‘Energy therapy’ project in school denounced as ‘psychobabble’

'Philosophy for children' under the heading of 'psychotherapeutic interventions'? Those Wittgensteinians get everywhere...

Should I dust off my old orgone accumulator - I can't wait for demonstrations of the practical uses of cloudbusting machines

It all comes down to money -- there's big money to be made by these snake oil salesmen. This is what HE has become in the UK -- all about money, irrespective of scholarly rigour.

I wonder if the people who are imposing this on kids bothered to Google the name of the founder of Emotrance, Sylvia Hartmann. If they had done so they'd have found her latest book "Magic, Spells and Potions: 21st Century Approach to Traditional Witchcraft, Magic, Clairvoyance & Fortune Telling " ( http://dragonrising.com/store/magic_spells_and_potions/?r=DR0609MSAP ). The selling points include Create Powerful Charms and Potions that really work! Make beautiful, resonant protection devices for those you love. Create Hexes, Totems and Sigils - custom made and wonderfully powerful! Get to know your helpful Angels, Spirits & Entities that will tell you the real secrets of your own magic - in love, light and absolute safety! Discover the true joy of magic - power and light are one and the same!

David Colquhoun, perhaps some of the parents would be happy with the views you quote. Many people do believe in magic and angels. We can't simply assume that if the parents had all the facts before them that their reaction would be the same as yours (or mine). Howard Fredrics. Yes it's all about money, and what better market is there than parents worried about the emotional needs of children, worried about them becoming bullies or being bullied etc. Maybe we need to focus less on making sure people accept the virtues of the scientific approach, and focus instead on their underlying concerns and needs that drive them into the arms of the snake oil salesmen

The word "quantum" is the first refuge of a scoundrel. It is, though, deeply unfair to speak of Philosophy for Children in the same breath as this nonsense. It's been around for years and is practised in 60 countries with documented effects. It's also just the sort of training in reasonableness that would help children see through this trash. It is not a psychotherapeutic intervention, and it is not untested. Lumping P4C together with this is like putting psychoanalysts and psychologists together because they both start with a "p". I should declare an interest in that I work and train teachers within the field of Philosophy for Children. If you are sceptical about it, have a look at www.p4c.com (not my website), where some of the research is quoted. What is really frightening is that schools can uncritically parrot the abuse of scientific terminology without enquiring into its evidence. It suggests a complete absence of enquiring minds. Not that there is much to fear from a company that calls itself "Emo Trance". They didn't research that name with teenagers.

Silent Minority @ I'm confused, if the parents had the facts, these would show that there is no basis for using the treatment proposed. As such, any benefit derived would at best be 'placebo' and therefore not a method for tackling the root cause of any issues. Also, there is no specific detachment between science and the 'underlying concerns' that drive people into the arms of snake oil salesmen. There are numerous branches of science conducting well executed research with the long-term goal of helping to treat peoples 'underlying concerns'. And finally if science isn't helping then why does Silvia Hartmann title herself as 'Doctor'; clearly she feels that the badge gives her quackery a veneer of scientific/medical validity.

The problem here is that science is being confused with well-being. There is no reason why facts should be assumed to give us any insight into emotional change. There's also no reason to think that positivist science should be any better either at assessing alternative therapies than the participants themselves, or at intervening in or alleviating situations of problematic emotions. Science is fond of recommending exclusively fact-based drug treatments for human conditions but its advocates don't often acknowledge the disasters this has sometimes led to (thalidomide for example). You could no doubt take a person who feels hate for another and give them a pharmaceutical product (a drug) which might change something about their brain function and they might stop hating. Or you could adopt another positivistic approach and lobotomise them. But if an approach works in producing greater emotional insight and other-attentiveness in young people (something that we should all agree is vital in the increasingly instrumental and individualistic culture we are currently living in), I see no reason why science - or, indeed, dogmatic rationalists with historically inaccurate uses of terms like snake oil - should be going around making in principle objections, as if science or dogmatic rationalism have any answers to these questions.

agnostic @ The point about science is that it actually does have a lot of the answers to the questions, and where it doesn't it is working damned hard to get them. I am not particularly dogmatic in my approach, and I'm not an atheist. However, I do tend towards the trusted axiom that if I have a heart attack I hope that my family will call for an ambulance rathe than an aromatherapist. This is pragmatic not dogmatic. When I use a medicine I want to know that there is a good chance it will work; I don't want my health or my happiness to be predicated on the manipulation of imaginary forces.

To all you sceptics that can't see the link between scientific and the alternative comnunity, I attach a link to the Astrology Chart for Bacteria as compiled by Karen Hopkin, Ph.D. Focussing on E-coli; Aries (12 to 1) A long dark stranger may be swimming into your life. Might be a good idea to eliminate any viral sequences from your genome. This special someone has an F plasmid with your name on it. Excess oxygen may be in your future. Crank up the superoxide dismutase and hoard vitamins C and E. more details available at http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume3/v3i6/bact.htm. But just to warn you; if someone close to you is an E-coli and has the birth sign 'Cancer' the outlook could be worrying.

There are lots of points here but I'll just respond to my inclusion of Philosophy for Children classes in my list of emotionally-tuned interventions. I was referring to a particular use of P4C in primary schools, as advocated by the ex-Dept for Education and Skills, and promoted by Antidote, an emotional literacy organisation, as a way of developing emotional literacy and in which the philosophy is almost incidental to this goal. I do recognise that not all P4C is used in this way! Whether or not children can do Philosophy is a different question, and has been discussed by Dr Joanna Haynes at Plymouth, and whether attempts to encourage this end up as 'therapeutic' have been addressed by my colleague, Dennis Hayes. The link to a paper he has written on this is here. http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/battles/3557/ A paper I wrote on the rise of 'therapeutic orthodoxies' in internventions for emotional well-being in schools, is here too. http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/battles/3435

Kathryn @ Thank you for clarifying. I'm sure myself and a number of the contributors hope that your endeavours succed.

Ive had roughly ten sessions of Emo Trance and highly recommend it. Ive tried many different techniques to help me wih my anxiety disorder, but this is the most direct, effective method. We hear all the same critisms when something new comes along- was it not the same with Freud`s ideas, Acupuncture, Chiropractors-you name it, they all had their institutionalised sceptics. To all those sceptics-- could your reticences be based upon hiding your own issues, and being scared to relate to a childs feelings ?

Wilhelm Reich i h, I agree with your point about the heart attack and the ambulance. I did not say anything about medical science's considerable achievements in combating and curing disease, organ failures, and so on. But not even all physical conditions are best treated by pharmaco-scientific interventions. I know, for example, that hypertension can be mitigated (i.e. there can be a recordable drop in blood pressure) through regulated breathing and meditation. Yet the medical profession prefers lifelong prescription of side effect inducing drugs, some of which it has recently admitted are more dangerous in their side effects than in their intended effect (see aspirin). You should also be careful about deriding 'imaginary forces'. Isn't the so-called placebo effect precisely an imaginary force?

BTW, before David Colqhoun talks about 'imposing this on kids' (his message above) he ought to give some account of his position on the industrial-scale imposition on kids of Ritalin by the medical profession, especially in the United States.

I do not think I will read the Professor's paper on interventions for emotional wellbeing as I fear for my blood pressure.The reason for including reference to Circle Time when writing about Emotrance fails me.My invitation to a public debate on Circle Time after remarks attributed to her appeared in the TES was not taken up unfortunately as i was very keen to correct the wrong impression they made. I suspect this may be being repeated elsewhere Circle Time is hardly untested !! It has now been in exisitence in the UK for 20 years and can be found in use in schools all over the country on a daily basis. For the reasons for this and the benefits which partipants gain see Magic Circles :Self-esteem for Everyone in Circle Time pub Sage or www.murraywhite-circletime.co.uk

I do not think I will read the Professor's paper on interventions for emotional wellbeing as I fear for my blood pressure.The reason for including reference to Circle Time when writing about Emotrance fails me.My invitation to a public debate on Circle Time after remarks attributed to her appeared in the TES was not taken up unfortunately as i was very keen to correct the wrong impression they made. I suspect this may be being repeated elsewhere Circle Time is hardly untested !! It has now been in exisitence in the UK for 20 years and can be found in use in schools all over the country on a daily basis. For the reasons for this and the benefits which partipants gain see Magic Circles :Self-esteem for Everyone in Circle Time pub Sage or www.murraywhite-circletime.co.uk

Re "agnostic"'s comment, I was under the impression that the drive to diagnose American children with ADHD, and dose them with Ritalin, came largely from their harrassed and anxious parents. The first advice to someone with a sporadic reading of high BP would be to sit quietly for 10 min and breathe deeply before another reading. The next bit would be to come back again some other time. Trying to relax generally and takemore exercise would probably be in there too. They are only "hypertensive" if their BP is high over three separate doctor visits months apart and/or 24 hr home monitoring with a monitoring gizmo. The drugs to lower BP are given because the higher your BP, the greater your risk of a stroke or heart attack. So lowering BP if it is high seems a good idea, on the whole.

Seems may people think, "If it hasn't been proven scientifically it doesn't exist. (or is humbug)" Problem with science is: the knowledge is ever changing. Not too long ago bacteria could not be proven scientifically or radiation. Did these phenomena not exist? And what about all those things that science *will* discover during the next 200 years... do they not exist now? Remember: For a long time the earth was scientifically flat and the centre of the universe. Science - as helpful and wonderful as it may be - cannot be the end all and be all. History is too full of scientific error and misconduct.

@agnostic Why, oh why, do people instantly jump to the conclusion that, because I oppose teaching of antiscience, that I therefore support treatment of children with Ritalin? I have repeatedly pointed out the close similarity between the sales-promotion tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and the tactics of the alternative medicine industry The only thing that can be said for the former is that at least some of their products work. That doesn't, I suspect, include Ritalin. I am not for one moment advocating drug treatments of distressed teenagers. I am saying that they should not be taught blatantly nutty stuff and that psychotherapy, like any other therapy, should be tested. Emotrance and they like are part of a vast and very profitable private industry that exploits people's vulnerabilities quite ruthlessly.

So are treatments such as EmoTrance worth the money taxpayers spend on them? We don’t know, so why not conduct scientific trials (which will take into account participants’ reactions, Agnostic) to find out, before we waste our cash. Is it a good idea that schoolchildren are given information about the likes of ‘human energy fields’ for which there is no evidence? I don’t think so. If these treatments do work, let’s at least be honest about how. Finally, there have of course been failures of ‘mainstream’ medicine, but I can’t see how they relate to the topic at hand.

I guess there are two points here: 1) Is it worth the tax payers money to teach school children how to deal with their emotions better 2) Is EmoTrance effective at accomplishing this I for one would be interested in the results and conclusions this school arrives at.

Agnostic said: "You should also be careful about deriding 'imaginary forces'. Isn't the so-called placebo effect precisely an imaginary force?" The placebo effect is not an imaginary force. It can be tested, proven, compared, documented and established to exist. The same is not true of the ill-defined 'human energy fields' mentioned in the article. If EmoTrans works, then it should be possible to prove so, even if we don't know the process by which it works. Such a proof, would of course, account for the well-documented placebo effect and such factors as the equally well-documented notion that simply sitting and calmly and quietly talking about an issues can often help make it seem less insurmountable. EmoTrans would have to demonstrate benefits beyond these to be judged a success. Surely it makes sense to establish whether it works or not before we spend money on it? It doesn't seem like the school is participating in such a trial - it looks like it has just accepted whatever EmoTrans says with out question.

Many of the responders here seem to mis-understand what science is and does. Psychological therapies can be scienctifically evaluated even if the means by which they work are not understood. Meditation has been scientifically studied and been shown to work, though why is not clear. The point is simply that before spending taxpayers money on something there should be firm evidence that it works. I'm afraid individual cases aren't evidence of that, some things do improve on their own, or for reasons that the individual wasn't aware of. Not forgetting the placebo effect, which many people have difficulty with as they seem to believe it means their problem was 'all in their mind'-which it doesn't of course. Actually the world has been known to be (nearly) spherical since antiquity, that the world isn't the centre of the universe was confirmed by scientific methods. Both acupuncture and chiropody have been shown to be ineffective for most of the problems that they were formally (and still sometimes) proposed for. I simply do not understand the problem with asking that before money is spent we know that the therapy is effective, and ideally the best available.

Another nail in the coffin. I learned (via Twitter) that Emotrance is approved as Continuous Professional Development (CPD) by The College of Chiropractors, The McTimony Chiropractors Association and the Association of Master Herbalists.-see http://bit.ly/qPDm4 It's hard to know whether this reflects worst on Emotrance, on chiropractors or on the phonier aspects of the CPD industry.

@Andrew M. 'Reticence' doesn't mean 'reluctance', although growing numbers of people seem to think it does. And 'problems' is a much, much better word for problems than 'issues'. All the best.

I'm amazed that schools are able to chuck money at stuff like this. There are a lot of people getting rich by selling nutty made-up therapies (usually employing some combination of the magic words natural/holistic/wellbeing/energy/quantum), dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon and/or claiming to be the lost wisdom of some ancient mystical tribe. I can sort of understand your average HR person being taken in by this inane stuff, but I expected better of teachers.

I'm amazed that schools are able to chuck money at stuff like this. There are a lot of people getting rich by selling nutty made-up therapies (usually employing some combination of the magic words natural/holistic/wellbeing/energy/quantum), dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon and/or claiming to be the lost wisdom of some ancient mystical tribe. I can sort of understand your average HR person being taken in by this inane stuff, but I expected better of teachers.

And what % of the population believe in 7 day creationism? the same sort of fictional self delusion as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and and moral UK politicians.

An interesting article, but when I googled the professor involved ( http://www.dcscience.net/improbable.html ) I notice he also discounts Alternative Medicine ("To maximise the benefit of alternative medicine, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible.") and Complementary Medicine ("These courses are basically anti science. Universities that run them should be ashamed of themselves," he said. "They are cashing in on people's wishful thinking when there is no evidence that complementary medicine works. They might as well offer degrees in astrology."). It seems to me that The Times (which has a positive view on both Homoeopathy and Complimentary Medicine) should check who they ask for an "expert opinion"

Oh come on, Peter Fisher (clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital), you didn't google Professor David Colquhoun (prominent anti-quackery campaigner). You know him well because you're each a standard port-of-call for journos wanting a quote on the matter. Plus you and David were the speakers in a debate at UCLU only a year ago. Why would you bother with such a pointless, trivial lie? Anyway, the fact that Prof. Colquhoun discounts CAM stands in his favour as it shows that he has a rational approach to such matters. As for The Times' 'positive view' (though this is of course THE, not The Times), the leader of 30th September described homeopathy as an "irrationalist cult".

The inter-relationship of the various schools of quackery, and the way they cite one another for credibility, reminds me of the game where you stand in a circle and then sit down at once to become self-supporting.

@Peter Fisher: Googling "homeopathy" and restricting the search to the TimesOnline website gets you only one result on the first page that's positive about homeopathy, and Simon Singh's 2008 article "Homeopathy - what a waste of time" as the top result. Prof. Colquhoun's attitude seems to be the one shared by the most popular Times writers, and not yours.

"I know, for example, that hypertension can be mitigated (i.e. there can be a recordable drop in blood pressure) through regulated breathing and meditation. Yet the medical profession prefers lifelong prescription of side effect inducing drugs, some of which it has recently admitted are more dangerous in their side effects than in their intended effect (see aspirin). ..." [agnostic, 11 November 2009] My octogenarian mother's geriatrician is, actually, well up on this too and is supportive of lifestyle measures such as relaxation, meditation, breathing retraining to help control BP. But she is also very honest about the *fact* that these may not of themselves be sufficient and medication needs to be considered if the risk of stroke or other serious cv event is to be minimised. She is also very open to discussion of adverse effects of medications, whilst also able to outline the risk/benefit situation. I myself had one slightly high bp reading recently but was impressed at the care taken by my GP practice to ascertain if medication was needed - repeat visits and 24 hour monitoring, which showed, happily, that my BP was actually good for my age. In addition, all aspects of my lifestyle were discussed which have a bearing on BP - diet, weight, stress, exercise, alcohol consumption etc. The stereotype of the pill-dispensing automaton GP is trotted out frequently and no doubt there are some such, but I suspect it has something of the strawman about it.

