Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why Roger Callahan and I have Split

Expand Messages
  • mpignotti2001
    Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted to share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT list servs. I am no longer
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted to
      share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT list
      servs.

      I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan Techniques
      TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
      Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.

      -- warning -- it's very lengthy, so if TFT does not interest you,
      feel free to delete this message!

      This is what I posted to the TFT list:

      Please be forewarned that the results I am about to announce are
      going to be very surprising to supporters of Roger Callahan and TFT,
      because I believe that they completely overturn the basic premises
      behind CT-TFT.

      As you all know, the critical distinction between TFT and forms of
      most energy psychology offshoots of TFT, is causal diagnosis, which
      provides a precise code of specific treatment points. The TFT
      algorithms were developed through causal diagnosis and when
      algorithms don't work, individualized treatment sequences are
      obtained through TFT Dx or Voice Technology. Dx and VT practitioners
      have reported being able to help people through causal diagnosis,
      where algorithms failed, thus it would seem reasonable to conclude
      that especially for such complex cases, precise sequence was critical
      to the success of the treatment.

      However, there are those who have challenged this notion. As most
      of you know, Gary Craig, the first person to train in the Voice
      Technology adamantly disagrees with Roger Callahan. He has
      repeatedly claimed that he can disregard the VT and still get the
      same results he got with the VT. More recently on his list serv
      postings, he is claiming that his success rate with EFT is close to
      100% and the way he got it this high was not with causal diagnosis or
      dealing with toxins, but by having the client get more specific about
      issues being treated.

      In 1998, Gary Craig conducted a seminar that several Dx trained
      people attended. The transcript of this seminar can be downloaded
      from his website. During this seminar, he had a discussion with
      several Dx trained people who have very different reports about their
      experience getting VT support, some even claiming that most of their
      clients who received VT support were not helped by VT. Roger
      Callahan, however has his side to the story, that these people have
      apexed or forgotten that he did, in fact, help these clients. The
      upshot of all this was that some people believed Gary Craig and these
      Dx trainees and other people believed Roger Callahan. Basically,
      what we had, as much as we hate using this word, is conflicting
      anecdotes --- their word against his. Although Roger does have tapes
      of the session, the trainees' interpretation and perception of what
      went on is very different from Roger's.

      How is this to be resolved? In the summer of 2001, I decided that
      the only way this could be definitively resolved would be to take the
      bull by the horns and do a single-blind controlled study on VT vs.
      random sequences. I undertook to conduct such a study. Over a
      period of several months, I collected data from eight different
      algorithm trainings held in the US, the UK, and Australia. I
      informed the instructors that I was collecting data, but I didn't
      tell the instructor or the participants that I was using a random
      algorithm on half the group. Every other person got VT, and every
      other person got the random sequence, and no one could hear the
      difference over the phone because I kept everything else about the
      protocol, including all the reversal corrections, CB2, etc. the
      same.

      I obtained the random sequences by putting cut up pieces of paper
      with the initials of the treatment points into a container and
      drawing 5-7 points (the number of points also randomly determined).
      I ended up with 24 random sequences.

      Because I was expecting to have a high failure rate with the random
      sequences, especially at trainings where people were sometimes
      presenting problems that didn't respond to algorithms, I had
      predetermined that whenever a random treatment sequence failed to get
      a drop in the SUD for 3 holons in a row, I would switch to VT, thus
      not depriving the person of a cure and each person, regardless of the
      group they were assigned to, would get the highest quality help
      available.

      The results I got from this experiment stunned me. It turned out
      that I had identical results for each group - a 97% success rate,
      success being defined as it was in the 4 other VT studies cited by
      Roger Callahan on p. 51-2 of *Stop the Nightmares of Trauma*
      (Callahan, Leonoff, Daniel & Pignotti), as a SUD of 1 (using a scale
      of 1-10) - complete elimination of all subjective units of distress.

      Note that this study was identical to the one done by Stephen Daniel
      (n=214) and an additional study done by myself (n=72), where just VT
      was used with algorithm trainees. These studies were adduced by
      Roger in support of the power of TFT VT. Please keep this in mind,
      that any criticisms that people might have on the limitations of my
      study (and there are indeed valid criticisms) must also be directed
      at the two VT studies done by Stephen Daniel and myself. The only
      difference was that this time I added a control group.

      There was literally no difference between the two groups and it took
      the same average number of holons to get the SUD to a 1 (3 holons).
      The control group had 1 failure, someone with fybromyalgia who
      started at an 8 and only got down to a 7. After 3 failed holons, I
      switched to VT and the VT also failed to help this person. In the VT
      group, I also had one case where the SUD failed to get to a 1, but
      this one was partially successful - the SUD dropped to a 3. In
      short, there was no statistically significant difference between the
      two groups at all.

      What was even more incredible was that there were individuals at
      that training who had utterly failed with algorithms who were helped
      with these random sequences. For example, a woman had a SUD of 10 on
      a trauma that she had been trying to treat all day with the trauma
      algorithm. With the random sequences, her SUD came down to a 1 and
      she was greatly relieved and thanked me profusely.

