|
|
|
|
Monica Pignotti, MSW, was once one of Roger Callahan's most trusted and accomplished TFT therapists. Monica was trained at the highest level of TFT, known as Voice Technology. Read about the research project she embarked upon which left her disenchanted with TFT and now one of its most vocal critics. Her study that disproves Voice Technology was published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology vs. Random Meridian Point Sequences: A Single-blind Controlled Experiment. Monica Pignotti The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Vol 4(1), 2005, 38-47. Abstract The Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology (TFT VT) is a proprietary procedure, claimed by proponents to have a 97-98% success rate in curing psychological problems. VT practitioners can allegedly "diagnose" over the telephone precise, individualized codes of acupressure points, which the individual is then instructed to tap on. This single-blind controlled study quasi-randomly assigned 66 participants to either TFT VT treatment (n=33) or to a control group (n=33), which received a randomly selected sequence of treatment points. For each group, 97% of the participants reported a complete elimination of all subjective emotional distress. A 2×2 two-way mixed ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the two groups. Possible explanations for the 97% self-reported "success" rate are discussed and the wisdom and ethics of having mental-health treatments that are proprietary trade secrets is questioned. Visit Monica's Blog to learn more. You can also join her listserv on TFT. From: "Monica Pignotti" <pignotti@w...> Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 10:17 pm Subject: Why Roger Callahan and I have Split To the members of the TFT-ALGO list serv: I'm sure that many people will be shocked at the announcement I just made about the change that will be taking place on this list. I am therefore posting what I have just posted to the TFT Dx, which will explain the circumstances. In August, 2001, I did a posting to the TFT Dx list serv announcing research I was conducting on some cutting edge algorithms derived from an experimental procedure. Recently, I did another posting [to that list serv] making one final call for reports. I have decided that at this time, my data are conclusive and I am ready to report the results of my research, which includes a controlled, single blind study I conducted on these same algorithms, the summer of 2001. Please be forewarned that the results I am about to announce are going to be very surprising to most of you, and I believe that they completely overturn the basic premises behind CT-TFT and causal diagnosis. As you all know, the critical distinction between TFT and forms of most energy psychology offshoots of TFT, is causal diagnosis, which provides a precise code of specific treatment points. The TFT algorithms were developed through causal diagnosis and when algorithms don't work, individualized treatment sequences are obtained through TFT Dx or Voice Technology. Dx and VT practitioners have reported being able to help people through causal diagnosis, where algorithms failed, thus it would seem reasonable to conclude that especially for such complex cases, precise sequence was critical to the success of the treatment. However, there are those who have challenged this notion. As most of you know, Gary Craig, the first person to train in the Voice Technology adamantly disagrees with Roger Callahan. He has repeatedly claimed that he can disregard the VT and still get the same results he got with the VT. More recently on his list serv postings, he is claiming that his success rate with EFT is close to 100% and the way he got it this high was not with causal diagnosis or dealing with toxins, but by having the client get more specific about issues being treated. In 1998, Gary Craig conducted a seminar that several Dx trained people attended. The transcript of this seminar can be downloaded from his website. During this seminar, he had a discussion with several Dx trained people who have very different reports about their experience getting VT support, some even claiming that most of their clients who received VT support were not helped by VT. Roger Callahan, however has his side to the story, that these people have apexed or forgotten that he did, in fact, help these clients. The upshot of all this was that some people believed Gary Craig and these Dx trainees and other people believed Roger Callahan. Basically, what we had, as much as we hate using this word, is conflicting anecdotes --- their word against his. Although Roger does have tapes of the session, the trainees' interpretation and perception of what went on is very different from Roger's. How is this to be resolved? In the summer of 2001, I decided that the only way this could be definitively resolved would be to take the bull by the horns and do a single-blind controlled study on VT vs. random sequences. I undertook to conduct such a study. Over a period of several months, I collected data from eight different algorithm trainings held in the US, the UK, and Australia. I informed the instructors that I was collecting data, but I didn't tell the instructor or the participants that I was using a random algorithm on half the group. Every other person got VT, and every other person got the random sequence, and no one could hear the difference over the phone because I kept everything