@Peter Fisher. Good try, but it seems to have rebounded on you. The fact of the matter is that universities (with a bit of help from sceptics) seem to have been quite sensible abou8t homeopathy. All of the BSc (Hons) degrees have now closed their doors. You should not grumble about this because you may remember what you said when you and I were interviewed on BBC London News in March 2007. Riz Lateef (presenter): “Dr Fisher, could you ever see it [homeopathy] as a science degree in the future? Dr Peter Fisher: “I would hope so. I wouldn’t deny that a lot of scientific research needs to be done, and I would hope that in the future it would have a scientific basis. I have to say that at the moment that basis isn’t comprehensive. To that extent I would agree with Professor Colquhoun.” In case you forgot, the movie clip can be seen at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=19

And, as Jason Buckley points out, what on earth is the relationship between Emotrance (which we are talking about here) and giving people sugar pills that contain no medicine (Peter Fisher's speciality)? It is a curious phenomenon in the parallel universe of pseudo-science that practitioners of different forms of these black arts will support each other despite the fact that the 'principles' are quite different and frequently mutually incompatible. It seems that once you have believed one impossible thing, the next half dozen come easily.

I find it depressing that schools allow these quacks into our schools to peddle their BS. I find it even more depressing that many teachers uncritically accept this utter BS and feed it back to the pupils they teach. Case in point, hearing Jenny Mosley (of circle time) repeat the myth that we only use 10% of our brain, have Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic learners, right brain/left brain students and some other nonsense about energy fields. The point where she brought out puppets and proceeded to talk to us like we were 6 is where I wanted to just die. Second case in point....Brain Gym "procesed food does not contain water". I don't know who's worse, the morons selling this, or the morons asking for more.

Has anybody here actually developed and run any kind of experimental investigation into the effects of EmoTrance? It seems a little bit pointless slinging mud around until thats been done. As it is all we seem to have are case studies gathered by those advocating the treatment. Interesting but not enough for any kind of certainty from either side.

Brain Gym was comprehensively (and hilariously) nailed by Charlie Brooker about 18 months ago in the Guardian - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/07/education - Ben Goldacre's BadScience column/blog also prominently featured the shortcomings of Brain Gym. One of the more troubling aspects of Brain Gym was that teachers who demurred at its unscientific (not to mention laughably ridiculous) aspects reported being ORDERED to participate, and not to point out the nonsense aspects, by Head Teachers. For a blogpost that covers some of this, and gives references to the material at Bad Science and elsewhere, see: http://bit.ly/3Eb6f4. I wonder how much of what it says about BrainGym would hold true if we simply substituted "EmoTrance"?

Every time I read the words EmoTrance, I thought of the comedian Emo Philips and his bizarre voice and comedy. EmoTrance would be just as hilarious if it wasn't the taxpayer who had been conned into handing over good money for this pseudo scientific quack nonsense. As Prof Colquhoun points out, being endorsed by chiropractors immediately loses any credibility it might have had!

At a time when public services surely face significant cutbacks, we must ensure that there is proper scientific research to verify whether or not these techniques actually work. We can't afford to go throwing money around on stuff that might just be snake oil. That's it, really: let's see the scientific review, the peer-reviewed research, the results. If it works, do it. If it doesn't, don't. What's difficult about that?

Thanks for the hilarious image Zeno. I had a quite different image in response to "emotrance" that of teenagers with dyed black hair dancing to techno. But your suggestion, and Prof Colquhon's, that endorsement by chiropractors loses a technique credibility seems a little less than scientific though. Argument by auhority, or the reverse, is no way to settle the matter. Only testing can do that, surely?

Davrod: Absolutely correct - just poking fun. As others have also suggested, once the manufacturers have provided evidence from good quality trials should taxpayers' money be spent on it. However, given the woo warning signs, I won't be holding my breath.

Why do we need science to prove that something works when client after client improves as a result of energy psychology? I have been using CLEAR (a combination of EFT and EMDR) for 15 years, and I see healing of depression, PTSD, anxiety, phobias, and general blocks to potential. I have used these methods with victims of war in Nigeria, children and adults with moderate to severe anxiety, severely depressed people, and with leaders who want to improve their leadership abilities. I don't need science to prove this works, the proof is in the healing of myself and my clients.

Julie Roberts, Ph.D. If you're convinced that your personal (and potentially very biassed) experience shows that it works, then all well and good. However, we're talking about people's health here, so do you think it would be good to get independent evidence that what you do actually does work? Do you think your results would stand up to independent scientific scrutiny? If not, why should anyone believe your personal experience?

Julie Roberts, Ph.D. What is your Ph.D. in and where did you get it? It must be something relevant since you chose to flaunt it here. I'll work under the assumption that it is in some science or you wouldn't be bringing it up here. I like to inspect credentials before being impressed with them. Regardless..... How could a Ph.D. recipient fail to learn that giving a patient a treatment and then asking if it helped is not a reliable way to test medicine. Every condition you list likely has a phychogenic component, exactly the kinds of things most likely to influenced by the belief in the treatment. Combine that with a likely pool of sympathetic and unsophisticated patients and it would seem likely that a large fraction of your patients would be likely to report improvement no treatment you offered. You should realize that getting positive feedback for even the most rediculous treatments is trivial to do. Double-blind placebo-controlled trials or it didn't happen. :p

Someone said here that studing of emotrance and magic in schools is better than if children become bullies or being bullied. But I think that for normal parents it is the same - whether their children will become the bandits, hooligans and criminals under influence of the streets and bad video or they will become idiots under influence of such schools, which teach them emotrance, creationism, alternative medicine and other delirium. Both outcomes are a tragedy for parents and a crime before society and our future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, David Colquhoun, for your healthy opinion and reasonable actions. I hope that after this people will have enough sense not to allow the nonsense such as emotrance, creationism, etc in schools.

@ Julie Roberts Ph.D. I guess that must be Julie Roberts Temple University, Phila., PA. Psychoeducational Processes (PEP). Graduated M.Ed., 4/87; Ph.D., 1/93 I see that Temple University is right up with UCL when it comes to use of the word "global". Nevertheless I can't help wondering what they teach concerning the meaning of the word "energy".

Wow. I've been reading some of Dr Silvia Hartmann's articles on the EmoTrance site. What is it her doctorate is in, exactly?

Emotrance is at the extreme end of a spectrum of interventions that claim to develop emotional well-being in schools; some, like a British version of the Penn Resilience Programme used in some American schools, are underpinned by positive psychology, where proponents claim strong scientific evidence. The ESRC seminar series, mentioned in Melanie Newman's article, is exploring the broader political, cultural and educational imperatives driving all this... Emotrance is an obvious target for the criticism reflected in the correspondence here, but, as I said, it is just the extreme end of a many interventions. Seminar series website is here http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/esrc/

I think the most sensible opinion is to not have an opinion until you've tried something. All the people here who have such strong beliefs but yet have never heard or tried EmoTrance before today are responding from their own unscientific and biased belief system. Beliefs limit you from experiencing life. Try it, if it doesn't work, THEN have an opinion.

@Deborah Kean. The EmoTrance website referred to in the article contains meaningless pseudoscientific babble. I cannot overstate just how nonsensical it is. I do not need to have "experienced" EmoTrance to see through this junk. I quote: "People have an energy body. The energy body too has a heart, a head, a stomach, many veins, and many organs. It is all made out of energy." What the heck does that *mean*?! "An energy body". What type of energy is this? Electrostatic? Gravitational? Thermal? Potential? Kinetic? Can we write down a Hamiltonian that describes this body energy? What type of magnitude are we talking about? (A rough estimate in terms of kT would be helpful - is the relevant energy scale, e.g., eV or megajoules?). This abuse of the term "energy" really irritates physicists (almost as much as the casual misappropriation of the term "quantum"). Stephen Fry put it so much more eloquently than I ever could - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnABeM2I7c (from about 1:00 onwards). ---------------------------- P.S. I look forward to Julie Roberts' response to David Colquhoun on the question of the meaning of the word "energy".

@Philip Moriarty. The most remarkable scientists, biochemists, physicists and the like are those that originally took a leap of faith in their reasoning and knowledge in the quest for scientific breakthroughs and evidence. For some ideas it took many years, decades even, for the scientific studies, instruments and devices to prove their first original notion. In some cases the science was not even proved in their lifetime, case in point Da Vinci's drawing in 1480 of an "aerial screw" now known as a helicopter. Surely, therefore, we cannot assume we know everything there is to know otherwise scientific evolution will stop right here. I do not know if there is a "human energy field" that can be felt directly but I am prepared to keep an open mind to such until it is proved that there is not. Science does not believe in "God" but surely it is playing "God" to assume that because you do not have a measurement device it there for does not exist.

Those folk commenting on this human "energy field" and who scoff at the requirement for scientific validation of their claims should remember these helpful words from Richard Dawkins, "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. "

@Deborah Kean. O.K. Here's my new, revolutionary scientific theory: I believe that all human interactions are mediated by the exchange of undetectable energy loops (best thought of as nano-bagels) which exist on length scales smaller than the Planck length and on time scales comparable to the Planck time in at least thirteen higher dimensions. Love arises due to the exchange of fermionic energy loops, whereas hate is due to the exhange of bosonic loops. ----------NEW PARAGRAPH--------------------- **Definitively** prove me wrong. (Remember, those energy loops are undetectable). And, by the way, watch this space because I can generate another revolutionary theory just like that tomorrow, and the day after, and for an infinite number of days after that. Without a requirement for evidence, I can postulate anything I like - pixies; fairies; unicorns; that the entire Universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure (hat tip to Douglas Adams) or brought into existence by the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

Ross W Sargent: Spot on.

@Deborah Kean: "For some ideas it took many years, decades even, for the scientific studies, instruments and devices to prove their first original notion". The thing is, it wouldn't take years or decades to show whether or not EmoTrance works. Remember, we don't need to know HOW its magical energy fruitloops work, first we just need to know IF it works better than placebo treatments. It wouldn't be that hard to set up experiments testing whether energy treatments work better than placebos or standard treatments ... and IF it does, then we can spend decades dancing with invisible energy unicorns whilst we wait for the rest of science to catch up and tell us HOW. Unfortunately, pseudo-scientists aren't interested in this basic level of scrutiny. They just dismiss this scrutiny as "close-mindedness" and continue to elicit payment for unproven treatments.

# Wilhelm REich in Hell 11 November, 2009 "Silent Minority @ I'm confused, if the parents had the facts, these would show that there is no basis for using the treatment proposed." Sorry I wasn't clearer. My point was: given the same set of facts different people often reach different conclusions. More specifically, it is well established that people find it hard to assess the logical validity of even simple arguments, and are easily swayed by their prior beliefs.

@ Philip Moriarty, According to this site your nano-bagels are not energy and in fact are the term for miniature bialy shaped particles that transport medicine to a tumour http://dailypundit.com/?p=31432. @Alexa Delbosc I don't agree with your judgement you have made that pseudo-scientists are not interested in their ideas being scrutinised and tested, That is a generalisation that comes from your belief system and not based on any fact whatsoever. Let's stick to the facts at least. If EmoTrance needs to be tested, and I agree that it does, how does one go about that? Let's give the originator of this idea some sound, intelligent and adult advice about how to go about that rather than assuming it is just a money making scam and the intentions are dishonourable.

The Times Education Supplement is running a good article on EmoTrance in Schools today: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6027536

@Deborah Kean "I don't agree ... that pseudo-scientists are not interested in their ideas being scrutinised and tested" Just a point of pedantry, really, but a pseudo-scientist is not interested in scrutiny and testing by definition. If they were interested in such things, they'd simply be a scientist. It's a bit like the distinction between alternative medicine and medicine. Alternative medicine, by definition, has either been proved not to work or has not been proved to worked. If it works, it's just medicine.

@Deborah Kean. Oh dear. I thought that the satire would be clear from the context in which I used the term "nano bagel"! That your criticism of my entirely nonsensical "theory" focuses solely on the use of the term "nano bagel" speaks volumes. Let's try to make the point again. Here's another theory. I postulate that human emotions derive from the interaction of an entirely new type of particle (but related to pi mesons (pions)) on a complex multidimensional potential energy surface. Their dynamics on this potential energy surface are described by the pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics first put forward by de Broglie. I am making no predictions about the properties of this new type of particle. I just *know* it's there. You have no evidence that can definitively prove me wrong and, moreover, to suggest that my theory is any less valid than those put forward by the scientific establishment is pure cultural relativism. ------------------------------ It rather defeats the purpose of satire to have to state this but that theory and the theory expounded in my previous comment to you are pure nonsense. All the correct "science-y" terms are used but I might as well state that six-headed invisible nanogoblins are responsible for human emotions - it'd be just as valid. To misuse the term "energy" to give a veneer of respectability to an entirely nonsensical "theory" *is* dishonourable. The originator of the EmoTrance junk should have taken the time to have their "theory" reviewed and scrutinised before attempting to sell it to schools. If they were honourable in their intentions, they would *welcome* this scrutiny.

I've just thought up a new colour. No-one's ever seen it before. Very hard todescribe, though.

@Philip Moriary. I got the satire and you got the emotional annoyance at having just one thing that you said looked at and scrutinised. Horrible when people don't see the bigger picture of intention isn't it. @ Alex, it seems the other article at least gives us more details of what the technique is being used for.

Would a pharmacologist really know psychobabble when he saw it? Or is this a case of "if it isn't Prozac, it's not scientific?" If this method makes students feel better and less likely to bring their guns to school, it's a good thing in my opinion. It's been a while since I went to school, it was tough then but now, the stresses on the young people are much worse. They need help and where exactly is science when you need it?

@ Philip Moriarty: The originator of the EmoTrance junk should have taken the time to have their "theory" reviewed and scrutinised before attempting to sell it to schools. If they were honourable in their intentions, they would *welcome* this scrutiny. - By whom, exactly? Where would they go to get this scrutiny?

@Deborah Kean. To what particular "bigger" picture do you refer? Do you mean that we should just neglect minor things like evidence, rationality, and clarity of thought and tell schoolchildren complete nonsense because we think it *might* make them feel better? Would you be happy, for example, to introduce the following scheme into primary schools?: "QUANTUBS (QUANtum CherUBS) is a revolutionary new approach to primary education which places the well-being and emotional stability of schoolchildren at the heart of the school day. Through a few easy-to-learn exercises involving simple household and classroom items (saucepans, spoons, and spanners) it is possible to tune the quantum mechanical fields emanating from children and so adjust their energy balance. Feedback from schoolchildren, teachers, and parents has shown that even after just a few minutes of QUANTUBS training each day, kids are happier, healthier, and much more confident." Do you really want this type of groundless boll**ks to be presented to schoolchildren?

Philip Moriarty: Very amusing examples, in a Monty Python kind of way, but here's a serious question: Can you use your expertise to explain to people how dark matter is observed and measured? Is it because everything else in the universe doesn't add up so therefore science posits that it must be there even though we can't see it, and could never in fact see it except by reference to its effect on other things that we can see? Or am I just a creationist chiropractic alchemist religious cultural relativist nut?

@Katie Jacobi. First, please do David Colquhoun the courtesy of reading his response to "agnostic" above before you put forward groundless assertions along the lines of "It isn't Prozac, so it's not scientific..." ("Agnostic"'s drug of choice was ritalin...). As regards the question of scrutiny: The originator of EmoTrance is making assertions based on "energy fields" which are easily testable by scientific methods (as has already been pointed out by a number of commentators above - have you read all the comments in this thread?). Each and every professional scientist puts their results through a process of peer review. If the originator of EmoTrance is sufficiently confident of the presence of these energy fields, then they should be similarly confident of opening up their claims for scrutiny by scientists. Otherwise my QUANTUBS scheme (See my comment to Deborah Kean above) is equally as valid as EmoTrance.

@ Philip Moriarty: If the originator of EmoTrance is sufficiently confident of the presence of these energy fields, then they should be similarly confident of opening up their claims for scrutiny by scientists. - I can only repeat my question; WHERE does a holistic researcher go to be scientifically scrutinized? Of course, this is a rhetorical question. There is no such place. Perhaps if some of the tax payers money that is currently paying the bankers' bonuses was put aside for a truly INDEPENDENT organisation that can look into such things, we need not even have this debate. I am sure if there was a body to investigate holistic claims, holistic researchers would be queuing around the block to have their methods and approaches validated. Until such a body comes into existence, "science" is no better than a club that likes to keep those out who have divergent opinions and doesn't deserve to be taken as the final authority on everything.

