here for details about the presentation and symposium.
I am also very much looking forward to the conference, which offers the very best the field of psychology has to offer.
As an update to postings from 2011 about this matter, after a very lengthy process which began in October, 2010, as of January 14, 2014, thanks to the persistence and courage of a former client, John Knapp’s New York State Social Work license has been revoked. Click here to read the Board’s decision. As indicated on the Board’s website, Knapp has been found guilty of professional misconduct, negligence, incompetence and unprofessional conduct. This is a very serious action and it is rare that State Boards, who will, based on other cases I have been privy to, give the practitioner every benefit of the doubt and chance to improve, would take such an action.
Go here to read the client’s complaint, which she chose to post to her blog with names redacted, which gives more detail regarding this social worker’s behavior towards his client, including engaging in dual relationships, negligence and professional misconduct.
Although it is not ever a pleasant matter to see a mental health professional who has gone so far that remedial action is not possible and the license needs to be revoked, what this shows is that although there are never any guarantees, it is possible, with persistence to stop a licensed mental health professional from doing further harm, at least as a mental health professional. He can operate under another job description, such as “coach” or thought reform consultant, but when it comes to dealing with unlicensed people, it’s buyer beware. That said, recent reports indicate that at least for the time being, he has given up the practice of therapy altogether at least for the time being, and has become a singer in a duo with his wife.
Another point for mental health consumers to be aware of is that the complaint was originally filed in October 2010. This process took over three years and these long, drawn out processes are not uncommon, during which time the disciplinary action does not appear on the person’s record until the final decision is made and published. The moral of this story is don’t assume that just because you do a search on a licensed professional’s record and it comes up clean, that there have been no complaints. There could be complaints in the process of being heard or what is very common is that the Board chooses to issue a warning or reprimand to the professional and nothing appears on his or her record. This particular case involved a clinical social worker practicing psychotherapy, but can also apply to psychologists, marriage and family therapists, licensed mental health counselors and other mental health professionals.
Another common tactic is for the person to claim an “expertise” that makes them above the rules mental health professionals are required to follow. So-called “cult experts” may try to claim this, but this case demonstrates that in reality, they must follow the same rules as everyone else in their profession.
Again, I applaud the courage and persistence of this former client in coming forward and seeing this through. She has done a great service to many future clients seeking help.
For those who haven’t read it, thanks to a Psychology Professor at the University of Wyoming, my article, Thought Field Therapy: A Former Insiders Experience published in Research on Social Work Practice in 2007 is now available. Click here to read it. This is a full account of my experiences in the TFT community, for those who are wondering what led me to get involved and what led me to change my mind about it.
On November 4, 2013, Roger Callahan, the Founder of Thought Field Therapy and someone with whom I shared quite a history, passed away. It has been nearly 10 years since I had spoken with him and even longer since I had seen him, since we parted ways in February, 2004. There was only one brief obituary I could find in his local paper (Palm Springs, CA), but there was an outpouring of love and support from therapists and others who had trained with him over the years.
Others who saw his high fees and grandiose claims for his novel unsupported therapy thought he was a con man, but I have to say that having known him quite well I don’t believe that to be the case. As a human being, he had many strengths. He was a genuinely caring person who sincerely believed he was helping people with the therapy he developed that he believed to be the most effective therapy on the planet. Although in his last video posted on the Callahan website he said evidence for TFT was strong, this was far from being the case by any recognized scientific standards. In spite of the fact that there have been studies published on TFT, the only two that actually tested its mechanism of action showed null results. It doesn’t matter if you tap on meridian points and the sequence, upon which he based his most expensive advanced forms of TFT, does not matter.
Nevertheless, Roger to the very end of his life, sincerely believed otherwise. He seemed to exemplify the saying that the strongest form of deception is self-deception. As I reflect on my time with him I remember our conflicts, but on a personal level, I also remember good times with Roger as a friend and a colleague. I remember his generosity with his time and always being willing to speak with people who he didn’t even know who called him and wanted to understand more about TFT.
I remember witnessing the genuine love Roger Callahan displayed for his wife, children and grandchildren and his concern that his family be cared for. His wife, Joanne, also took very good care of him. They were married for nearly 25 years. On his website, one of his daughters wrote that it was thanks to Joanne, that he was able to live as long as he did. For the past 30 years or so, he had survived cancer and heart disease, and while he attributed this to TFT, I think his daughter’s attribution to Joanne for taking care of him for the past 20+ years is probably more accurate. Roger also had a genuine love for animals. I recall him shedding tears when I was visiting him in 1998 for one of his dogs who had recently died and I also recall having dinner with him years later at a fish restaurant in San Francisco, as we brought food to the alley cats at the back of the restaurant. In spite of the fact that Roger was very opinionated and could judge people harshly, he was a kind man who treated people with gentleness and respect. He was uncomfortable with direct conflict to the point where he would not engage in it and walk away if someone became contentious. I recently learned that he declined to even read my TFT: A Former Insiders Experience. I suppose to him, I have been dead for many years now. That being said, as a fellow flawed human being, I extend my heartfelt condolences to his family and I wish that he rest in peace. Whatever else may be said about him, Roger Callahan lived long, prospered and died a happy man.
A memorial website has been put up by his family for him. 
Under the leadership of three SUNY Albany School of Social Welfare faculty, this institution has been given a $15,000 grant from the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) and Global Gateway Foundation to study Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), a tapping therapy that is an offshoot of Thought Field Therapy (TFT). The SUNY Albany website features pseudoscientific claims about EFT (couched in superficial scientific sounding jargon).