else about the protocol, including all the reversal corrections, CB2, etc. the same. I obtained the random sequences by putting cut up pieces of paper with the initials of the treatment points into a container and drawing 5-7 points (the number of points also randomly determined). I ended up with 24 random sequences. Because I was expecting to have a high failure rate with the random sequences, especially at trainings where people were sometimes presenting problems that didn't respond to algorithms, I had predetermined that whenever a random treatment sequence failed to get a drop in the SUD for 3 holons in a row, I would switch to VT, thus not depriving the person of a cure and each person, regardless of the group they were assigned to, would get the highest quality help available. The results I got from this experiment stunned me. It turned out that I had identical results for each group - a 97% success rate, success being defined as it was in the 4 other VT studies cited by Roger Callahan on p. 51-2 of *Stop the Nightmares of Trauma* (Callahan, Leonoff, Daniel & Pignotti), as a SUD of 1 (using a scale of 1-10) - complete elimination of all subjective units of distress. Note that this study was identical to the one done by Stephen Daniel (n=214) and an additional study done by myself (n=72), where just VT was used with algorithm trainees. These studies were adduced by Roger in support of the power of TFT VT. Please keep this in mind, that any criticisms that people might have on the limitations of my study (and there are indeed valid criticisms) must also be directed at the two VT studies done by Stephen Daniel and myself. The only difference was that this time I added a control group. There was literally no difference between the two groups and it took the same average number of holons to get the SUD to a 1 (3 holons). The control group had 1 failure, someone with fybromyalgia who started at an 8 and only got down to a 7. After 3 failed holons, I switched to VT and the VT also failed to help this person. In the VT group, I also had one case where the SUD failed to get to a 1, but this one was partially successful - the SUD dropped to a 3. In short, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at all. What was even more incredible was that there were individuals at that training who had utterly failed with algorithms who were helped with these random sequences. For example, a woman had a SUD of 10 on a trauma that she had been trying to treat all day with the trauma algorithm. With the random sequences, her SUD came down to a 1 and she was greatly relieved and thanked me profusely. Once I had collected and analyzed this data, I reported my results to Roger Callahan and he was, of course, stunned. We both were. Neither of us knew what to make of these completely unpredicted results. What he suggested I do was to post to the Dx list, announcing that I was doing research on some cutting edge algorithms. This was the post I made, which I reposted here recently. The reports I got back were overwhelmingly positive with individuals being helped where Dx had failed. The treatment sequences I have been been sending out to people who requested them, where such powerful results were reported, are these randomly selected treatment sequences. They were not derived from VT or any form of causal diagnosis. They were not even derived from intuitive diagnosis because I literally drew slips of paper out of a hat. In every test I have done so far, they have performed just as well as VT. The failures reported with these algorithms were people who had also failed with VT, either previously or subsequently, with one exception. That exception was myself. One day in late Sept, 2001, I was experiencing a high degree of anxiety so I decided to try some of the random sequences. They failed to reduce my SUD. I then called Roger and reported this to him. He quickly got my SUD down with the VT. However, there are three additional factors to consider: 1) Roger identified toxins I had, in addition to the VT treatment, which I hadn't done with the random sequences. 2) I obviously wasn't blinded to the fact I was doing random sequences on myself; and 3) it has been my experience and that of several other people, that there have been times when we try to treat ourselves and the treatment fails, whereas if we call another VT person and have them treat us, the treatment succeeds. Therefore, these are three alternative explanations for my treatment success. Nevertheless, as Roger recently pointed out to me when I brought this up on the VT list, having my very high anxiety which was bordering on a panic attack, so immediately eliminated was a powerful personal experience for me and one which did, at least temporarily, have an impact on my conviction that the results of my previous controlled study were conclusive. Roger did not believe that the results of my study were conclusive enough to overturn 20+ years of his own personal experience to the contrary and at the time, I was convinced also and so refrained reporting what, at the time, I considered to be inconclusive results. There was too much at stake here because if I were to prematurely report these results, this could completely destroy the credibility of the Voice Technology, in some people's eyes. If I was in error, I could potentially be putting an end to the most powerful treatment in the history of psychology and I wanted to be certain before doing