Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Several of your points overlap so I will address them together. Also, I want to first state for the record my involvement in this and where I personally and professionally stand on the topic of Energy Psychology techniques.

I have personally utilized acupuncture during chemotherapy and found it an excellent adjunct to my other medical care. I have studied Chinese Medicine only as a layman. I do not practice any form of Chinese Medicine nor do I practice EFT, TFT, TAT, or any other type of Energy Psychology technique.

The way the APA works is that in actuality no formal statement was issued in the negative with regards to Energy Psychology in the past - not a blanket statement only one in 1999 by the then Director of Sponsor Approval Programs and only with regards to TFT. The NPR article is both accurate and inaccurate as you can see.

There is a specific process by which techniques are included in the APA's guidelines for clinical practice. They are rigorous, thorough, and scientific. When Energy Psychology psychologists approached the APA for inclusion and receipt of CEU's in 1999, they were denied as the research evidence was not there...yet. In 2006, when that article was published, it was still true. In 2009, Dr. Feinstein's first meta study showed that EP was beginning to be recognized as a viable treatment technique in clinical psychology. His study referenced other peer-review journals that published viable and provable use of these techniques. Mention was made that it was most effective with depression and PTSD but not necessarily other psychological issues. During 2009 and 2010, the ACEP underwent an appeals process with the Continuing Education Committee of the APA.

This committee follows the Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists which also follows the standards set down by the APA’s Council of Representatives which meets regularly to update the standards of practice. I am aware of what occurred then with regards to the appeals exchange between Dr. Gruder and Dr. Goodheart as I served on the Continuing Education Committee at that time. We still decided at that time that while evolution was occurring and we were seeing a growing set of provable results from these techniques, it was still not enough to approve CEU's nor a blanket statement of approval such as CBT now has which is done by still another committee - the Division 12.

Fast forward to 2012, and Dr. Feinstein republished an update to his meta study. Why? In part because as a trained psychologist, he took seriously the comments and questions proposed Pignotti & Thyer which suggested premature conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. I believe that paper is still available on PubMed. In other words Dr. Feinstein is not a lunatic fringer promoting strange therapy theories.

Now I have been off the committee now for several years and have been more involved with another issue facing the APA (the use of enhanced interrogation techniques with APA psychologist's support) and have not followed the EP issues that closely. Apparently as of 2014, the APA has now accepted the ACEP as an approved provider of CEU's. This is shown on the ACEP website. They can not claim that unless it is valid. So a step further has occurred, however, from what I can research myself, the APA Division 12 has not yet taken the further step stating an official acceptance of EP techniques as a clinical technique. That final step can take several decades. These are the same steps the CBT, for instance, went through in order to be accepted.

So, yes, the scientific evidence for the efficacy of this form of psychological therapy is enough that the APA now approves CEU credits for their licensed psychologists to train with the ACEP. How long it will take for full acceptance will be as long as it takes for the evidence to reach a tipping point. This is how real science is used day to day in practice fields like medicine and psychology. Lumping EP with Energy Medicine in general and having it edited by simply an MD, with no training in psychology, is not unbiased reporting of facts.

So yes, in this particular case, the bias of Wikipedia is apparent, and they are in the wrong. Yes, there are fringe theories. Yes, there is pseudoscience. Yes, there is sometimes a real need to protect people from dangerous and false alternatives in seeking health and well-being. That why we have the FDA and organizations like the AMA and APA. All of them are still made up of human beings who are still fallible and make mistakes. But Wikipedia is not the ones who should be doing this 'protecting'. They should simply be presenting facts without bias. That is what an encyclopedia is after all.

There is a big difference between flat-earthers and psychologists using new techniques and tools that have and still are taking a few decades to prove their full efficacy. So I think we can agree that in this case, what ACEP's petition is about is not a lowering of standards but rather simply following the standards without hypocrisy and bias. Quackwatch and the Skeptics Dictionary are not the APA with its very real and scientific process in place to determine what is spurious bunk and what is simply new & innovative. Dr. Feinstein's paper shows that all of the 18 or so randomized studies actually met the Division 12 requirements for inclusion as a valid clinical technique and treatment. That deserves to be noted on Wikipedia. The fact that the APA after several decades is now approving the ACEP's programs as CEU's for their psychologists also deserves to be on Wikipedia. Wales calling them 'lunatic charlatans' is not following his own standards and is frankly quite childish.

Personally, I accept that adults are free to make their own choices. Yes, they are even free to make bad ones. Again, it is not Wikipedia's place to try and protect adults from themselves. I disagree with your belief that Wikipedia should be one to set high standards concerning the topics they cover. They simply are not governed in such a way for this to not devolve into personal politics, biases, and group think. Unless I am looking up something simply factual like the discography for a rock group I like, I do not use Wikipedia for this reason. It can not be trusted to present its topics in the same way that even the standards were for World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica.

I believe I addressed all of your points with my reply, however, if I didn't please let me know. I appreciate your reasonable reply. I sadly expect far more antagonistic replies on such a topic as this particularly in this sub-group.