"The originator of EmoTrance is making assertions based on "energy fields" which are easily testable by scientific methods" (Philip Moriarty). You place too much faith in these methods even in your own field (by which I mean science, as opposed to anti-science or pseudo-science). Here are some more examples of cases at the limit of any claims about scientific measurement: parallel universes, brane-worlds, the 11th dimension of space-time (at the latest count), hyperspace, timewarps; we might even add strings, superstrings, and black holes. Google any of the above and you will find that they are not nutty ideas cooked up by stange blokes in garden sheds, but explanatory theories posited by respected professors of astronomy, physics, mathematics and the like. Yet most if not all of them defy any requirement that they can be either directly observed or directly measured. They are posited because they explain the existence of phenomena that can be measured, but that we either do not understand the origination of, or whose measurements do not fully 'add up'. Now, you might say that even science can come up with bonkers ideas that are later discredited, and you might mention phlogiston or something on those lines. But the point is that the notions of science being so vociferously defended in the posts on this thread are, in my view, hopelessly myopic. There are unobservables, Things That Don't Quite Fit, things that, while they elude the grasp of rational measurement, are nevertheless somehow there, and important, and to be taken account of somehow, only not in the sense that thay can be proven by laboratory experiments or randomised double blind placebo controlled tests and the like. Some people experience therapies that the scientific faithful dismiss as fraudulent in ways that change their lives (something that is, I think we have to acknowledge, a measurable effect even if one that relies on that troublesome human flaw, subjectivity), and I cannot see why many contributors here (whose rhetoric, in fact, reminds me of the kind of thing you often find in that other great purveyor of Certainty, the Daily Mail) can't just acknowledge that. Perhaps they fear that their own rationality will be called in question if they do. For what it's worth, I am not an anti-rationalist or anti-scientist. The field I work in is highly realist, observational and positivist. But, notwithstanding Dawkins' amusing, if philosophically flawed, joke quoted by an earlier poster, I think the only way of really being scientific is to make sure your mind stays as open to possibilities as it can be.

@Katie Jacobi. It's difficult to know where to start. What do you mean by "independent"? What methods would this independent organisation use to scrutinise the claims of the EmoTrance "inventor" that would be in any way different from the methods used by **publicly-funded** academic scientists in universities? Your claim that "science is no better than a club that likes to keep those out who have divergent opinions" is simply wrong. Yes, science makes mistakes and the "Legend" (as the sociologist John Ziman would have it) of entirely disinterested scientists searching for the truth is not accurate - competition, ego, and unwillingness to let go of a cherished theory can all play a role. -------------------Nevertheless, to suggest, as you do, that divergent opinions are locked out of science entirely misunderstands how science and knowledge progress. It's the theories that go against the grain that produce the key advances. Ludwig Boltzmann, for example, was ridiculed by the "scientific establishment" throughout his life and eventually committed suicide because of this. **But his theories are now at the very core of physics, chemistry, and biology***. Why were his "divergent opinions" eventually accepted? Because the weight of the **evidence** was with him. Yes, scientists (justifiably) take a lot of convincing but without those "divergent opinions" the entire scientific enterprise would stagnate. For example, when it comes to quantum mechanics, we *long* for divergent opinions because we still have huge gaps in our understanding. But a divergent opinion without evidence is just that - an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions....

@Sargon: Why do you make the unwarranted assumption that I am entirely comfortable with string theory? Your point is very much related to Katie Jacobi's comment about "divergent opinions". There are very many divergent opinions in science, particularly with regard to string theory. Have you read Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics"? If not, it'll give you a very good insight into the wealth of divergent opinions that exist on the subject of string theory! ------------Yes, there are things that we don't understand (if there weren't, all scientists would be out of a job!). Yes, there are things that we can't observe. Quantum mechanics (QM), for example, has at its core the concept of a wavefunction - a physically unobservable/unmeasureable quantity. And yet -and this is the key point - we can take the mathematical framework of QM and predict, with *unbelievable accuracy*, the outcome of countless experiments.--------A valid theory that is universally (or almost universally!) accepted by scientists must withstand systematic, rigorous testing; it must agree with the evidence. (QM has been tested to death and each time the experimental data is in agreement with theory). We don't understand the origin of dark matter/dark energy - scientists have not yet developed a widely accepted theory. But admitting ignorance at the moment and searching for evidence to support particular theories is very different from simply taking at face value *any* pseudoscientific claim, as is the case for EmoTrance. I'll ask again: Why is my QUANTUBS theory any less valid than that put forward by the EmoTrance originator?

Ooops. In my previous comment that should be "QM has been tested to death and each time the experimental data *are* in agreement with theory". I don't know, bloody illiterate academics. No wonder standards are slipping....

All this bickering has accomplished nothing. I know not a single case of a psychotherapist or other mental health professional that is properly trained in EFT, EMDR or Emotrance that has gone back to the old and unproductive ways of conventional psychotherapy. Granted some of the explanations involved with these new discoveries are somewhere between voodoo and alien abductions. These explanations show that the working principles behind energy therapies are not fully understood by its own practitioners. But then can an electrician explain what is electricity? They can't, but they can illuminate our homes.

Even when you see something that is completely unscientific, you have to make a scientific argument if you want to oppose it. First, of course, you need paragraphs. OK, I will use numbers, but they will denote only paragraphs, not really an exhaustive system of proof. 1) Science and its promise should not be taken seriously anymore: too many crooks. It was more than 20 years ago when I attended an advanced course in Molecular Mechanisms of Disease. There were three students in the room and prof. Siminovitch. A student asked what literature he should read to enter the field of "molecular approach to cancer" or something like this. The answer was this: "Don't bother. I told you that we now have discovered 20 [he gave some number] cancer genes. By the time you finish your PhD, cancer will be beaten." 2) Seeing this failure, the people in the govt. decided that it wouldn't be bad if people start believing in other things. By now, the border between crookery and science has disappeared. No one can tell which is which. And in some sense it is not bad. 3) However, there actually is one sign by which you can tell one from another: you need to hear what exactly you are told by the salesman. An old, woman with good reputation in your village would tell you: "Take this potion my dear and your cough will be gone in five days." She, undoubtedly, was a scientist - the potion did it. 200 years after her grand-grand mother started selling the potion, someone found that the herb she used contained aspirin. Aspirin? Well, even today nobody knows how it works, but to some degree it works. The old woman told you ONLY what she knew. 4) Another example. A young lady comes to the school, meets another young lady - the school principal, and they work out a program to advance energy therapy. They are both crooks: they are absolutely certain that they both have absolutely no idea what is that energy. They both must be shown the door. 5) The issue, as you see, is honesty. You just not listen to people who tell you nonsense. Sure, you need to know some science. Or - someone responsible for the public order and public health MUST BE WILLING to tell people about the wild spreading frauds. But, as I said above, Govt. wouldn't mind if you pay money to these young ladies, at least for as long as they sell you really nothing. GOOD doctors also mostly sell you nothing, and let's not start talking about bad doctors and about associations of big bad doctors. 6) Now, can you really tell what works and what doesn't? First, of course, remember not to listen to fraud, i. e. when they tell you something they have no idea about. Next, if you know that your organism needs 50 milligrams of vitamin X per week and the carrot you eat every week contains 500 mg of it, don't buy the vitamin (and don't massage it into your arms and eyelids). 7) Make peace with your psychology yourself. 8) Can things in extremely low concentrations "work"? In principle, they can, for example, if the organism has a specific receptor for it. One molecule of hormone per one cell can have an effect. So, you can trust something that contains almost nothing? No, not at all! This should only remind you how dangerous one molecule can be! 9) Can "energy" still "work"? Well, it can, also - because it can be something else that works. The thing is that if you hear a fraudulent statement, you cannot trust the salesmen. If any of the "alternative treatments" have a chance to ever be accepted (very, very slowly, though), the girls must throw out the very method that sells them - making it all look scientific. The worst, of course, will come when the girls will start presenting statistical data :-)

@sargon “parallel universes, brane-worlds, the 11th dimension of space-time (at the latest count), hyperspace, timewarps; we might even add strings, superstrings, and black holes” These are all fascinating scientific theories. However, I believe I’m right in saying that no Local Authority spends any of its educational budget on them. “There are unobservables, Things That Don't Quite Fit, things that, while they elude the grasp of rational measurement, are nevertheless somehow there” EmoTrance sounds like a way of allaying people’s anxieties through a simple, ritualised calming technique. One would expect pretty much any ritualised calming technique to allay people’s anxieties to some extent – so this doesn’t sound like a Thing That Doesn’t Quite Fit. It sounds like it fits very well with our current understanding of how things work. If it can be shown to be significantly more effective than any other apparently similar ritualised calming technique, then there might be something there – but it still doesn’t justify an explanation based around ‘human energy fields’ which this woman has apparently somehow identified even though the entirety of modern medical science hasn’t noticed them. Science doesn’t know everything (as Dara O’Briain observes, science knows it doesn’t know everything – otherwise it would stop). But what science does know is everything that we as a species currently know about the way that the universe works. It’s fuzzy around the edges and bits of it are constantly being refined, very occasionally even changing significantly. However when a lone individual claims to know something that science doesn’t know, that is the time to get suspicious. Especially when this ‘revolutionary insight’ is something that the individual makes money from. And especially when that is public money.

Robert Park famously said "Alas, to inherit the mantle of Galileo, you must not only be persecuted, you must also be rigbt" (from memory, since coming from bench outside Royal Marsden). Pained fans of psychobabble, please note.

Google FAIL. A small prize to anyone who can discover the source of Silvia Hartmann's much-vaunted PhD. No CV that I can find.

Just pausing from munching my nano-bagels. Scientifically, this seems pretty straightforwardly loopy. It's all very well to sneer at the "scientific faithful" but this is not so much fides quaerens intellectum as fides evitans intellectum. But the interesting question is: how is it even *legal* to push this sort of gobbledygook in schools?

I cannot believe there are people here seriously defending this New Age claptrap. Do we really want to be teaching kids that parroting back a load of meaningless psycho-babble, and waffle about "mystic energy", serves as a substitute for actual thinking? ------------------------ If you want to see just how away with the fairies EMOtrance and its founder Silvia Hartmann are, have a look at her thoughts on "shamanic remote energy healing" here: http://bit.ly/9aUPe

David! I must give the prize to YOU for right idea, but not to get it from you! :) Indeed! You'll understand why, if you read the story about Silvia Hartmann and her so-called "PhD"! Here: http://silviahartmann.com/specials-universal-life-church-ulc.php

I think there is a bit of excessive pride here on the part of the orthodoxy. We have forgotten that a drug or a vaccine used to cure/prevent the disease in 3 out of 4 people. This is not the case with new preparations. When pressed for answers, official medicine admits that the effect of the flu vaccine is reducing the number of sick days from 7 to 6, that's all. What we now call a drug is hardly better than what alternative fraud gives. We always hear that some results are statistically reliable, but we never hear WHAT the results are. And they are: some improvement in the condition. Poor public doesn't even know the difference and never asks the second, the more important question. The same thing with transplantations, public never hears for how many years a transplant works. Recalls of the drugs taken by millions are as frequent as recalls of cars. So, I am just saying that the pride is excessive. ................................................Now, M Simpson says: "...when a lone individual claims to know something that science doesn’t know, that is the time to get suspicious." Wait a moment, I hope you are not dismissing every great scientist who ever lived. The question is not about loneliness but about what exactly is being claimed.

Probably, the news about Silvia Hartmann's PhD can be final point in this discussion. Now all things about her are clear. Her psychobabble can have no place in the schools. Glory, David Colquhoun. Be happy and HEALTHY.

@Michael Pyshnov. I'm not dismissing every great scientist - or even any great scientist - because none of them were 'lone individuals who claimed to know something that science doesn't know' - like Silvia Hartmann. Certainly no scientist of note within the past hundred years or so has worked completely outside of mainstream science, pursuing ideas that contradict utterly fundamental principles on which contemporary science is based (and then turning those ideas into a profit-making business without bothering to explore them in any way). Staggering advances - natural selection, plate tectonics, splitting the atom - nevertheless all built on what had gone before rather than simply inventing something completely new. This woman is a fraud and a charlatan - and an obvious one at that - and the attempts by people to defend her are bizarre.

Congratulations Svetlana (and a lot more on Twiiter). "Dr" Silvia Hartmann PhD bought doctorate in religion from Universal Life Church, current cost $29.99. Did the people running schools know this? If not, why not? Or perhaps they just regard it as a useful transferable skill to be able to write a deceptive CV. Emotrance for the Roberts Agenda anyone?

M Simpson, I completely agree - "This woman is a fraud and a charlatan - and an obvious one at that - and the attempts by people to defend her are bizarre." I add: there are thousands of such people. Look - she is not lonely, damn it! But those lonely scientists, they were in the mainstream only because they were the mainstream, well, too often after some troubles. ................................Now, would you look at the mainstream, official university site http://difference.weblog.glam.ac.uk/archives/2008/7 Look at the "THE first human being to live for 1000 years is already walking the Earth, a Welsh academic has claimed. And he or she will already be at least four years old, owing their lifespan to the imminent ability of science to “cure” the ageing process and diseases." ettttc.

29.99 ? O boy, I actually had that money.

Mr. Pyshnov, doesn't it seem to you that you are a bit off-topic? We are talking about anti-science here. Though, if you insist on... OK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides anti-science, there is another danger for Science. It is pseudo-science. Unlike anti-science, it is more difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from real Science. And one must be able to do it before chanting the praises of different "great projects".... :(

Sveta, it is quite possible that I would disagree with you if I could understand what you are talking about. Please, be concrete.

I really must congratulate the participants in this "discussion" you have given me so much amusement. I would like to point out that as a member of a much maligned group THE PUBLIC who I'm sorry guys are voting with their feet. The public no longer have such credence in a group of people who can with one hand dangle in front of the public an anti-cancer drug that will probably extend their lives by a considerable time only to be told they wont be able to have it because it will cost thousands of pound per month and with the other condemn complementary therapies that cost people a miserable few pounds. I'm sorry we are all totally fed up to the back teeth with being dictated to by people with a fistful of academic study qualifications, who because they have these "qualifications" believe they know more than we do. Well guys big surprise in store those of us who go to honest, caring people who actually LISTEN to what we say, don't label us as neurotic, misinformed, gullible, vulnerable, mentally ill or whatever do so because we choose to. We spend our few pounds and we decide if we have had some benefit from our sessions, and guess what if we haven't we don't go back, if it does make our lives better then we jump up and down and thank God (or whatever to choose to believe in or not I really don't much care). Simple isn’t it. All I know is that should anyone dare to try to provide some real help they are immediately pilloried by a few professional "quack busters". Good for you guys, sleep well at night knowing that people could be helped but because of your supposed academic authority they are too scared. I for one wouldn't want to be in your shoes. The ridiculous tirade launched against people who have a genuine desire to help people was launched on the grounds of ONE school trying a revolutionary approach to helping its students, at the almighty cost of, at the most, a few hundred pounds. In the realms of spending taxpayer’s money it doesn't even rank as petty cash. Grow up guys, climb down out of your academic ivory tower and join the real world. Complementary therapies like EmoTrance help thousands of people very year and will continue to do so. It really is beyond belief that supposedly educated men and women will go to such lengths to attempt to discredit people like Silvia Hartmann, on what grounds, oh my god she is the only person in the world to possess a worthless piece of paper, she has an interest in innocent magic and a few harmless spells. Are you seriously telling me that you believe children are in some sort of danger from using a therapy like EmoTrance when they spend hours day after day watching ultra graphic violence in their own homes on a computer? Who is scamming who, who is making profits by exploiting people. What is your real problem, that EmoTrance might work, or that someone might possibility make a few pounds in the process. I wonder now much drug companies are making at our expense. Oh one final thing how is it that only scientists seem obsessed with “snake oil” and it’s purveyors does this have some particular fascination or is it just a bit of emotional rhetoric, like black arts. Go back to debating society, while the people who are really interested in pushing the frontiers vote with their feet. Yes I know I have not abided by the conventions of messaging and yes I have launched unprovoked attacks on the veracity of your statements, nothing less than complementary practitioners are obliged to endue on a regular basis by closed minded and bigoted scientists, that’s because I prefer to think outside your negative restrictive box and accept responsibility for myself and my actions, weird concept that. Where do you feel this post in your body, put your hands there, soften & flow? Well done you've just tried EmoTrance, really dangerous isn't it..

Hmm. My children don't spend "hours day after day watching ultra graphic violence in their own homes on a computer". And I don't all that much want them being subjected to this crap either. I'm not a scientist but I have yet to meet one who was "closed minded and bigoted".