this. Around that same time, I made a move to the west coast from NYC and this further took my mind off the study I had conducted. I thought very little about the study until very recently. However, during that time I had been increasingly having a number of doubts and misgivings about a number of aspects of TFT, Voice Technology and even HRV. I will be outlining these in a separate posting, which will more clearly help people to understand the process I went through which culminated in my changing my mind about the meaning of my results and what must appear to all of you to be my radical change in my opinion of TFT and VT. I began to once again think about the study I had conducted, the summer of 2001 and to reconsider. What I ended up doing was discussing my study and my results to two PhD friends of mine, who were not TFT trained who have a high expertise in research and asked their opinions of my data. These were people who I trusted to hold what I told them in confidence until such time I chose to release the data, and they have kept their promise. The opinion of both of these people is that the data from my controlled study, which had 66 people, were conclusive, in terms of falsifying the claim that the VT provides precise treatment sequences which are critical to the success or failure of treatment. A sample that size with the p values being what they were yielded highly conclusive results. I then remembered that from everything I had learned in my research training, this was correct. I also was running my data with smaller numbers and noticed that as my sample grew, the numbers got more and more alike. If a sample any bigger was needed to get statistical significance, that could hardly be considered clinically significant. A robust treatment as VT was claimed to be, should have gotten large clinically significant differences, even with a small number of people. Note, that even though there was a success rate of 97% in both groups, this does not prove that either is efficacious. There were a number of serious limitations to my study which precludes drawing this conclusion. What my study does conclusively show is that there is no difference between the VT and random sequences derived from drawing treatment points out of a hat. Had there been any truth to the claims of the VT being a precision treatment on a par with hard science, there should have been a difference between my VT group and my control group. Some people would be expected to be helped by the random sequences, but there should have been a sizeable number who were not helped and needed VT. This isn't what the facts have shown, ladies and gentlemen. My data show that there is no difference between the VT and random sequences that anyone, regardless of training level, could randomly determine. To summarize, I have decided that in spite my previous tremendously high enthusiasm for and investment in the Voice Technology, I am forced by the facts of reality I am faced with, to conclude that no longer need to use it. I cannot, in the face of these results, in all good conscience, continue to use VT. Thus, I have decided that I no longer will be accepting any new VT clients. I am announcing my results publicly and will leave it up to each person to decide how best to interpret them. When I first became acquainted with TFT, I was highly skeptical. However, I have always been open to evidence and the truth has always been more important to me than being "right" or "wrong". At that time, I had been debating Roger and other TFT proponents on a list serv, but when Roger offered me evidence, in the form of an algorithm, I tried it and when I saw the results, I announced that I had been wrong in my negative judgment against TFT. You all know the rest of the story. I became one of the most passionate advocates of TFT and of Voice Technology. However, now, the facts of reality have presented me with another correction and I have to, once again, say that I have been wrong. During my life, I have repeatedly found myself coming to conclusions that have surprised me. I could never have predicted my involvement in TFT and I never could have predicted the conclusions I have now been forced to come to about the VT. Roger has repeatedly pointed out that this is the way of the scientist is to be completely open, as much as possible to the facts of reality and to strive for objectivity. This is how I have always lived my life and this openness, to me, is the ultimate spirituality. My path in life has always been to follow the facts of reality, as best as I can determine them by rational thought, wherever that takes me. While it saddens me to have to have a parting of the way with Roger on this issue, I must continue to live by the principle of truth and loyalty to my values, above all else. Roger said in a posting to the VT list that I am passionate about truth and he is correct in his assessment of me. I also want to state, for the record, that in my opinion the secrecy behind the VT proprietary procedure is the antithesis of scientific openness and is the biggest mistake Roger Callahan has ever made. I am now of the opinion that the VT is not at all objective -- far from it. I intend to write up this research and attempt to have it published in whatever forum I can publish it. All I can do is present you with my data and what my interpretation of it is. The rest is up to you and I will respect whatever conclusions people come to. Monica Pignotti, MSW
|