Regarding the October 2001Journal of Clinical Psychology 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”

Abstract

This article is a retraction of the conclusions drawn in a previous article, published as part of a special October 2001 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology on Thought Field Therapy (TFT). I decided to write this retraction after reconsidering a number of issues raised in the critiques of the articles. Additionally, subsequent misinterpretations of the literature on heart rate variability (HRV) by Roger Callahan, which led to further questioning of his premises and claims regarding TFT and HRV as represented in the articles, are discussed. I conclude that the burden of proof is on TFT proponents to demonstrate its efficacy and that well-designed controlled studies using standardized assessment measures and long-term follow-up must be performed to allow the scientific community to take claims made for TFT seriously.

Thought Field Therapy (TFT) as a Treatment for Anxiety Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…All reviewers pointed to serious methodological shortcomings in the papers they reviewed, and to the TFT researchers drawing conclusions on effectiveness that was not grounded in the study findings. Considering these criticisms Monica Pignotti retracted the paper by her and Mark Steinberg (Pignotti, 2005). Later she and Bruce Thyer criticized proponents of TFT (Feinstein, 2008) for underreporting criticism against TFT and omitting case reports not confirming effectiveness from TFT (Pignotti & Thyer, 2009).…”

Retraction of earlier article and letter to editor on thought field therapy.

“…It has come to my attention that an anonymous supporter of Thought Field Therapy (TFT) has attempted in an Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia article on TFT to reference and quote from a letter to the editor I published in 1998 in response to Wayne Hooke’s critique of TFT (Hooke, 1998; Pignotti, 1998). Although I have corrected this outdated, misleading representation of my views on TFT and have publications in other journals stating my reversal of position on TFT (Pignotti, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007), given that I have published highly favorable opinions on TFT for this journal in the past (Pignotti, 1998, 2000) that some TFT supporters still choose to cite without noting my change in views, I wanted to write an official statement for Traumatology to make present views and research known. As a result of a controlled study I conducted and subsequently published on TFT voice technology (Pignotti, 2005c), which resulted in my also rethinking my position on other aspects of TFT, I no longer endorse TFT and am currently in agreement with the review written by Hooke.…”

The current status of energy psychology: Extraordinary claims with less than ordinary evidence

“…In 2001, six articles on TFT, selected by Callahan, were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology without peer review (Callahan, 2001a(Callahan, , 2001b(Callahan, , 2001cJohnson, Shala, Sejdijaj, Odell, & Dabishevci, 2001;Pignotti & Steinberg, 2001;Sakai et al, 2001). Although six critiques were published alongside them (Herbert & Gaudiano, 2001;Kline, 2001;Lohr, 2001;McNally, 2001;Rosen & Davison, 2001;Rosner, 2001) and one of the authors has since retracted (Pignotti, 2005a), supporters of TFT have made use of the implied legitimacy since (Devilly, 2005, p. 442;Pignotti, 2005b).…”