A remarkable comment Geraldine. Let's leave aside the name-calling and tired stereotyping and stick to the core issue. Are you happy for your children to be taught anything, simply anything, in school regardless of the supporting evidence? As a father of three, I'm certainly not. Do you think that children should be taught that there are families of invisible pixies living at the bottom of their garden?; that there is a planet entirely populated by dalmatians in another galaxy?; that humans fall and remain in love due to a fundamental force arising from the exchange of quantum mechanical particles? If your answer is "Yes", then there's nothing more I can say! If your answer is "No", then why not? There's as much evidence for each of those examples as there is for the "energy fields" that Silvia Hartmann is proposing. It is entirely inconsistent to accept EmoTrance and to reject each of my scenarios above - they're all equally ridiculous. Teaching children to accept *any* statement/proposal/theory in the absence of supporting evidence is certainly "really dangerous" (as you put it).

I'm at a loss to find another description for people who automatically condemn soemthing they have not experienced and do no listen to people who have experienced it. They are making a judgement using their criteria do not be surprised if others choose to do the same. Perhaps it would be more useful instead of descending like vultures to pick at the carcass of another complementary practitioner they looked up and saw that various energy therapies and their principles are in fact being investigated and tested by several fellow scientists, but of course that doesn't make good copy!.. I'm so pleased that your children don't play violent computer games and I hope that they have the opportunity to make their own judgements based on their own experience rather than rely on those who have no experience of what they are talking about.

I'm at a loss to find another description for people who automatically condemn soemthing they have not experienced and do no listen to people who have experienced it. They are making a judgement using their criteria do not be surprised if others choose to do the same. Perhaps it would be more useful instead of descending like vultures to pick at the carcass of another complementary practitioner they looked up and saw that various energy therapies and their principles are in fact being investigated and tested by several fellow scientists, but of course that doesn't make good copy!.. I'm so pleased that your children don't play violent computer games and I hope that they have the opportunity to make their own judgements based on their own experience rather than rely on those who have no experience of what they are talking about.

Ermmm. Is that a "yes" or a "no" to my question?

On the subject of "closed-minded" scientists, if you could provide me with references to the studies of the EmoTrance energy fields which you say are being carried out by "several fellow scientists", I'd really appreciate it. I'd genuinely very much like to read about how these scientists go about testing for the presence of the proposed energy fields. I can't even glean what type of energy is meant to be involved from the EmoTrance website! (And, finally, on your "I wonder how much drug companies are making at our expense?" comment. I'm a university scientist who, like many of my colleagues, has deep concerns about the integrity of science being compromised by the marketisation and commercialisation of academic research. I do step out of the "ivory tower" every now and again...)

To Geraldine: I think this is for me. "I'm so pleased that your children don't play violent computer games and I hope that they have the opportunity to make their own judgements based on their own experience rather than rely on those who have no experience of what they are talking about". Actually, I've never told them not to play violent computer games. They seem to have decided not to. I'm hoping they will make comparable decisions on other matters but I'd also like to think they would evaluate those experiences by what I would think of as broadly scientific criteria. I have no direct experience (thankfully) of what the Emotrance folk are talking about. But if I haven't experienced it, and it cannot be evaluated by scientific (rational) criteria, how could I possibly say if it's any use? I have no experience of voodoo; people who have used it say it helps; but they tell me that it's not amenable to proper scientific evaluation. Do I advise my children to try voodoo?

Hi, David (if I may). Apologies to you (and Geraldine) - it is indeed clear that Geraldine's comment starting "I'm at a loss to find another description..." is directed to you. I hope that Geraldine finds the time to respond to my "Yes/No" question above and provides the references to the EmoTrance scientific studies she mentions. The THE's article on EmoTrance has raised some very important questions which, as a scientist who has a particular interest in public engagement/outreach, I'm keen to explore and debate. (As might be evident from the frequency of my commenting on this thread!). Best wishes, Philip.

Geraldine, let's say for a moment that you're right in your opinion of Silvia Hartmann and EmoTrance. That EmoTrance does in fact have genuine therapeutic benefits and that these are thanks to Silvia's unique discovery and understanding of a physiological phenomenon that has so far completely eluded the entire, arrogant, oh-so-clever global scientific establishment throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Let's assume that's all true. //////// Now consider this scenario: Someone else - let's call her Mrs X - comes along to your children's school with a sincere offer to provide a therapy that she has invented. It is based on her own revolutionary research which is entirely unconnected in any way with - in fact actually contradicts - the research that millions of scientists and science students are doing around the world right now. In fact, it contradicts what your children are actually being taught in their Biology GCSE syllabus. However, she assures you, most sincerely and honestly, that this therapy can benefit the pupils. She even offers endorsements from other parents at previous schools. **But really** Mrs X is a con artist, who has simply thrown together a load of well-presented nonsense full of buzz-words. At other schools, she has persuaded naive parents that minor benefits which would come from any simple ritualised calming process are actually amazing effects caused by the unique, revolutionary (entirely untrue) thing that she alone has 'discovered'. Consequently these parents are happy to endorse her utterly fraudulent claims, unaware that they are helping a crook. /////// The question Geraldine, is simple: how would you distinguish between honest Silvia Hartmann and dishonest Mrs X?

Philip, Good to see that you're on still on the case. Yes indeed, I look forward to a scientific defence of EmoTrance. And if the energy fields exist, I've all sort of projects to let them loose on. -- David

@M. Simpson: *Genius* comment! I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of framing the argument like that...

Geraldine, you have to understand that people would consider any treatment which is not a secret and is not accompanied by obvious for us unscientific language rich in nonsense. You don't have to offer an explanation of how your treatment works - this would be the next stage if your treatment proves successful. There are two stages: one is to accept the existence of the new phenomenon, the next stage (that can last for a long time) is discovering the mechanism of how it works. The first stage is an experiment that must be conducted in public and you cannot withhold any information related to what you are actually doing. I am almost sure that you can find people in academia who will check out your experiment. Yes, academia is corrupt to the bone. The best example is how Dr. Barry Marshall in Australia was for some 10 years intentionally ignored and not even allowed to speak at conferences, when he discovered that stomach ulcer is caused by bacteria and actually cured the ulcers. He recently received Nobel Price. Unfortunately nobody was punished. Academia is full of scoundrels who care only for their positions, steal discoveries of decent scientists, take bribes for writing false reports about "success" of drugs, etc. But, with your treatment (or "treatment") the main problem is that you put forward an explanation of how it works, the explanation where you don't know what you are talking about. Naturally, you cannot expect any positive reaction.

Gentleman, thank you for your responses to which I will reply more fully later this evening as I am out all day.

Before my lift arrives I would like to make a suggestion that therapies like EFT, EmoTrance and the like are untestedas yet is not because of the reluctance of its practitioners and developers but because a suitable method to measure the results on the emotions of the person does not exist. These therapies are designed to make changes to a persons emotions (the results), the vehicle for the change is the intention to change and the energy system (the mechanism), so therefore we are dealing with two separately investigatable things. So the task would be; how do we measure emotions, how do we KNOW we feel better, so I would like to suggest that perhaps someone would like to postulate a theory as to how you could prove scientifically that for example you love your wife, your children, your parents and how you can measure the difference because there is a difference is there not. Research into the human energy system and the use of focussed thought (intention) can be found via Google and a good place to start for someone who has a serious curiosity would be ACEP an organisation in America which is an umbrella body for energy practitioners. As for the remark about name calling I do not recall calling anyone a "crook" a "conman" which directed at an indiviual on a public forum might be grounds for some form of legal retaliation. I look forward to hearing how you can prove you love your wife/children etc.

Geraldine: "how can I prove you love your wife/children etc.?" I probably can't. But I'm not proposing to scoot down to the nearest primary school claiming to be in possession of a sort of emotional Lucozade, clutching brochures for my "treatment", so I can peddle it to gullible six-year-olds in a science lesson.

Geraldine, science cannot measure love, or peace, or beauty, or happiness - but it does not deny the existance of such things. It is pseudoscience which (falsely) claims it can detect and measure these things. If Silvia Hartmann thinks that her system improves a person's emotional wellbeing, she must be able to measure that wellbeing - at least qualitatively if not quantitatively - otherwise how could she know that the level of it has changed? You can't just go by what people say. We all know that if you give people a smartie and tell them it is a happy pill, some people will report that it definitely made them happier. I'm looking forward to your explanation of how you would distinguish between Silivia Hartman and a con artist who made similar claims.

Geraldine, your statements become stranger and stranger. If you say it works it means that you have measured it. What remains is to tell others how you measured it. You are not doing this; instead, you again put forward your theory about how it works ("energy"). A sane person would not study the mechanism of something that does not exist, but that's exactly what you are doing, so you should not wonder why your business is called crookery etc. I repeat it again. You are saying: "I look forward to hearing how you can prove you love your wife/children etc." There is absolutely no doubt that this can be proved (or disproved). Only I don't see any desire on your part to disclose how you have made your conclusions that the "therapy" works.

<Michael Pyshnov "I look forward to hearing how you can prove you love your wife/children etc." There is absolutely no doubt that this can be proved (or disproved). M Simpson science cannot measure love, or peace, or beauty, or happiness - but it does not deny the existance of such things.> These two statements appear to contradict each other? What has been said before indicates that you are stating that if it can't be measured it can't be proved therefore can't exist??. Neither answered the question I posed. How do you know? It is a subjective experience which you feel internally, you look at a sunny day and feel better, an internal process, you look at your children you feel love, an internal process. Yet you appear to maintain that because these internal process cannot be measured they either do not exist and therefore cannot be changed or influenced, yet you feel them. You thus cannot with any justification say that it is not possible for someone to change another persons internal state, mood, feeling. There has been evidence that the human body has an energetic system which can be measured via EEG, ECG all these detect electrical (energy) activitiy in the body. <so you should not wonder why your business is called crookery etc> You have no idea what my business is, you have based this statement on an assumption, neither do you have any evidence of "crookery" that is merely your opinion, so as I suggested before implying criminal behaviour on an open forum is not only arrogant, somewhat niave if not potentially legally dangerous. <You can't just go by what people say> Unbelieveable!!! Useful places to start if you have some intention of finding out what you are actually talking about instead of merely hiding behind the same old trite "psuedoscience" screaming. http://www.energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=5 http://tillerfoundation.com/biography.php http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/ Sorry guys but I'm finding this discussion somewhat unproductive now, enjoy your entrenched position, I'm just pleased that other MDs, Scientists, Psychiatrists, Psychotherapists, teachers and other professional people no longer share it. Goodnight & Goodbye.

Geraldine, you quote two statements, mine and M Simpson's, and take them as if they were made by one person and you say that they should not contradict each other. They actually do, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The nub of this is measurement. Folk like Geraldine (I've met others) believe that 'science' says: if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. What science actually says is: if you can't measure it, you can't tell whether it has changed.

Plus as a relevant corollary (to M Simpson's last): And if you can't tell whether it has changed, then going around loudly insisting that you ABSOLUTELY KNOW it has changed is lying. Or at least what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt defines as "bullshit": http://bit.ly/ulVGA

Well, measuring something doesn't have to be expressed in numbers. You can measure by comparison. You can prove that one circle is smaller than the other just by putting it inside the other. Secondly, just how all these psychologists/sociologists conduct their studies? They don't tell you that a group of people is 50 inches long. There are many methods to do measurements. But if you refuse to say how did you come to your conclusions - that's what some people call bullshit, and I say - crap.

I think that I can cure anybody's genital warts by painting their front door yellow. Anyone who says I'm wrong is a closed-minded elitist in the pay of a drug company.

Geraldine: "So the task would be; how do we measure emotions, how do we KNOW we feel better, etc." .... psychologists have been measuring emotions for decades. They've used everything from self-report scales, to measurements of tiny facial movements, to brain scans, to skin conductance readings. And what they found is that people are pretty good at knowing how they feel, and telling you this if you ask them. It's not complicated. Just like it would be uncomplicated to test whether EmoTrance worked - you ask people to rate how they feel before and afterward, and preferably compare this group to another classroom that didn't get EmoTrance, or got a different therapy such as conflict resolution or meditation. It doesn't have to be complicated.

@ Deborah Kean: "I don't agree with your judgement you have made that pseudo-scientists are not interested in their ideas being scrutinised and tested, That is a generalisation that comes from your belief system and not based on any fact whatsoever." ---- James beat me to it. If a pseudo-science theory is fairly tested, it either becomes science, or it is revealed to be a fraud. Pseudo-scientists aren't interested in fair trials of their theories because they tend to show their theories don't stand up to scrutiny. They prefer to hide behind claims that people aren't being "open minded", or refer people to tests that are not fair (such as personal anecdotes or comparisons that don't include a placebo or studies where people know what treatment they're getting).

Hi everyone, What a fascinating debate. Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. I personally believe that EFT and Emotrance have made an incredible difference in my life. If you go to the EFT website, emofree.com, you will see testimonials by thousands and thousands of people who feel similarly to me. Surely this should count as a certain degree of "scientific" evidence, that EFT has made a difference in these people's lives, in the ways described. Now, many people have limited "scientific" evidence to requiring a "Placebo", and this is somewhat contradictory in this particualar sort of scientific study. Firstly, since each case is so different, as evidenced, for example, by the testimonials on emofree.com, the objectivity of the placebo is called into question. In a cute sort of way, it might be comparable to testing out what happens to one type of subatomic particle, and doing the same thing to a different subatomic particle to see if the effect is real, or just a placebo. They're different particles, so you don't expect the result to be the same. With EFT and Emotrance, each person is taken to be a very different individual, and although the technique may the same to all people, the way the people are affected by negative emotions and beliefs are different. Each person gets distressed in a slightly different way. The practitioner is trained to go for measurable improvement - of the individual, but not according to any rule books of what this might look like for other people. So that's one aspect of why placebos aren't so accurate in this case. Secondly, placebos in the medical community often have bad rap, and here's why. Because it means that it wasn't the medication that worked, it was only the patient's belief and trust in the medication or the doctor that cured him. So relative to medicines, a strong placebo effect means that this medicine direct power is useless. However, with techniques like EFT and Emotrance, the placebo effect is quite a useless measure of quality. Here's one reason why. EFT practitioners want their patients to get well - and they don't care how. They don't care if the patient is better because he believes in tapping, in meridians, in the practitioner, in anti-science, in Gary Craig, in hope, or in the universe. As long as the patient gets the results he desired, it's considered a success for the practitioner. In fact, to my current understanding, EFT and emotrance work because a person who is depressed is holding onto some inaccurage BELIEFS that are confusing him. The EFT helps the person gently and kindly to acknowledge these, consider their accuracy and WHAM! the depression disappears. THis is not pseudo-science or rocket science. But for some reason the EFT ritual does a lot better than any other ritual. The Emotrance hand motions do a lot better than any other hand motions. No I can't explain it. But it works. It even works for many medical issues, which seem, retrospectively, to have some aspect of them connected to inaccurate beliefs. It also is much more pleasant and gentle and fast than things like talking and talk therapy. Now back to placebos, there's not much point in using placebo tests, if each person's symptoms are different for what turns out to be a similar root beliefs, if improvement in the symptoms are your measure of success. Beliefs such as "I am in constant danger" might make one person agrophobic and another might develop chronic fatigue syndrome, and in a third person might make them feel injuries as way more painful than the injury would seem to require. I fail to see how the tens of thousands of testimonials on emofree do not constitute evidence for it's healing abilities. I bet (and betting is definitely unscientific) that many medicines have been promoted on scantier reporting. I hope this helps, but nothing will more than a little subjective opinion. So I invite you - give it a try. What do you have to lose? And about schools teaching this kind of stuff without voters approval - well that makes sense, but I think voters should also vote as to how much of the current school curriculum should still be studied. I for one am sorry for all the hours i wasted studying poetry, literature appreciation, and all complicated mathematical equations. History was also a waste of time. I could have just read the books I wanted to. So if I get to vote on school curriculum, well, I wouldn't waste so much time and brain space on most of what goes on there. And I bet (this is also unscientific) that most other voters also believe they've wasted many years of their life in school and university. So if a school admin wants to take a break from it all and introduce something that seems radical and revolutionary, and the parents don't object, then I applaud them. I do think they should get the parents' permission first, and allow dissenting students to do something else during that time.

"EFT practitioners want their patients to get well - and they don't care how. They don't care if the patient is better because he believes in tapping, in meridians, in the practitioner, in anti-science, in Gary Craig, in hope, or in the universe. As long as the patient gets the results he desired, it's considered a success for the practitioner." Congratulations on perfectly summing up the underlying principle of all CAM and related pseudoscience: so long as the patient recovers, the practitioner will claim credit for it. ////////// "But for some reason the EFT ritual does a lot better than any other ritual. The Emotrance hand motions do a lot better than any other hand motions." Really, I'm sure we would all welcome a link to the relevant, peer-reviewed papers...