      Once I had collected and analyzed this data, I reported my results
      to Roger Callahan and he was, of course, stunned. We both were.
      Neither of us knew what to make of these completely unpredicted
      results. What he suggested I do was to post to the Dx list,
      announcing that I was doing research on some cutting edge
      algorithms. This was the post I made, which I reposted here
      recently. The reports I got back were overwhelmingly positive with
      individuals being helped where Dx had failed.

      The treatment sequences I have been been sending out to people who
      requested them, where such powerful results were reported, are these
      randomly selected treatment sequences. They were not derived from VT
      or any form of causal diagnosis. They were not even derived from
      intuitive diagnosis because I literally drew slips of paper out of a
      hat. In every test I have done so far, they have performed just as
      well as VT.

      The failures reported with these algorithms were people who had also
      failed with VT, either previously or subsequently, with one
      exception. That exception was myself. One day in late Sept, 2001, I
      was experiencing a high degree of anxiety so I decided to try some of
      the random sequences. They failed to reduce my SUD. I then called
      Roger and reported this to him. He quickly got my SUD down with the
      VT. However, there are three additional factors to consider: 1)
      Roger identified toxins I had, in addition to the VT treatment, which
      I hadn't done with the random sequences. 2) I obviously wasn't
      blinded to the fact I was doing random sequences on myself; and 3) it
      has been my experience and that of several other people, that there
      have been times when we try to treat ourselves and the treatment
      fails, whereas if we call another VT person and have them treat us,
      the treatment succeeds. Therefore, these are three alternative
      explanations for my treatment success.

      Nevertheless, as Roger recently pointed out to me when I brought
      this up on the VT list, having my very high anxiety which was
      bordering on a panic attack, so immediately eliminated was a powerful
      personal experience for me and one which did, at least temporarily,
      have an impact on my conviction that the results of my previous
      controlled study were conclusive. Roger did not believe that the
      results of my study were conclusive enough to overturn 20+ years of
      his own personal experience to the contrary and at the time, I was
      convinced also and so refrained reporting what, at the time, I
      considered to be inconclusive results. There was too much at stake
      here because if I were to prematurely report these results, this
      could completely destroy the credibility of the Voice Technology, in
      some people's eyes. If I was in error, I could potentially be
      putting an end to the most powerful treatment in the history of
      psychology and I wanted to be certain before doing this.

      Around that same time, I made a move to the west coast from NYC and
      this further took my mind off the study I had conducted. I thought
      very little about the study until very recently. However, during
      that time I had been increasingly having a number of doubts and
      misgivings about a number of aspects of TFT, Voice Technology and
      even HRV. I will be outlining these in a separate posting, which
      will more clearly help people to understand the process I went
      through which culminated in my changing my mind about the meaning of
      my results and what must appear to all of you to be my radical change
      in my opinion of TFT and VT. I began to once again think about the
      study I had conducted, the summer of 2001 and to reconsider.

      What I ended up doing was discussing my study and my results to two
      PhD friends of mine, who were not TFT trained who have a high
      expertise in research and asked their opinions of my data. These were
      people who I trusted to hold what I told them in confidence until
      such time I chose to release the data, and they have kept their
      promise.

      The opinion of both of these people is that the data from my
      controlled study, which had 66 people, were conclusive, in terms of
      falsifying the claim that the VT provides precise treatment sequences
      which are critical to the success or failure of treatment. A sample
      that size with the p values being what they were yielded highly
      conclusive results. I then remembered that from everything I had
      learned in my research training, this was correct. I also was
      running my data with smaller numbers and noticed that as my sample
      grew, the numbers got more and more alike. If a sample any bigger
      was needed to get statistical significance, that could hardly be
      considered clinically significant. A robust treatment as VT was
      claimed to be, should have gotten large clinically significant
      differences, even with a small number of people.

      Note, that even though there was a success rate of 97% in both
      groups, this does not prove that either is efficacious. There were a
      number of serious limitations to my study which precludes drawing
      this conclusion. What my study does conclusively show is that there
      is no difference between the VT and random sequences derived from
      drawing treatment points out of a hat.

      Had there been any truth to the claims of the VT being a precision
      treatment on a par with hard science, there should have been a
      difference between my VT group and my control group. Some people
      would be expected to be helped by the random sequences, but there
      should have been a sizeable number who were not helped and needed
      VT. This isn't what the facts have shown, ladies and gentlemen. My
      data show that there is no difference between the VT and random
      sequences that anyone, regardless of training level, could randomly
      determine.

      To summarize, I have decided that in spite my previous tremendously
      high enthusiasm for and investment in the Voice Technology, I am
      forced by the facts of reality I am faced with, to conclude that no
      longer need to use it. I cannot, in the face of these results, in
      all good conscience, continue to use VT. Thus, I have decided that I
      no longer will be accepting any new VT clients. I am announcing my
      results publicly and will leave it up to each person to decide how
      best to interpret them.

