Copyright 1998
The Traumatology Forum
ISSN #1085-9373
Letter to the Editor
As someone who is trained as a TFT(tm) diagnostic practitioner and who teaches approved TFT(tm) algorithm seminars I have a number of points in both Mr.Hooke's original article and his response to Dr. Callahan that I wish to respond to.In Mr. Hooke's original article, he offers as a possible explanation for the success of TFT(tm) that it is: "Focused, repetitive activity: TFT interventions involve the repetition of a very ritual-like activity. Many spontaneous strategies utilize repetitive, ritual-like activity to attempt to manage anxiety and distress. Common examples include compulsive behaviors, trichotillomania, self-mutilative practices, and various superstitious and religious practices."
My response to this is that TFT(tm) only involves 5 taps to each point, whereas the activities mentioned above involve continuous and very lengthy repetitions. A ritual is something that is performed on a regular basis. TFT(tm) is usually only performed once for a particular problem and the all traces of distress are removed. The repetition of 5 taps per point involved in TFT(tm) is not enough to have the type of effect described by Hooke. It is also interesting to note that these repetitive practices, such as the repetition of a mantra in concentration meditation, are not always effective in the alleviation of anxiety and sometimes result in exacerbating the condition with relaxation-induced anxiety. As for compulsive, ritualistic behaviors, they do not eliminate symptoms, but only mask them. The compulsive behaviors must be done continuously to provide even minimal relief of anxiety and since they must be performed continuously, they interfere in a major way with the person's life. By contrast, TFT eliminates the symptoms in minutes and once the symptoms are gone, the treatments do not have to be continuously repeated.
In response to Mr. Hooke's assertions in both his article and his response to Dr. Callahan that the effects of TFT(tm) can be chalked up to the placebo effect, this is erroneous for a number of reasons. In the first place, TFT(tm) algorithms have a very high success rate. This is ~not~ just anecdotal information from one person. The 80-90% success rate can be easily replicated. I just did so in a recent TFT algorithm training I gave where 85% (12 out of 14 people) of the class had success when they treated each other with algorithms in the class. This was in a class with people who were novices, many of whom were highly skeptical at the outset and far from having a belief in the treatment, expected it to fail. The results in my class are not at all unusual, as other algorithm instructors report the same high success rates. I have had follow-up reports from people in the class that they are getting 80-90% success rates with their clients as well.
Interestingly enough, of the two that in my class that did not respond to algorithms, one was successfully treated using more advanced TFT(tm) diagnostic procedures in about 5 minutes. Her treatment involved a different sequence from the algorithm. If TFT(tm) is a placebo effect, how does Mr. Hooke explain that while one sequence did not work for this woman, the correctly diagnosed sequence did work? Did her belief in the treatment get strengthened from the initial failure so the placebo effect kicked in on the second treatment? I think not.
As a diagnostically trained person, I see this all the time in my practice as do others trained in TFT(tm) diagnostics or voice technology. TFT(tm) is not just "tapping therapy" and those who label it as such fail to understand the essence of what TFT(tm) actually is. TFT(tm) is a treatment that provides a code which is elicited through a causal diagnostic procedure and as such, sequence is crucial to its success as it would be when opening a combination lock. Many people have the misconception that placebos can produce a very high success rate. However, this has been very effectively challenged and refuted in the following journal article by Gunver Sophia Kienle, Dr. med and HelmutKiene, Dr. med, ("Placebo effect and placebo concept: a critical methodological and conceptual analysis of reports on the magnitude of the placebo effect", Alternative Therapies, November 1996, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp 39-54.) This article, which has 167 references, debunks the studies that claim that placebos have a 75, or even 100% success rate, as well as debunking studies that claim even 30% success rates. The authors did a very thorough job in analyzing the studies that make these conclusions. I highly recommend that anyone who has an interest in this issue read this article, which makes it very clear that placebos don't have anything even close to the 80-90% success rate of TFT(tm) algorithms.
There are several points about Mr. Hooke's comments on the Leeza show that need to be addressed. Since I am in posession of a video tape of the show in question, I went back and reviewed the points he made in his response. First, he says that Dr. Callahan tapped the boy who was afraid of lobsters on two different points (one of them being the wrong point) when he did the gamut treatment. I rewound the tape about 5 times to try to see what he was talking about and this statement is simply not true. Dr. Callahan tapped the boy on the correct spot throughout the treatment. As far as Mr. Hooke's perception that one of the boys being treated was "escaping" or refusing the treatment, this is also false. Anyone who watches the video will see that the boy sauntered right over to Dr. Callahan and his mother and began freely talking about his fear of noisy toys. The boy was very hyperactive and had a difficult time staying in one place for any length of time, but this is very different from rejecting the treatment. I saw no indication at all that the boy had a specific negative reaction or resistence to being tapped. He was difficul t to treat because he could not sit still for long which is commonly the case with hyperactive children. Mr. Hooke also asserts that the mother tapped him on the back rather than under the arm. What he missed, that was on the tape was that Dr. Callahan had very clearly given the mother instructions to treat the boy off-camera and furthermore, if he tapped under his eyes, it is very believeable that he would have a 50% improvement with just that treatment alone. After all, Dr. Callahan's first case, Mary only tapped under her eyes and completely eliminated a lifetime severe phobia of water.
There is a great deal more I could say in response to Mr. Hooke, but the bottom line for me is that TFT(tm) gives the clinician a protocol that is highly replicable. What this means is that with TFT(tm) we have a very powerful tool that can provide very real help for clients with psychological problems. If this were not the case, we would not today have over 250 professional people trained as TFT(tm) diagnostic practitioners and even more trained in TFT(tm) algorithms who report the same positive results reported by Dr. Callahan. The evidence for TFT(tm) is not just "anecdotal". Anecdotal would mean acceptance of the validity of a treatment through hearing others stories and claims about the success of a treatment that occurred behind closed doors that cannot be tested or replicated by anyone else. No one here is asking anyone else to just believe what Roger Callahan, I or anyone else trained in TFT(tm) has to say about our successes. TFT(tm) is highly replicable, so I would recommend to the readers that if they want to find out if TFT(tm) lives up to its claims, the best way to do so is to do as so many respected mental health professionals have done and to try it out for yourself.
Monica Pignotti, MSW, CSW, TFTdx
New York City
GEMMAMP1@aol.com