Hi M Simpson I don't know why you said that all Alternative medicine practitioners just want to claim credit for things they haven't done, and why you use my words as evidence of this. I wasn't referring to who takes credit and whether other medical procedures played a role as well in each particular case. I actually take back some of my words. I think it does make a difference in long term staying healthy if a client believes they have become healthy because rituals can cure them, or that Gary Craig is a god. I don't think such a client, if they become healthy, will stay healthy for long, because, at least to me, that belief doesn't make sense. I find the interface between EFT and medicine very interesting. I have seen a few people who weren't healing with EFT until they reduced their phobia of medications and Xrays. Without actually needing these things, they then got better. Similarly, I am a proponent of any health measure a person believes will help them, especially if it makes sense to me, like blood tests, xrays, antibiotics. However, on a personal note, I took antibiotics for an infection, as advised, because I believe in being normal, and the infection went away - after the course of treatment and another couple days, the infection came right back with a vengeance. I decided to dedicate myself to intensive EFT, and after 24 hours the infection went away (as well as a lot of limiting beliefs and ancient and current angers and grievances). I don't know any relevant peer reviewed papers. I'm perfectly happy to trust and share my own opinion.

It is quite amazing how enthusiasts for Alternative Medicine / Alternative Psychology / Alternative Reality trot out the same old discredited arguments again, and again, and again, as demonstrated here by Geraldine and by Rachel Geller.////////////////////////////////// "My testimonials trump your small-minded evidence..." "...I only care if my "patients" feel better..." "I've seen the results so I don't need proof..." - and so on, and so on.///////////////////////////////////////////// Edzard Ernst, who lest we forget is an actual Professor of Complementary Medicine, succinctly deconstructs all the various forms of special pleading here: http://bit.ly/25mF4D - compulsory reading for anyone frustrated by the way this stuff is endlessly repeated by those who prefer hand-waving to thinking.

@Rachel. Given that Geraldine has apparently now left the fray, perhaps you would like to address MSimpson's comment above re. distinguishing between Silvia Hartmann and a con-artist who makes similar claims. (It's the second to last comment on Nov. 14). I'm disappointed that Geraldine entirely ignored this important comment and I'd really like to read your response. MSimpson's carefully constructed and worded comment cuts to the crux of the issue. Best wishes, Philip.

I tried posting three times and they didn't seem to post so I'll try in short: If you don't trust the hiring committee of the school, you shouldn't be sending your child to the school.

@Rachel. Thanks for responding to my comment. But you've really only shifted the problem one level up. Now the question is: How does the hiring committee of the school distinguish between Silvia Hartmann and the con-artist?! Recourse to authority is always a rather troublesome way of attempting to solve a problem. Moreover, shouldn't we be teaching our children to think for themselves?! Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and inspiration for so many physicists/scientists, defined science as "the belief in the ignorance of experts" in a speech he gave to primary and high school teachers called "What is science?" A transcript of the speech is available on the web (http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html) and I thoroughly recommend reading it in full for Feynman's elegant and inspiring description of the scientific method. If Feynman doesn't convince you that "trusting the hiring committee of the school" is a poor solution to the problem MSimpson posed, then no-one will!

...and by the way, note Feynman's comments on the mis-use of the term "energy". I'm sure that he'd be immensely saddened to hear that, over forty years after his speech, pseudoscience is taking the misappropriation and abuse of the concept of energy to new depths. ...sigh...

"If you don't trust the hiring committee of the school, you shouldn't be sending your child to the school." I can think of three criteria that should be met by the hiring committee of a school: they should be able to ascertain that a proposed teacher has the knowledge and teaching skill needed for the students, that they are able to detect subtle character traits of the teacher that the teacher really is a suitable person to be leading children (more on this soon), and there should be a department that works towards ironing out the very real issues that arise between teachers and students, enabling the teachers to learn on the job and students to be guided how to do their job as students better. How does the hiring committee judge character? They should be trained in this. Learning to read subtleties, and so many other details that combine towards understanding MORE about who the yeacher IS a a person. This criteria is as important in selecting any teacher as it is when deciding whether to hire a person who claims to teach a new subject matter. Why do they want to be teaching it? What makes this person tick? Who is this person in private? In the past? I'm not talking about finding out about their criminal records, and I'm not even saying to "judge" the person as good or bad. Let's say that everyone is "GOOD", but the hiring committee's job is rather to find out if this person can help advance the students from where they are right now to where the students, the school and their parents would like them to be. SInce my guess is that a large percentage of personal, academic and parental goals are in the area of personal development, coaching programs that offer this in innovative ways are the way to the future. Obviously the person who offers to teach this, has to be more open about their private life and show how indeed they apply it to themselves - in a way that convinces the hiring committee. There's no websites or CV that mean as much as ongoing personal development of a personal developer./// You wrote "shouldn't we be encouraging children to think for themselves?" I can't think of a better way, honestly, than to say: "Here's something which you until now thought was baloney. Much of the developed world think it is nuts. Why don't you give it a try and decide for yourselves?" Emotrance doesn't really teach them anything accept a method that either works or doesn't. They can choose to take the "background descriptions" if it makes sense to their ears though it doesn't to many adult ears - their ears may be less biased, less accepting, less subjective, more simple. I think, presented as a theory, they can decide for themselves if they believe it to be true or not. There's a billion things in life they'll have to ponder as to their veracity, but they'll need to have a bit of experiential exposure before they can vote. I for one, don't believe in evolution, the evidence seems to me to be very scanty. But one of my reasons for believing or not believing in something is "What do other people believe". I will take more seriously the opinion of people whose whole lives - private and public - I personally respect. They may not be world famous people, but they're people I trust. Similarly for students, they will only believe something new for an extended period of time if they have an inner respect for the teacher. Especially if that very method they are being taught to do encourages them to keep evaluating different aspects of their lives. If it was lies, eventually, they, as a group, would see the inconsistencies. Not only that, but the evidence for EFT is precisely in their own bodies: "how do you feel? Connect that back to a trigger that just happened to you. Come to terms with the trigger. Notice the distress diminish" Their every second becomes their opportunity and their whole body and family becomes their laboratory. They learn to look to the past and to the future - there's a lot of goal setting in EFT and evaluation of reaching the goals. They look to others for solutions they didn't think of. In fact, in terms of developing thinking skills i can't think of a better way. The only detriment is that the kid may become kind of selfish and put improving their mood before doing their science homework. And that should be their choice, shouldn't it? I obviously don't know all kids, I can only speak for the one's I know well. There's no lack in intelligence when people are younger (aka kids), there's just a different way of processing info. To me, that does not translates as gullible.///i haven't read the feyman article, I'm sorry I just don't feel like it right now (can you shorten it and bring it here?). I'll answer the points you made. Can you trust the school authorities? Well, you as parents should be making your feelings stronger known about that. Yes, you "should" be able to trust them, and most parents want a better interface with them, but the school system is set up that parents feel intimidated and they are painted as if they don't care. So it's bad news when national voters have to force school admin to behave in certain ways. Very bad news. /// with regard to the "misuse" of the word energy, I see it just as a new use for an old word. Words are always changing their meanings in English and i see it as no cause for concern. Just like subatomic particles don't really seem to be particles in the older sense of the word. Who cares? I don't even see it as piggybacking. I don't "feel" energy flows between my hands and for all I care, all the descriptions Silvia gives may be a load of rubbish, or they may be metaphorical. If they help me understand myself better, and I like myself more as a result of reading it, and when I personally write it will be something I am congruent with, I can accept Silvia's best efforts without feeling challenged and fearful that they are dangerous. Still, I see that each person will take them differently, they'll weigh them against their own experiences, and some may cling to them as truth, and may act in ways they wouldn't have acted if they hadn't read them. I don't see how you make kids open minded and honest by censoring their reading. HAVING SAID ALL THAT: i suddenly had a thought: If the school my kids were in would say they were studying this subject, I'd kick up a huge fuss. I'd take my kids out of the school. Really. I wouldn't want them exposed to Silvia hartman's writings. I don't know the woman from Adam. It's not something the kids are actively seeking so I don't see why they should be exposed to it. But at home, if a child of mine was struggling with something, I might offer to teach them the Emotrance technique. Only when they would be asking me for help mind you, and only as a possible solution, there are many others too. I'd tell them my personal experience with it and how it might help them. And I wouldn't press. I would not introduce it at all for a guest child without their parent's permission.IT DOESN'T WORK UNDER COERCION ANYWAY - and it's very much against the spirit of EFT and Emotrance to introduce it to a person who is doing another person a favor by trying it out. Thank you for this discussion. I don't agree with all of your concerns, but I do actually agree that "getting Emotrance into schools" is not a one step thing. It should take many months and have a lot of people on side before it happens, if at all. And I don't think the literature needs to be tied to it, unless it is asked for.

The problem is not that there is no science supporting alternative medicine and energy it is that the scientists do not know where to look tand do not have the time to find it. I have been researching this subject for a long time and i have found lots of scientific papers that show that there are all sorts of different energies that inhabit all organic life and differetn behaviours that go against traditional western medicine. With regard to homeopathic medicine why is it that doctors in the UK are not allowed to prescribe it and yet every doctor in Germany and Italy freely prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of American drugs. Are we really saying that German and Italian doctors are stupid and English doctors know best. it sounds like 19th attitudes all over again!

Rachel, thank you for a very long, detailed and considered response. Alas, you haven't addressed the original question which I posed (to Geraldine) of how you would distinguish between Silvia Hartmann's methods (assuming she's correct) and someone else making similar (but untrue) claims. You seem to be suggesting that the only way to distinguish whether a treatment is genuine or fake is by judging the character of the person proposing it. If that was the case, it would mean that the two treatments are in fact indistinguishable - and consequently any acceptance of Silvia Hartmann's work comes down to 'she seems like a nice lady'. //// You also seem to be confusing the idea of teaching kids to 'think for themselves' with teaching them to 'judge for themselves'. If we want young people to grow up with an open mind, questioning the world about them and even questioning received wisdom - all things that a good scientist should do - then we need to teach them about how easy it is for people to fool themselves, for example by basing theories merely on direct personal experience.

I decided to pop back quickly with a couple of points. There seems to be great concern about the usage of the word energy, I have had a look in a couple of dictionaries at the definition of the word. Firstly there is NO exclusive use of this word just for scientific matters, it is a word like any other which can be and is used in various contexts by absolutely anyone and everyone. Next there seems to be concern that I explain to you how I can differentiate the person who developed EmoTrance from a conman that is really easy. I would look at the set up of the person, do they have a fixed base, and are they contactable, have they been doing this for sometime, do they have a network of associates, as one would do with anyone one does business with. Next I would look at the proposal, read the information, talk to the person, talk to people who have already dealt with this person, then I would make a judgement of the amount of money involved, can I afford this, now long will I have to take part in the activity, do I think/believe/hope this activity will help me. Really much the same as any other decision one makes in life. Probably in the case of someone who would be working with kids in school I would assume the school would check that this person had no criminal record, had suitable and appropriate health and safety procedures in place. It appears that a number of the contributors are making judgements based on hysteria, scare mongering and lack of experience of the subject matter. This is the 21st century sweeping condemnation of the new and different really harks back to 19th c. I do hope that satisfactorily answers your question.

@Geraldine. MSimpson's most recent comment addresses your method of dealing with the hypothetical issue of distinguishing Hartmann from a con-artist. On the topic of energy: (i) Were you open minded enough to read the lecture by Feynman described (and linked to) in one of the preceding comments? (Be honest.); (ii) A short, and simply stated, question: What is energy?

Geraldine, I can't even begin to try to straighten out the "meaning of words" approach to energy (although I am as it happens a lexicographer) but pretty obviously, throughout this discussion, the word is being used with a specific sense (hence my facetious reference to emotional Lucozade, above). But as to the methodology proposed for differentiating charlatans from scientists ... well, words fail me I'm afraid. None of this answers the question even slightly.

<David Trotter But as to the methodology proposed for differentiating charlatans from scientists ... well, words fail me I'm afraid. None of this answers the question even slightly.> I do believe the original question was about one individual & a conman, not about scientists and charaltans.

I find it fascinating that both Geraldine and Rachel say they would judge whether something was genuine on the apparent integrity of the person proposing it, rather than by any sort of empirical testing of whether it worked. Quiet apart from anything, that's a worrying naivete and an open invitation to con artists. The nature of conmen (and conwomen) is that they do indeed seem completely honest. They have fixed bases, they are contactable, they have networks of associates etc. If they weren't thoroughly believable, they wouldn't be able to indulge in any sort of fraud. And then of course there are those who are self-deluded and so genuinely believe in what they do, even though it is deceitful and fraudulent. Clearly no amount of character study is going to expose those. I think we may have an insight here as to how things like this get into education, into HE, into the NHS. It's because a lot of decision-makers (mostly, from my observations, female) work on the principle of 'it must be true - why would this person lie to me?'

"Fascinating" is a polite word for it. It's downright loopy -- and pretty horrifying if on that sort of basis, we're letting them into schools.

"letting people into schools" is kind of wierd, David - I mean there are thousands of teachers being let into schools who didn't ought to be there, wreaking their unpleasantness on unsuspecting kids.///M Simpson, why do you need to have worldwide agreement that something works if you can just check it out in your kitchin?///Geraldine, I think you are correct about people going around scare mongering. I don't think most parents would care if their kids learn a helpful calming down technique, even if the discovery of it involved some thought processes that they don't agree to.///David, with regard to you "what is energy" question - why do you care?///M Simpson, I don't agree with you that I think that whoever seems to be a nice person I'll agree with. But I don't agree with you.

@Rachel: Ermm, it was me, not David, who asked the "What is energy?" question. That your answer to this question is "Why do you care?" tells me all I need to know. Depressing.

Rachel -- Whatever you might think of the thousands of teachers you think shouldn't be in schools, I don't think most of them are allowed to teach children that (say) there's a man in the moon who makes them happy, and unless you've been there, you can't prove there isn't.

@philip I'm glad you've worked out all you need to know about my opinion from he person to whom I addressed a question and I'm sorry you feel depressed over it. BTW, do you still care, and if so, why?///David, I also agree a teacher shouldn't be able to say there is a man in the moon, and I'd even prefer that a teacher should not be allowed to say that there might be. Does that mean that one shouldn't be allowed to teach the Emotrance *Technique* - if the person who taught it also wrote about some things which on face value don't make much sense, as well as a bunch of stuff which is very elucidating and helpful to many people, and the technique per se is very useful in a number of ways as assessed by many unaffiliated people like me who have tried it, and does not require the reading of any of these other writings. I still don't get why the technique should be banned if it works.

Hi Philip, I see I misread your comment and it's not that you're depressed that I addressed my question to David but that I said "why do you care" at all. But it really wasn't a rhetorical question. I am interested. Why do you care what Geraldine thinks energy is? Even if she thinks it encompasses ideas like "you affecting my opinion by exchange of emails", what does this matter to you?

<M Simpson It's because a lot of decision-makers (mostly, from my observations, female) work on the principle of 'it must be true - why would this person lie to me?'> Without even mentioning anything else that is an unnecessarily sexist remark. <If they weren't thoroughly believable, they wouldn't be able to indulge in any sort of fraud.> the more accurate phrase would be appear to be honest, they suceed because people do not check on them thoroughly. <rather than by any sort of empirical testing of whether it worked> I think we had established that the means of measurement for feeling and emotions, as suggested from the psychology model, was asking the person concerned if they felt better. Human feelings and emotions are what EmoTrance deals with so unless someone can develop an SI unit of Emotion I think asking the person concerned would prove adequate for 99% of people. ///// <David Trotter ,allowed to teach children that (say) there's a man in the moon who makes them happy, and unless you've been there, you can't prove there isn't> What exactly does this have to do with anything? Thank you so much Philip Moriarty for drawing my attention to the transcript of Feynman lecture it so beutifully explains the origins and practice of EmoTrance. Selected abstracts from Feynman speech <I learned then what science was about: it was patience. If you looked, and you watched, and you paid attention, you got a great reward from it--although possibly not every time.// He said, "We have been looking at how all these things grow; but for each bit of growth, there must be the same amount of decay--otherwise, the materials would be consumed forever: dead trees would lie there, having used up all the stuff from the air and the ground, and it wouldn't get back into the ground or the air, so nothing else could grow because there is no material available. There must be for each bit of growth exactly the same amount of decay."And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true.I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.>

Rachel, Just because a technique seems to work for some people, or they think it does (I'm not sure how the discussion thus far allows me to distinguish the two), doesn't seem to me to make it a valid subject for education in a school. There are any number of techniques of this type which practitioners (sometimes dishonestly) and devotees (often quite honestly) say will work but it is one thing for consenting adults to try them out, quite another to deploy them in schools and on impressionable children. There are those who quite genuinely think you can communicate with the dead via ouija boards. I don't think that belongs in school either, even if there are doubtless lots of children who would love to be able to get in touch with their dead grandparents. If in addition, the whole thing is bundled up with what has been rightly called not just pseudoscience but antiscience, then that is just another reason to get it out of schools.