EFT is a low-risk acupressure technique that calms the limbic structures of the brain, enabling clients to regulate their over-aroused systems, and eliminating the flashbacks, nightmares and terror that plague traumatized adults and children. EFT is a trauma-focused practice that engages neuroplasticity to restore development. Grounded in neuroscience research and Eastern preventive medicine, pilot intervention studies of EFT with veterans are building an evidence base for EFT as PTSD treatment.
It is highly embarrassing that a top ranked school of social work would make such claims, although they are not the first to do so. In 2007, I published an expose of similar therapies being taught at the University of Michigan School of Social Work while their Dean appeared to be unresponsive. At the time I published this, I was warned by a faculty member of a prominent college of social work who himself is critically oriented toward such practices, that this could greatly hurt my academic career and it might very well have done so, but if I had it to do over again, I would not change a thing. If remaining silent about such questionable practices is the price for being accepted in social work academia, that is a price I am not willing to pay.
After eight years of my published academic criticism that few people read, to no avail it would appear, it’s time to start using the internet more so the public can be alerted as to what the social work profession is up to. Based on some conversations I have had, a number of academic social work faculty are in denial about this problem.
I wonder if Dean Katharine H. Briar Lawson, supposedly a staunch advocate for evidence-based practice, is aware of what her institution is supporting. The faculty involved as co-principal investigators are: Dr. Heather Lankin, Dr. Ron Toseland and Dr. Lara Kaye and are working with a leading proponent of tapping therapies, Mary Sise, LCSW and a graduate of SUNY Albany. The research will focus on “PTSD treatment for older heart attack survivors” which in and of itself, is a problematic and unsupported assumption to make, that heart attack survivors need “PTSD treatment”. Even the topic of depression screening of heart attack survivors has met with much controversy due to its lack of evidentiary basis. Subjecting such people to a questionable therapy is doubly reprehensible.
Dr. Heather Larkin, who bears the title, Assistant Professor, according to her bio on the SUNY Albany School of Social Welfare website, has also been involved in the work of Ken Wilber and something called Restorative Integral Support (RIS), which appears to be heavily connected to Global Gateway Foundation, one of the funders of the EFT study. Wilber’s work and RIS is described with the following typical pseudoscientific obscurantist jargon (just to give you a small sample of what one can read throughout this article, linked to on the Global Gateway website):
The Integral model includes quadrants (or interiors and exteriors of individuals and collectives); levels of increasing complexity along various lines or waves of development; typologies; as well as states, which include meditative states of consciousness, healing states, and altered states.1
It appears that Dr. Larkin is now extending her involvement with such practices to tapping therapies. This is apparently what top ranked schools of social work are looking for. Faculty in major research institutions these days are expected to secure grants in order to ultimately qualify for tenure. Apparently, at this institution, a grant from Global Gateway and ACEP, organizations that promote and fund questionable therapies researched by enthusiastic proponents, is acceptable.
How about studies that would constitute a rigorous test of the claims of energy psychology using a control group with sham tapping points? We haven’t seen that and with Mary Sise, LCSW as a co-investigator, I doubt we will. According to SUNY Albany’s research guide (see p. 101) the current study treatments will be delivered under the supervision of Ms. Sise, who is a long-time enthusiastic TFT/EFT devotee who for more than a decade has received financial remuneration from here practice of tapping therapies. The study design is the usual weak one, only comparing EFT to no treatment. This type of design does not control for placebo effect, which has already been demonstrated in Waite & Holder’s EFT study, which used a stronger design, that used control groups that tapped on non-meridian points and showed no difference between groups, but a difference between the sham group and no treatment, suggests placebo effect. Waite & Holder are not EFT proponents and the treatment effects from both groups, although statistically significant compared to no treatment, were minimal (small effect sizes). This is a type of study that thus far, TFT/EFT proponents have not conducted. It appears that this study will contribute virtually nothing to the literature, not telling us anything we do not already know about the tapping therapies, that they typically get large effect sizes, when compared to no treatment, with placebo effect not ruled out. What an utter waste of faculty’s time and money.
If this is what is happening in top-ranked schools of social work, how can there be any hope for the social work profession? The question to ask is cui bono? Who benefits, besides faculty members getting grant money that they are expected to get in order to eventually obtain tenure? How far are faculty members willing to go to fulfill that requirement? Of course, there is virtually no grant money for people to take a more critical approach to such practices. Thus, we can observe that it is the Heather Larkins who are getting hired in tenure track positions at major institutions because they get grant money from these institutions of energy therapy enthusiasts and therapies based on new age theorists with virtually no empirical support, such as Ken Wilber’s gibberish. The more critical people who want to do a more rigorous design, won’t get funded because it goes against the agenda of these organizations and can forget about getting hired, much less getting tenure anywhere. Of course, there are some faculty who are scientifically and critically oriented, but they do not study these novel therapies because there is no grant money for that, unless they go with the funders who are foundations consisting of devotees. The big funders such as NIMH, who would demand a more rigorous design, have no interest in putting their resources into a fringe therapy, thus it is left up to proponents organizations that have vested interest. Their plan is to do these poorly designed studies and then try to go after the big dollars from NIMH. The social work academic community really needs to reevaluate their priorities which these days appear, ironically and hypocritically, to be the almighty funding dollar and practice what they preach if they want to truly protect the vulnerable.
Potentially Harmful and Other Questionable Therapies 