David Trotter <valid subject for education > As I understand it this is not something intended to included within the school curriculum it is intended to be a supplementary activity on a trial basis as a possible means for youngsters to cope with some of their difficult feelings. In my experience children in schools are very critical of teachers and subjects, including extra curricula. It also appears that you have some confusion as to what modern complementary therapies actually involve, ouija boards, voodoo and men in the moon have never been part of it. Perhaps it would be useful to enquire from some accredited counsellors or psychotherapist the difference between therapies such as EFT, EmoTrance etc, which are used regularly as effective means of assisting traumatised military personnel and victims of crime, and massage, reflexology etc .

I agree with you that attempting to communicate with the dead poses a problem - the one that I see is that it violates many people's ethical and religious principles. I don't know if these boards can effectively do this, nor can anyone alive give evidence that they know how a dead experience feels; but I don't see how this is connected. Asking children to treat pain "as if it were energy, like water flow, or like electricity, able to permeate anything, unless it were hardened by the person's intention - and then to ask the person that if they could imagine it to be so, would they consider releasing this holding on" and then the child did so, and the pain noticeably moved to another position and gradually or fast disappeared entirely, does not seem to me to violate anyone's ethics, religions, or beliefs. I know the technique is technically connected to other stuff - call it whatever rude name you want - that I can't evaluate and wouldn't have written, but I don't find that stuff personally threatening (although I wouldn't want my kids exposed to it, as above, I'm not sure why). But I don't see why the pure technique can't be taught, it's an easy way for children to learn how to be with themselves. Feel happier. More confident. Use imagination in a guided way. Release pain. I believe I wouldn't object if my kids learned this useful kind of stuff instead of much of what they do learn.

"...it's an easy way for children to learn how to be with themselves." Is this not another cultist attribute? When you tell your kid that he doesn't know yet how to be with himself, are you not preparing him to live as a sick disoriented idiot in need of "therapy"? How long it will take before he is trying to escape reality and lands on drugs? Don't drag anyone into your cult!

Michael, You know how sometimes cars are advertised with beautiful people standing next to them so that people will make associations and think the car is great... well sometimes people use assocations to make sense of the world in ways that aren't so amazing. For example, comparing Emotrance with cults, men in the moon etc. I never said that you tell a kid that he doesn't know how to be with himself, I was referring to results. In many cases, a person does gain greater awareness, and may feel better about just enjoying his own company. It's a nice way to live. It's a side benefit of dealing with what's bothering you - you get to like yourself more. It's not something to aim towards, because you don't know how long it may take for the individual to be 'get there' - or if they ever will. Anyway, Emotrance isn't my cult. It's a tool in my toolbox, something I use when I feel pain or distress. Nobody gains or knows about my use of it, so the cult comparison seems weak.

Rachel --"Why do you care what Geraldine thinks energy is?". ...sigh.... The entire "theory" of EmoTrance is based on body "energy fields". Are you suggesting that asking someone who supports EmoTrance (and "energy psychology" methods in general) to explain what they mean by the term "energy" is somehow not relevant to the discussion?

Michael, I'm sorry but you are under some very great misapprehension here. EmoTrance is not a cult does not require anyone to join, meet with anyone, subscribe to anything, it does not require endless sessions with a therapist, it is merely a very simple technique that anyone can learn in a few minutes to help them feel happier with themselves. NOBODY would dream of telling a teenager they don't know how to be themselves,some non judgemental help to help them help themselves as and when they feel the need to.

Well, I'm not a scientist but blimey, what Rachel and Geraldine are talking about here is light years off what I understand science or education or even straightforward rational behaviour, to mean. I never suggested that voodo, ouija boards and men in the moon are part of complementary medicine. It's just that you seem very reluctant to explain how (in scientific or yes, rational terms) they differ. 'Asking children to treat pain "as if it were energy, like water flow, or like electricity, able to permeate anything, unless it were hardened by the person's intention - and then to ask the person that if they could imagine it to be so, would they consider releasing this holding on" ...': How is this different from "put your hands on this board, all hum together, and talk to Grandma who sadly died last year"? Fine if you want to get up to this at home. Not at all fine if you put this into schools.

Philip <The entire "theory" of EmoTrance is based on body "energy fields"> The entire theory of EmoTrance is based on dealing with the emotions and feelings of someone by paying attention to the physical sensations they feel inside their own body and then using your own intention to dispel those sensations and change the emotions. Belief in a human energy field is not necessary to use the method sucessfully.

Geraldine---"Thank you, Philip Moriarty, for drawing my attention my attention to the transcript of Feynman lecture it so beautifully explains the origins and practice of EmoTrance".----------- [....slowly bangs head repeatedly on table and sobs; hears agonised scream and realises it isn't his own but Feynman's from beyond the grave...] Everything in the quote from Feynman you include in your comment contradicts your and Rachel's arguments. Instead of "belief in the ignorance of experts" you have both argued that what is important is not an empirical test of the technique but whether the "expert" has sufficient authority/perceived integrity.--------We're going 'round in circles though, aren't we. Time to call it a day, for the sake of my sanity if nothing else. Goodbye. Philip P.S. "from beyond the grave" not to be taken literally....

And just as I was going to pack it in, Geraldine returns with a really important and revealing comment - "Belief in a human energy field is not necessary to use the method successfully". I quote from the EmoTrance.com website: "EmoTrance .... works WITH the natural energy system and uses people's NATURALLY INBORN abilities to work with energy. "; "EmoTrance is the newest energy modality in the world,created by REAL people for REAL people"; "This means that for the first time in the history of humanity, a practical system for energy healing and energy working was developed by a team led by women," (Capitals not mine throughout - what is with it pseudoscience and capitalisation?). ----------------------I'll let the "by REAL people for REAL people" nonsense slide for now (that would be REAL as opposed to, ermmm, IMAGINARY people?) and focus on the repeated use of the term "energy" in the statements above. If energy is not relevant to the EmoTrance method, why does the term feature so heavily in every EmoTrance-related website and document I've come across? And, as a self-professed supporter of EmoTrance, Geraldine, I'll ask you again - what do you understand by the term energy in the context of the EmoTrance statements above?

Perhaps I might suggest that all this difficulty in understanding something that a child can understand with no problem comes from members of this discussion throwing all their emotive rhetoric up into the air just to bamboozal and intimidate and to continue to make provocative pronouncements about something that you actually have no knowledge of. Please do nor respond with the "I have no need or want to know anything about that" because that to me just indicates a lack of scientific curiousity.

Philip what exactly is it you want me to say here. I have given a perfectly reasonable explanation of EmoTrance removing the necessity to use the words energy system, its a rephrasing that's all, its semantics. Both explanations are valid and as we are actually not dealing with physics here I really fail to see the problem. Whether you choose to use the expression energy system or internal processing does not change the purpose, use and result of using the technique.

Sorry, Geraldine, not good enough. That's an unfair response which completely ignores the arguments put forward by a large number of EmoTrance sceptics above. If I had "no need or want to know anything about that", as you put it, I'd have left this discussion a long time ago. I asked you a very straight-forward question. If energy fields are not relevant/necessary for EmoTrance, as you suggested above, then why is the term "energy" used so frequently on all EmoTrance websites and documents I have read?

First a clarification: My preceding comment (starting "Sorry Geraldine, not good enough") is a response to your comment starting "Perhaps I might suggest...". My response to your comment starting "Philip, what exactly is it you want me to say here?" is as follows----------------It is *not* a simple matter of semantics. Energy is an extremely important concept in physics. The term "energy" is used liberally, and in a specific sense, on the EmoTrance websites. What I want you to tell me is what you, as an EmoTrance practitioner, understand by the term "energy" in the context it is used on the EmoTrance website.------------ You appear to be arguing in one of your comments above that the "energy field" part of EmoTrance is irrelevant and that the technique simply works, so why worry about the underlying physical principles/theory? If this is the case, why is the technique dressed up in the language of physics on all the EmoTrance websites I've visted?

Most of the people who are interested in EmoTrance have worked for years with methods that utlise what is termed the body's subtle energy (this is the term that you appear to find so offensive). This is the subtle energy that as yet we are unable to measure successfully, that neither proves it exists or it doesn't exist. People who use this subtle energy field do so on the evidence of their own experiences and the experiences of others, as you so often quote that is unscientific I have therefore given you an alternative explanation which is just as valid but removes the offensive to you word just to indicate to you that the system can be utlilised whether you want to use the expression energy system or not. If you choose to believe that all the decent hardworking people who use these types of therapies to help themselves and others are devisive, dangerous and out to defraud and mislead people then I'm sorry you mistrust your fellow human beings so much. This discussion is really not going anywhere and I am not pepared to give it any more time.

Geraldine---"I'm sorry that you mistrust your fellow human beings so much". I take exception to that accusation, I must admit. I do not mistrust "my fellow human beings". Neither do I, however, accept *any* claim at face value in the absence of any supporting evidence. And this is what you are asking me - and, more importantly, schoolchildren and teachers - to do. ------------------ You, and other EmoTrance practitioners may well be entirely genuine, but, as you yourself now admit, there is no evidence for the "subtle energy fields" on which the entire EmoTrance theory rests. There are an infinite number of theories that can be put forward in the absence of a requirement for evidence. If I accept EmoTrance on the basis of no evidence, why shouldn't I take seriously the proposal that a family of invisible pixies lives at the bottom of my garden? --------------We at last agree on one thing, however. This discussion is indeed going nowhere and it's time to call an end to it. Nevertheless, I found your (and Rachel's) comments to be thought-provoking. You've certainly opened my eyes to a completely different way of thinking which is, I must admit, entirely alien to my own. A disconcerting but valuable (from my perspective at least) exchange. Best wishes, Philip.

Philip, I think this is a definitive non-runner as a discussion. God help us all, it just gets worse with every post from these people. Not only crass ignorance of the most rudimentary notions in physics (and grade 3 O-level in 1973 is enough I think to allow me to say that, so goodness knows what you make of it ...) but now ... "its [sic] semantics". Oh no it isn't Geraldine, because you don't understand that either. I'm not a physicist but I am a professional semantician. It's non-science, supported by anti-science, and now allegedly propped up by not even a rudimentary grasp of the language you claim to use in order to describe and defend it in. Top to bottom, rubbish. Please get all this garbage out of our schools ASAP. You want to fool around with it, that's fine. But leave our children out of it. Oh yes and what about looking up Feynman.

David, I of course entirely agree with your appraisal of the arguments from the EmoTrance/complementary medicine/pseudoscience proponents and practitioners. Nonetheless, and I'll admit I'm perhaps being rather perverse here (!), I found it a useful exchange simply because I've never had to debate with opponents coming from a position so extremely irrational. As a scientist, that has been a bit of an eye-opener for me (and useful in terms of "know thine enemy"). All the best, Philip

Philip, yes indeed. Eye-wateringly eye-opening. Didn't know it still went on, or not to this astonishing extent.

You are saying that your therapy is a ritual, and that means cult, period. You are juggling with numerous words that normally would describe a physical process but in your case they are used loosely. You use them only as buzzwords. Nothing you are saying can be taken literally, and that means nothing can be trusted. Don't you see this? ----------------------------------But, I want to tell you something positive. Tell you kid that the only way one can feel comfortable with himself is always, in any circumstances, telling the truth. If he asks why, tell him that if he tells the truth it means that he is not afraid of anyone. That is all about living with himself.

The main place where one runs up against this kind of nonsensical insistence on "untestable alternative ways of seeing", and a kind of relentless misuse of semantics to try and defend it, is in Alternative Medicine. For an example of the misuse of words, a favourite is "integrative", which sounds terribly inclusive, but is used in "integrative medicine" as a term to describe the idea that it would be good to combine (integrate) stuff which has been tested and works (medicine) with stuff which hasn't been tested, or which, if it has, doesn't work (alternative). The word "complementary" (again, mostly for stuff that doesn't work) is another widespread piece of language misuse in the same field.////////////// I know Philip Moriarty is familiar with David Colquhoun's "Improbable Science" website http://www.dcscience.net/ but if David Trotter isn't, then it chronicles much of what goes on in the "complementary" / alternative medicine arena, and in the anti-Science / pro-Unreality community generally.////////////// Finally, on the specific area of the misuse of language to rebadge sectarian / belief-based quackery as "complementary medicine", this post makes a good starting point http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=150

Science knows ALL the answers...so you would be made to believe. There are many depressives out there who could be cured IF they could get off their medication. If you can't measure it ,it doesn't exist...so you are told by eminent scientists (but who IS eminent?). Psychology does not have the answers.. although many psychologists adhere to the measurement criteria...that's why they have to revert to statistics. If something is claimed to work and it is against your limited understanding of reality, then at least ask what is really going on. I suppose that our scientists don't even believe in acupuncture..after all you can't measure it. perhaps the chinese are pulling the wool over the closed eyes of the eminent scientists. What is ENERGY anyway? Can you see it? You certainly can't measure it directly..in fact as any decent scientist will tell you you can't measure anything directly...etc...etc

It's a pity this discussion has moved so much into models and theories. You can drive a car perfectly skillfully without knowing how the combusion engine works or the theory behind how it works. As am EmoTrance practitioner I am perfectly happy to call an emotion that is stuck in the body an emotion or energy, as emotions like energy are not concrete objects. I have no need of further models. I might add that I have been a therapist for over 25 years and that EmoTrance is one of the most successful therapies I have and am using. A big plus is that therapeutic change can happen swifly without the need for understanding or analysing the problem, and during sessions clients are learning to use this method to diffuse their painful emotions themselves.

I'm glad there were some reasonable voices in the previous comments here saying that Emotrance has neither been proven to work nor not work (by people you all respect as scientists, that is) as of yet. I don't know if any of you have seen this, but Silvia Hartmann wrote a direct response to this article here on the Emotrance.com website some days ago. (link: http://emotrance.com/scientists_snake_oil_emotrance.htm ) Let me just quote some key arguments on this debate from her article, I recommend to read the whole thing to take in her perspective on this: There she argues that, as she sees it, her findings are indeed scientific: "I have followed the steps of the scientific method EXACTLY, right down to having the conclusion replicated by many others who work in the same field as I do, many times, and in many different circumstances. My hypothesis upon which EmoTrance is based, namely that human emotions are the feedback mechanism for the energy body, has produced experiments which time and again, bring good results. My scientific method has been rigorous, my research extensive, my documentation unfailing." She says: "And I challenge the "scientists" out there to behave like REAL scientists for once, find that love for truth they once must have possessed inside again, and rather than jumping to overly emotional and communal dogma conclusions, to familiarize themselves with the theory and practice of EmoTrance and finding out for THEMSELVES whether my hypothesis is useful, or not." And concludes: "In order to use the scientific method, you do not have to attend a University. Any thinking human being can and should use the scientific method to find out for themselves if something is true, or not. And I challenge the "scientists" out there to behave like REAL scientists for once, find that love for truth they once must have possessed inside again, and rather than jumping to overly emotional and communal dogma conclusions, to familiarize themselves with the theory and practice of EmoTrance and finding out for THEMSELVES whether my hypothesis is useful, or not." I think she has very valid points. And I think tax payer's money should indeed be used to find out if new techniques in the field of dealing with human emotions work reliably, because otherwise the studies would be paid by interest groups and be probably biased in the end. We really do need to approach new findings and concepts with an open mind. And our brain won't fall out of our heads beacause of it, as Dawkins here just failed to understand what this metaphor means. It does NOT mean physically opening your skull so his saying is just wrong and a bad metaphor itself.

Please forgive me, I accidentally quoted one of her arguments twice at the end. Be assured it happened by accident and not out of spite :). Just read her response yourselves and see if her points are valid to you.

Well, let me to act as a scientist for a change :-) A couple of weeks ago I read (for the second time) an interesting book: "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" by Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder. The book is written in terrible English. I don't know if the author(s) are Russians or New Yorkers :-) Introduction is by prof. T. Sanderson who is a well known personality in UFO etc. I say it's interesting because: 1) They say, and it's true, I heard it at the time, that very prominent Russian scientists, physicists were interested in things ranging from hypnosis to moving objects by pure thought, and the like, including direct investigations of the mysterious energy, fields etc. 2) The book gives references to some of this research (many published in English). -------------------------I have no idea about the present status of this research (some of it apparently is secret military applications). I, meanwhile, stick to the opinion that no such claims should be "acceptable" if they contain unscientific promotional language. Anyway, it's also unscientific to hold back the knowledge of something that might contradict your own opinion.

Max - SH's 'proofs' are worthless - you can't test an intervention against itself. What's needed is a pool of volunteers randomly assigned to EmoTrance or placebo. Numbers in study should be sufficient to yield statistically significant results. Treatment should be applied for a prearranged length of time. Measurable, meaningful outcomes should be set out at the start; only these should be included in the analysis of the data (purely for example, "On average, how happy have you been feeling in the last week? Please indicate on the ten-point scale below, where 1 = ..." etc). Easy. In addition, some objective, reproducible physical demonstration of the energy body would be welcome, as would some compelling, Occam-overcoming reason for postulating its existence in the first place (consider Mendeleev's non-intuitive, highly specific, observation-based and entirely correct prediction of the _necessary_ existence of several elements unknown at the time of his drafting of the periodic table). Michael - "Can an electrician explain what is electricity? They can't, but they can illuminate our homes." A _smart_ electrician can, and he can be shown to be right - without having to invoke any extraneous influences that lack validation from other parts of science. And when the electrician does his job right the light undeniably comes on - that's whether or not anyone really, really believes in electricity and promotes it on a website. Electricity can be shown to be better at lighting a room than any mysterious ill-defined 'complementary' means of illumination.

Max - SH's 'proofs' are worthless - you can't test an intervention against itself. What's needed is a pool of volunteers randomly assigned to EmoTrance or placebo. Numbers in study should be sufficient to yield statistically significant results. Treatment should be applied for a prearranged length of time. Measurable, meaningful outcomes should be set out at the start; only these should be included in the analysis of the data (purely for example, "On average, how happy have you been feeling in the last week? Please indicate on the ten-point scale below, where 1 = ..." etc). Easy. In addition, some objective, reproducible physical demonstration of the energy body would be welcome, as would some compelling, Occam-overcoming reason for postulating its existence in the first place (consider Mendeleev's non-intuitive, highly specific, observation-based and entirely correct prediction of the _necessary_ existence of several elements unknown at the time of his drafting of the periodic table). Michael - "Can an electrician explain what is electricity? They can't, but they can illuminate our homes." A _smart_ electrician can, and he can be shown to be right - without having to invoke any extraneous influences that lack validation from other parts of science. And when the electrician does his job right the light undeniably comes on - that's whether or not anyone really, really believes in electricity and promotes it on a website. Electricity can be shown to be better at lighting a room than any mysterious ill-defined 'complementary' means of illumination.

In my previous post, 'no treatment' might be more practicable than 'placebo' - and apologies to all for inadvertent double posting. NEW PARA Michael P - "Anyway, it's also unscientific to hold back the knowledge of something that might contradict your own opinion." We should be allowed to say whatever we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone. In a free society we can also expect to have our ideas disregarded, opposed and laughed at if they're ridiculous. Daft ideas can't expect to be given an airing in selective forums. And people who purport to be able to describe the way things work without being able to adduce supporting evidence shouldn't be allowed into classrooms - because by corrupting developing intellects they fail the no-harm test. Please leave priests and CAM practitioners at the school gate for later collection.

Correcting my previous two posts - it'd be best to compare EmoTrance against a recognised counselling approach that is used for similar problems. (It's sometimes hard to devise suitable placebos against which non-drug interventions can be compared, while a comparison between EmoTrance and No Treatment wouldn't control for the placebo effect.) Sorry to bore everyone. (NEW PARA) Julie de B. - "You can drive a car perfectly skilfully without knowing how the combus[t]ion engine works or the theory behind how it works" - sure, but if we go to the books or (better) the test rig we find that our model of how cars work explains their operation fully - that is, quantitatively and with great predictive power. It does so without recourse to mysterious, ill-defined influences whose existence is neither objectively measurable, nor predicted by the results of experiments in physical science. By physical science I mean nasty, reductive, unforgiving, impersonal, undemocratically difficult orthodox physical science. Which is great stuff.

I would at this stage believe the authors that they can tell when it works and when it does not. So, no statistics. I would do meaningful variations of the experimental conditions, say, do not let the subject to see your hands, do not let the subject know when you start movements, etc. I thing you still miss a lot of knowledge about your experiments. Learn about some variations of experimental conditions in the book I quoted. If you are talking about energy, there are screens. A lot of work, but you have to find conditions when your experiment DOES NOT work! And, you know, one strange thing you are saying is that anyone can learn your technique. All psycho things work much better when performed by some individuals and on certain individuals. Or so they say.

To reply to "not really David", all I am saying is that I don't "go to the books" or am concerned if there are any books, because I work with EmoTrance without the need to refer to any explanations that mention an energy body. I am a rather concrete thinker and may differ in my mental model for working with this technique to some or many other practitioners. The EmoTrance techique asks the client first to focus on where in their bodies they feel the stress, anger or other unpleasant emotion. I may refer to this as "stuck energy" for want of a better term, as it is obvious there is nothing physical in their bodies where they feel the emotion. Then they need to sense its volume and size and density. They are then requested to just think about it softening, without trying to make it do so, and then just to observe any spontaneous changes. After a while the feeling (emotion) starts to process and digest and just leave their bodies. Obviously there are more important details to allow this processing to occur effectively, but I am just setting out the bare bones here in the way I use this very successful technique with clients. Please note no mention of energy bodies etc. Again this is my way of working with this modality, and I speak only for myself. We should note that practitioners of EMDR (many of whom are clinical psychologists) have no explanation for how works which has a very scientific basis, nor do they claim that they have such an explanation. The technique seems to work perfectly well despite this. (Note: after the London Tube bombings my own doctor's office had a notice up offering EMDR treatment to any patients who had traumatised by the event).

Scientists cannot prove everything,physical or otherwise ( at least not to the criteria of pure mathemeticians). Prove the hypothesis relating to Schrodingers Cat....it is understood but impossible to set up. Experience the 'chi' from an experienced martial arts expert..then explain it if you can. Chi is energy...try measuring it. The universe is made up of energy..you can only measure the effects of the energy, but that does not deny the existence of the phenomenon. You can do a biological analysis of the cells of the body and of the brain parts..but you cannot explain how we think. You cannot really explain MIND. In fact there is very much about our own existence that cannot be explained. So why call what you do not know 'snake oil'...you are simply displaying your own limitations and ignorance about reality.

@F.Feuerstein: "Prove the hypothesis relating to Schrodinger's cat". Which particular aspect of the Schrodinger's cat experiment are you speaking about? Are you suggesting that a superposition of quantum mechanical states can't be set up? If so, you're wrong. Are you suggesting that a macroscopic superposition of quantum mechanical states can't be set up? If so, you're also wrong. See, for example, http://www3.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/Scientific%20American/scientific-american%20edited.html ---------------------And as for your comment that critics of EmoTrance and the associated nonsensical "energy fields" are "simply displaying [our] own limitations and ignorance about reality", let me put the following scenario to you (cut-and-pasted from a comment above). None of the other EmoTrance apologists have addressed it thus far. Can you? -------------------------- I believe that all human interactions are mediated by the exchange of undetectable energy loops (best thought of as nano-bagels) which exist on length scales smaller than the Planck length and on time scales comparable to the Planck time in at least thirteen higher dimensions. Love arises due to the exchange of fermionic energy loops, whereas hate is due to the exhange of bosonic loops. **Definitively** prove me wrong. (Remember, those energy loops are undetectable). Note that I can put forward effectively an infinite number of theories just like this. How do you decide which, if any, is correct?

I am beginning to suspect that this is all an elaborate wind-up. Perhaps Chris Morris is sorting out material for another series of Brass Eye? --------@Julie de Bergh: You state " I am a rather concrete thinker" and then follow it up with a set of statements that are perhaps the most nebulous on this thread to date (and that's saying something)! (i) "I may refer to this as "stuck energy" for want of a better term". Why not refer to it as, oh, I don't know, "static virtual ectoplasm"? It's just as valid a description; (ii) "They need to sense its volume and density". How do they sense either its volume or density? Given that you're a self-professed concrete thinker, just how dense is this stuff? 1 kg/m^3, 0.001 kg/m^3, 1000 kg/m^3...?; (iii) "After a while the feeling (emotion) starts to process and digest and just leave their bodies". Digest? Digest what?

Apologies for the misspelling in the previous post. That should be @Julie de Burgh.

@Max. Thanks for that link to Silvia Hartmann's "rebuttal" of the criticism of EmoTrance. Hartmann states in her rebuttal that scientists should try out one of her "experiments" (she calls them "methods and exercises") and "make up their own minds if her theory holds water". So I downloaded the Official Introduction Guide to EmoTrance2009 from her website, as recommended, and searched through to find one of these experiments (exercises) that I could test for myself. Given that Hartmann states that "My scientific method has been rigorous, my research extensive, my documentation unfailing" I was looking forward to an experimental procedure that I could attempt to work through in the lab. What did I find?---------------------Well, on p.67 there's this: "Feasting On Energy. Find any object, person, plant, animal, landscape, music, work of art, weather, etc. and tune. Drop any shields you might have to this 'incoming energy'. Where do you feel it in your body? Where does it need to go? Assist in flowing it freely through its requisite channels, all the way through and out." ------------- I mean, it's all so clear now. How much more rigour could one expect? That's me convinced. All those other sceptical scientists simply haven't learned how to drop their shields, I guess.

I am surprised at your need to be so rude in your cricitisms. Before I talked about stuck energy I said this "As an EmoTrance Practitioner I am perfectly happy to call an emotion that is stuck in the body an emotion or energy, as emotions like energy are not concrete objects" (post November 20th). If you are angry you should be able to feel it in your body as a feeling, and like a headache it will take up a certain area - very much like a headache can be in different parts of the head. You sense its volume and density by just feeling it. By the way if you have a headache and your head feels hot you are feeling heat energy. I will not bother you with further facts as your mind seems to be made up. Perhaps you should have an EmoTrance session so you could have practical guided experience of the technique, rather than cavilling over words.

It is very disturbing to see how the EmoTrans practitioners refuse to allow any scientific inquiry into the practice. In my opinion, they certainly need to drop the deceptive terminology and find out what their treatment actually does. So far, they ignore this advice. I have little doubt that, say, hypnosis can remove the pain. But, a case is quite possible where the pain in the abdomen is removed but the patient dies overnight from peritonitis without feeling the pain. The danger exists in all cases when pain is removed in the absence of proper diagnosis. Chronical headache should not be just "cured", this can lead to tragic consequences years later. These practitioners must either listen or be banned from schools.

Philip Moriaty, you may have many theories about the basis of energy and quantum theory. You can model many hypothesis in mathematical form.but that does not constitute measurable proof (the basis of my argument). In my previous note I do NOT single out Emotrance as you have done, I am considering all aspects of energy. When you can hold a measurable electron in your hand please let me know. As I mentioned before, you can measure the properties of the energies and equate them to physical phenomena, but you can't measure the energy directly. As for Schrodingers Cat..it's only a theoretical concept and you cannot carry out that experiment with a 'real' cat...or can you?

I am not going to get into any wordy arguments here. I have one question. How can intelligent people twist themselves in knots trying to discredit people and a system about which they have no experience? This is all done in the name of scientific research. What a lot of agro is created through words. Words can obscure reality. Wouldn't a little calm humility and quietly finding out what Emotrance/emotional transformation is all about be of great service to yourselves and to other people. Then perhaps you can come up with an effective method of testing it. Respecting each others work and not jumping to hasty conclusions is the mark of a true scientist. So please let us think of the benefits to people and even to ourselves and then we may all be able to work together to find better ways to serve the people. There is room for all of us. If we feel threatened by someone maybe we should ask ourselves some questions about our motives and we will not be so hasty comdemning others. We will respect each others contribution to the good of all. Thank you all very much.

Michael Pyshnov < I have little doubt that, say, hypnosis can remove the pain. But, a case is quite possible where the pain in the abdomen is removed but the patient dies overnight from peritonitis without feeling the pain. The danger exists in all cases when pain is removed in the absence of proper diagnosis. >/////////// I feel the need to but back in here this as it reads as if you are implying that qualified practitioners who use hypnosis will act unethically when dealing with clients who have issues with pain, is that the case?//////// What terminology is it that you find deceptive?

@FFeuerstein: Of course Schrodinger's cat is only a gedanken experiment. But it is the quantum mechanical concept of superposition that lies at the heart of the "experiment" which is important. Schroedinger's goal in putting forward the cat gedanken experiment was to attempt to point out the "ludicrousness" of the superposition concept. Yet, superposition of quantum states has shown to be valid in a variety of experiments. ------------- Your comment is directly related to the unprovable "nano-bagel"/energy loop scenario I put to you in my comment above. I'll ask you again. How do you determine which is a good/valid theory from the infinity of possible "theories" that can be dreamt up? Or do you simply accept everything irregardless of the weight of evidence? This appears to be what you're suggesting.------------As for not being able to measure energy "directly". Well, it of course depends on what you mean by "directly". How about Joule's experiment on the relationship between work and heat? Is that direct enough for you?

Response to Margarita--- As noted above, I have downloaded the "Official Introduction Guide to EmoTrance2009" from Siliva Hartmann's website. Against my better judgement I read through it on a train journey to Cambridge today. There is nothing in there I can test. Nothing. No suggestion of what type of "energy" this is. No suggestion of what amounts of energy we're talking about. ------There is a big difference between the results of carrying out the EmoTrance technique - which, as it's simply a calming technique, may or may not do better than asking children to run around outside for 15 minutes and/or talk to a teacher about what's concerning them - and the suggestion that it is mediated by energy flows. You, and all other EmoTrance practitioners are asking me to accept the presence of "body energy" on the basis of no evidence. Do you also want me to tell my children that they should go and speak with the family of invisible pixies at the end of the garden because it'll make them feel better? It's a question of honesty and critical thinking...

Philip with the greatest of respect reading something is not experiencing it. It's like looking at at picture of a lovely cake. You can talk all you like about it. You can describe it to kingdom come and you will not experience the reality of the cake. Philip do you experience things with your whole self or do you simply think about it? Try doing emotrance even for your frustration at Emotrance. Find out where you feel it. Allow your mind to be aware of what you are feeling. This is using your conscious mind to focus on your experience. This may take some time at first but persevere and you may find some answers. It is very good for the whole person. I don't mean to patronise you but it is my experience that most of us have never learned to be fully aware of what we experience. We think that thinking alone is everything. Some of the great spiritual teachers were wise enough to know that we need to be in touch with our whole self to be truly human. Thank you Philip

Geraldine, you are asking "What terminology is it that you find deceptive?" First of all, I find deceptive these your words: "I feel the need to but back in here this as it reads as if you are implying that qualified practitioners who use hypnosis will act unethically when dealing with clients who have issues with pain, is that the case?", because: 1) I did not say "qualified technologists", 2) The word "unethically" is deceptive, you are already trying to play it down; the correct word would be - criminally. 3) The words "issues with pain" serve to obscure the fact that people are sick, they don't have "issues". And this is in one your phrase. I find also deceptive all the reference to the possible mechanisms, such as "energy", and I and others explained this before. I also find deceptive the whole tactics of avoiding to admit that this Emotrance is, so far, nothing but a cult. Therefore, the only thing I can conclude is that, as a minimum, Emotrance treatment must only be allowed in schools, etc. UPON RECEIVING A LETTER FROM A PHYSICIAN STATING THAT HE/SHE RECOMMENDS EMOTRANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PATIENT AND THAT HE/SHE DOES NOT SEE POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS OR PROBLEMS FOR FUTURE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR PATIENT. I emphasize that such letter must be given for EACH INDIVIDUAL PATIENT, not for the Emotrance in general. I doubt that Emotrance will succeed in getting many such letters.

Scenario 1) My daughter of 17 has broken up with her boyfriend. She is crying intensely, she asks for my help. I sit with her and ask her to concentrate on the pressure she is feeling in her heart, throat and eyes. I tell her to stop thinking about the situation. She tells me her chest area is feeling very heavy and her throat feels tight and restricted (if you've ever cried a lot you would know what that feels like). I tell her to breathe into the sensations and let that intense feeling soften in some way so it feels better. She does and the sensations reduce until they are gone. I tell her now to think about her ex boyfriend again and she feels pain in her heart again. Again we focus on the sensation and NOT the problem. This time the sensation reduces but she gets tingles going down her arms and hands. When it has gone she thinks of her boyfriend again, this time she feels calmer, more accepting of the break up. I tell her to think about seeing him tomorrow at school. This brings up another sensation in her chest but less. She let's it soften with intention and again the feeling goes. I tell her to think about telling her friends about the break up. She feels a tight churning sensation in her stomach (a bit like nerves). She let's that soften and she feels tingles down her legs. Eventually after testing some more she feels completely at peace with the break up and feeling strong and confident to face him and her friends. This took 30 minutes. What would you do Philip Moriaty - or any one else out there if your teenage daughter was in such emotional pain from splitting with her first love? This is a genuine question. I don't know the full scientific reason why it worked to help her feel better about her situation, but the bare facts is that it did, and very quickly.

Scenario 2) My father whom I've cared for for the last 5 years had to have a very serious operation which resulted in him going into a Residential home. I was very upset about it as it was a shock and I was deeply worried that I was making the right decisions for him. He has Alzheimers and is blind so cannot make decisions like this for himself. I'm sitting at the kitchen table telling my 17 year old daughter about it and I start getting upset. She says "can I help you with how your feeling mum?" I nod and we go upstairs where it's quiet. She asks me to tell her where I'm feeling so upset about my dad. I feel an intense pressure in my chest and my stomach. She tells me to focus on the sensation, soften and see what happens. The sensation reduces, my stomach is less clenched and I feel less heavy. She asks me to think about it again, I feel much better but still feel very worried I've made the right decision. She asks me where do I feel this worry. I notice my brow is really tight and I'm clenching my jaw. Again she tells me to breath into the sensation and let it soften. The sensation seems to go by giving me a lifting sensation around the head, I become a bit light headed but that soon goes as well. She asks me to think about it again and now I feel completely at peace with the decision and can now see that it is for the best for him. My stomach feels fine, my chest is not heavy, my head doesn't hurt and I feel so much better about my dad's future and health. I thank her by giving her a lovely cuddle. You see my daughter and I have a very special relationship because we acknowledge and understand our emotions and we know what to do with them. We are both very intelligent people. My daughter has been accepted into 4 universities and is studying 6 subjects including Physics at a higher level in International Baccalaureate. She has explained the method to many teachers including her physics teacher and he is intrigued and interested. To Philip Moriarty and the others. I do not know why this technique works, I would very much like to know. But in the meantime I will keep using it with my daughter and anyone else who is feeling emotional pain. I hope that at some point science will give me the vocabulary to explain what exactly is happening here. Good wishes to you all

Michael, there really is no need to shout. Firstly -You in fact brought up the topic of hypnosis and it is this context that I am responding. Hypnosis for pain is a perfectly legitmate treatment and is often recommended by GPs and Consultants. I did not use the term technologists but practitioners and I find the term criminal extremely offensive when used in tthe context of hypnosis for pain.//// The use of deceptive language refered to your previous post not to my reply. I fail to see anything deceptive in my response to your inclusion of hypnosis for pain which has absolutely nothing to do with the present debate. "Cult"- definition: a system of religious worship or devotion, is totally inappropriate in the context of EmoTrance which has NO religious aspects in fact it is used by practitioners of every major world faiths, including a Jewish Rabbi, a Catholic nun, Buddhists and so on. There seems to be a misapprehension that somehow EmoTrance Practitioners DO something to a client, Practitioners help the client to do this simple process for themselves. I really do think the average GP in this country would find it extremely irritating to be asked to write a letter every time someone wished to help themselves feel happier.

Kim, I can tell you precisely why that method worked. It's because, in both instances, the worried person sat down with a trusted close relative and talked through the situation, gradually relaxing the muscles which a distressed person will naturally tense. Your daughter was upset so you had a mum-daughter chat and gave her a hug. Later, she returned the favour. This isn't anything special, it doesn't require any special techniques, it certainly doesn't require anyone to posit the existence of an 'energy body' or other undocumented, unknown phenomenon previously. Parents and children have been solving problems like this - by sitting down and talking it through - for centuries. Honestly, how do you think the millions of people on Earth who don't use Emotrance cope? We just sit and talk calmly and relax and have a hug. We don't feel the need to pretend that anything magical is happening or that we have used a revolutionary technique. Are you seriously suggesting that, if you had sat down for a caring, calming, mum-daughter chat without all this 'where is the sensation?' malarkey but just talked things through instead, that the effect would have been significantly different?

What is that saying "there are none so blind as those that do not want to see". We use different terms for many things and arguiing about terms is pedantic. Maybe we could say the energy that causes all those chemical reactions in the body. But when you say that someone comes up with another argument. So unless and until a person is simple enough and foolish enough!!!!) maybe to have a go we can carry on arguiing forever and arrive nowhere. I challenge all of us to sit down like an idiot if you wish. Think of something that annoys or upsets you or even that makes you happy. Allow yourself to feel how that emotion is in your body. Focus on it with your mind. Vizualise it if you wish and then allow it to travel out of your body. If you are used to using your intellect only it may take a little time to notice what you feel in your body. You cannot move a feeling out of your body but you can allow the energy of the feeling to leave your body. Please try it. It won't harm you and you will never know how good it is until you honestly try it. This is not a cult. People are not bound by anything. But we can all be prisoners of our pride and prejudices. Come on let's play and you never know what we may find.

Geraldine, I appreciate I could not put the entire transcript of the session in this forum but believe me when I tell you that we only dealt with the headline news and did not have a cosy chat. That is not to say a cosy chat wont work but when someone is sobbing their heart out are they ready for a cosy chat? The events happened at different times this year. Now how about this, there was another occasion, pre my daughter's break up where something had happened that really upset her but she didn't want to talk about it. She said she was feeling very hurt. So I helped her to identify "where" she felt hurt and we used the same technique of allowing the tense feeling to soften. By the end of the session not only did she not feel hurt any more but she had greater wisdom as to why the event happened. To this day I still don't know what she was hurt about or any details at all. It worked without words Geraldine

Kim you are talking to the wrong person.

another good posting

So sorry Geraldine, please accept my apologies. My last post was meant to be referenced to M Simpson. I have enjoyed your postings on hypnotherapy and pain which is why your name was in my thoughts. Best wishes Kim

@MSimpson. Yet again, another great comment. Your response to Kim's rather moving posts was worded much more tactfully and carefully than I could ever manage. @Kim, to address your question: "What would you do Philip Moriaty - or any one else out there if your teenage daughter was in such emotional pain from splitting with her first love?" I have two daughters (six and four) and a son (ten months). It will be some time - although it'll pass far too quickly, I'm sure - before I have to deal with the emotional pain felt by my daughters (and son) when they split from their first love. But, as MSimpson says, I'll deal with it by talking it through with them (or just listening), connecting with them, being there for them.

Philip Moriarty <I'll deal with it by talking it through with them (or just listening), connecting with them, being there for them>/////That's great but what about all those who don't have that sort of relationship with a parent or anyone else?

Geraldine and Kim, you're claiming extraordinary results for EmoTrance when in fact what it achieves are perfectly ordinary results. Any good parent or any counsellor can do exactly the same thing without resorting to some quasi-magical technique.

But that's where you are wrong M Simpson. No one is claiming extraordinary results. There are many routes people take to help themselves with emotional pain, counselling and talking to a good parent (as you put it) is just one method. EmoTrance is another - horses for courses that's all. I am not criticising your way of handling emotional pain, in fact I am heartened that you do at least deal with it. I very much like what Philip said as well and reading between the lines I can see he has a wonderful relationship with his children. I am simply requesting that you do not besmirch my way of helping my children and friends/family in general. EmoTrance does, however, come into it's own when people do NOT have anyone to talk to because they can "help themselves" with this technique. As far as I know talking to yourself usually results in more severe medical interventions (I mock here). It also comes into it's own when people DO NOT WANT to talk about the situation perhaps because it is too painful. It also comes into it's own when people feel emotional but do not know what the cause is. So you see there is a space for everything and if it makes people feel better then why should it be criticised?

M Simpson <good parent or any counsellor>///////// not everyone has acess to good parenting, far from it in a great many cases. Access to a good counsellor, is dependent on the length of the local NHS waiting list :usually at least 6 months, and I would really love to meet the GP who referred a teenager to a counsellor because of a split from a boyfriend. Private counselling is expensive and often long term.///////////< to some quasi-magical technique.>/// Please define your understanding of "quasi-magical" in this context, I have no training in magic so I'm afraid I don't understand the connection.

Kim and Geraldine, do you accept that the actions of EmoTrance are purely symbolic, that it is simply a ritualised relaxation process and that these points in the body that it deals with are simply tensed muscles of the sort that everyone has when they get angry or upset? Or do you think that, in dealing with these locations, EmoTrance is actually affecting the body directly in some way? Because really, you're not describing anything that most people can't do anyway. It's like you've got an amazing technique that allows you to jump a couple of feet in the air. So what?

M Simpson, EmoTrance is not symbolic or ritualistic but it is a relaxation process of the tight tense areas that are, in fact, more related to fascia (the connective tissue that wraps around all muscles, ligaments, organs, glands etc in one completely connected layer) rather than purely muscle tension alone. In dealing with these areas it affects your emotions directly and changes the way you feel about a given situation. It enables the person to move into a state of logic rather than emotionally reactive much quicker. ALL people do do this naturally, what EmoTrance shows you is how to do what you unconsciously do and bring it in to your conscious awareness so that you can do it on purpose and for your purpose. The English language already has phrases like "sleep on it", "a problem shared is a problem halved" and so on. This is because you are "digesting" the problem to come to a logical solution. EmoTrance shows you how to find where the emotion is residing in your body (fascia), how to soften and let it go and so, therefore, create logic and reasoning quicker. It is very simple, very effective and anyone who feels emotions in their body can do it. /////e.g. you have a large problem that is playing on your mind, you can't sleep as it keeps going round and round your head, eventually you get to sleep but you don't sleep well or you have dreams about it. The next day the solution seems to be a bit more obvious but you feel exhausted from having slept so badly. OR you spend 30 minutes (maybe more or less) on finding out where you are feeling the stress of the problem and you allow those areas in your body to soften. You test the problem with different scenario's until you are much less emotional, have more logic and understanding about how to proceed and all tight and tense areas have been released. You sleep really well, wake up feeling refreshed and resolved to get on with sorting the problem out. I prefer option 2 that is all.

To M Simpson I can see you are still using just your intellect to make an argument. Maybe you should try finding out where you feel all this and releasing it. Then perhaps you will find out what it is all about. I am serious about this. You are tallking about aspects of the 'cake' but you are not tasting it yourself. Why don't you just do it. you don't have to use it if you find it is not useful for you. As others have said here it may not be for you but why deny it can help some people? Words are only words. Pain is pain is pain. If someone shows us a way to relieve pain do we start an argument about its benefits?

"It enables the person to move into a state of logic rather than emotionally reactive much quicker." - Presumably someone has done some comparative tests on this. It would be impossible to say that something happens 'quicker' unless somebody has made direct comparisons with large enough groups of test subjects to average out any other factors. /////// "EmoTrance shows you how to find where the emotion is residing in your body (fascia), how to soften and let it go and so, therefore, create logic and reasoning quicker." - This idea that emotions reside in a particular part of your body is not supported by any medical knowledge that I'm aware of. Again, presumably somebody somewhere has experimented to find out where emotions reside and how well people can judge where a particular emotion resides. Because you're saying it's not symbolic. /////// "To M Simpson I can see you are still using just your intellect to make an argument" - Damn right I am. What else am I supposed to use? ///// "Maybe you should try finding out where you feel all this and releasing it." - Look, that sentence doesn't even make sense (nor does that stuff about "soften it and let it go"). I'm not feeling anything anywhere. I'm just pointing out that EmoTrance doesn't offer any evidence that it differs from any other sort of ritualised calming technique. /////// I'm sure it works - but it just works because people are relaxing and calming down. If you want to use it, good for you. If someone wants to teach it to kids honestly as a ritualised calming process, so what? But this whole thing blew up because it's being taught to kids with a load of flagrantly untrue mumbo-jumbo backing it up. I'm old-fashioned enough to think that kids should be taught the truth in schools, not lies. That's all.

I can't comment on this "Presumably someone has done some comparative tests on this. It would be impossible to say that something happens 'quicker' unless somebody has made direct comparisons with large enough groups of test subjects to average out any other factors" because I simply do not have the facts to tell you. I couldn't honestly tell you if the Swine Flu jab my father has just been given has had comparative test results including placebo jabs either. I learnt this process a few years ago, it worked for me and so I have taken it at face value because I have my own personal proof that it works. // The idea that emotion resides in a particular part of your body is currently being investigated by Harvard Medical School, The University of Westminster plus others who have an annual conference to discuss the latest findings in myofascial release, the effect of fascia on the body structures and the effect of emotional release through the movement of fascia. // II am pleased that you said "I'm sure it works - but it just works because people are relaxing and calming down." With regard to the school children, I would not believe everything the papers say. They have no idea how the training was put across to them. I know how the training was put across to them because I did the training. As we can now all agree that, in fact, it does work as a relaxing and calming technique it seems that the children were not taught Mumbo Jumbo after all but actually a useful tool to use when feeling emotional.

A strange picture is transpiring here: 1) Absolute conviction in the success of the treatment on the mass scale. 2) Absolute and really genuine conviction in the absence of any side effects. 3) No medically defined cause of pain, and/or some cause that is only in the child's mind. 4) Extensive "psychobabble". 5) "Anyone can do it." ---------- This leads me to a possible conclusion that may be there is no pain and there is no treatment. Is it possible that the whole thing is just Linda helping Linda? Is it possible that Linda1 comes to Linda2 and says: "If you say your child has pain, I will do the treatment and we split money"? Or something like this?

Kim, I'm not sure you understand what 'mumbo jumbo' means. The mumbo jumbo was the explanation of *how* the technique achieved its (very ordinary and straightforward) effects. The explanation that Silvia Hartmann gives on her website. The nonsense explanation that you accept at entirely face value without any sort of questions because you will apparently believe anything that anybody tells you (unless they are an educated, rational, knowledgeable person). Try to understand this analogy. If someone teaches a child to stop picking his nose, that's a good thing. If that person does so by telling the child that the nose is an important energy point in the body, that is mumbo jumbo, a wicked (and very obvious) lie and reason enough for that person to be kept away from kids. There are lots and lots of people who can teach kids to deal with their emotions *without* resorting to mumbo jumbo and wicked lies. I don't care how effective EmoTrance is because there are lots of honest techniques, developed by intelligent, honest people, which do the same job just as well.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said "I learnt this process a few years ago, it worked for me and so I have taken it at face value because I have my own personal proof that it works." I did not say I have taken Silvia Hartmann's explanation at entirely face value without any sort of question and I do not apparently believe anything that anybody tells me. I have made every attempt to be honest and to not judge you in any way. I have attempted to be respectful of your views. You clearly do not offer me the same service. I may have learnt EmoTrance some years ago but you have not taken in to account my own development within it, my own use of terminology and my own understanding of how it works. I do not know how you can have an opinion of the apparent "mumbo jumbo" I told the children when you wasn't there to hear what I said. I have taken on board what you have said here "I don't care how effective EmoTrance is because there are lots of honest techniques, developed by intelligent, honest people, which do the same job just as well". I hope you can accept that there are intelligent, honest people who do a good job teaching an effective technique as well as they can. I am going to withdraw from the debate now. I wholeheartedly respect and I do understand your opinion. My request is that you please stick to known facts rather than suppositions. If you have a genuine interest in knowing how the training went I will gladly discuss this with you. I wish you, and all those that have contributed here the very best of health Kim

Kim: I think if you look up "mumbo jumbo" in the OED (say), you'll find that M. Simpson is spot on in his use of it to refer to this stuff. "EmoTrance shows you how to find where the emotion is residing in your body". We're almost back with the ancient and medieval doctrine of the four humours.

• noun informal language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment. Hi David, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I now realise I understood what mumbo meant but not jumbo. :-) With best wishes to you

Dear Moriarty, thanks for your considered response..but pray tell me how you measure HEAT directly. All dynamic measurements are relative and cannot be measured directly. That is all I am asserting. Even the universal constant ie the speed of light is not fixed under all conditions. END