      When I first became acquainted with TFT, I was highly skeptical.
      However, I have always been open to evidence and the truth has always
      been more important to me than being "right" or "wrong". At that
      time, I had been debating Roger and other TFT proponents on a list
      serv, but when Roger offered me evidence, in the form of an
      algorithm, I tried it and when I saw the results, I announced that I
      had been wrong in my negative judgment against TFT. You all know the
      rest of the story. I became one of the most passionate advocates of
      TFT and of Voice Technology. However, now, the facts of reality have
      presented me with another correction and I have to, once again, say
      that I have been wrong.

      During my life, I have repeatedly found myself coming to conclusions
      that have surprised me. I could never have predicted my involvement
      in TFT and I never could have predicted the conclusions I have now
      been forced to come to about the VT.

      Roger has repeatedly pointed out that this is the way of the
      scientist is to be completely open, as much as possible to the facts
      of reality and to strive for objectivity. This is how I have always
      lived my life and this openness, to me, is the ultimate
      spirituality. My path in life has always been to follow the facts of
      reality, as best as I can determine them by rational thought,
      wherever that takes me. While it saddens me to have to have a
      parting of the way with Roger on this issue, I must continue to live
      by the principle of truth and loyalty to my values, above all else.
      Roger said in a posting to the VT list that I am passionate about
      truth and he is correct in his assessment of me.

      I also want to state, for the record, that in my opinion the secrecy
      behind the VT proprietary procedure is the antithesis of scientific
      openness and is the biggest mistake Roger Callahan has ever made. I
      am now of the opinion that the VT is not at all objective -- far from
      it.

      I intend to write up this research and attempt to have it published
      in whatever forum I can publish it. All I can do is present you with
      my data and what my interpretation of it is. The rest is up to you
      and I will respect whatever conclusions people come to.

      Monica Pignotti
    • kurtz101
      Monica, Interesting journey. Do you think your experience with Scientology helped hone your truth-seeking abilities? Best, Joe In
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Monica,
        Interesting journey. Do you think your experience with
        Scientology helped hone your "truth-seeking" abilities?
        Best,
        Joe


        In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "mpignotti2001" <pignotti@w...>
        wrote:
        > Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted to
        > share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT list
        > servs.
        > I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan Techniques
        > TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
        > Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.
        <snip>
      • mpignotti2001
        ... Yes, most definitely. Even though this experience had many differences with my Scientology experience, in the end I was able to use what I had learned,
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "kurtz101" <kurtz@f...>
          wrote:
          > Monica,
          > Interesting journey. Do you think your experience with
          > Scientology helped hone your "truth-seeking" abilities?

          Yes, most definitely. Even though this experience had many
          differences with my Scientology experience, in the end I was able to
          use what I had learned, which was to seek out and really listen and
          consider what people from the "other side" of the issue had to say
          and to honor and fully explore my doubts and questions. This was
          something that was not allowed in Scientology and so I have become
          very sensitive to even subtle attempts people make, even in ordinary,
          non-cultic situations to discourage doubts and questions.

          Monica

          >
          > In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "mpignotti2001"
          <pignotti@w...>
          > wrote:
          > > Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted
          to
          > > share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT
          list
          > > servs.
          > > I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan
          Techniques
          > > TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
          > > Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.
          > <snip>
        • kurtz101
          .. I was thinking that as I read your latest, and of course the past things re Barger. It ll be most interesting to see where TFT and energy psychology go
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            <Nod>.. I was thinking that as I read your latest, and of course the
            past things re Barger. It'll be most interesting to see where TFT and
            energy psychology go from here. These days, any struggle for logic
            and good science seems paramount. -JFW


            In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "mpignotti2001"
            <pignotti@w...> wrote:
            > --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "kurtz101" <kurtz@f...>
            > wrote:
            > > Monica,
            > > Interesting journey. Do you think your experience with
            > > Scientology helped hone your "truth-seeking" abilities?
            >
            > Yes, most definitely. Even though this experience had many
            > differences with my Scientology experience, in the end I was able
            to
            > use what I had learned, which was to seek out and really listen and
            > consider what people from the "other side" of the issue had to say
            > and to honor and fully explore my doubts and questions. This was
            > something that was not allowed in Scientology and so I have become
            > very sensitive to even subtle attempts people make, even in
            ordinary,
            > non-cultic situations to discourage doubts and questions.
            >
            > Monica
            >
            > >
            > > In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "mpignotti2001"
            > <pignotti@w...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted
            > to
            > > > share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT
            > list
            > > > servs.
            > > > I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan
            > Techniques
            > > > TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
            > > > Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.
            > > <snip>
          • Peter Smitt
            ... [long post deleted] I d liked to comment on your post in more detail, but at the moment I don t have the time. But in view of my criticisms in the past I
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 6, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tuesday, March 02, 2004, 4:36:30 AM, mpignotti2001 wrote:

              > Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted to
              > share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT list
              > servs.

              > I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan Techniques
              > TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
              > Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.

              > -- warning -- it's very lengthy, so if TFT does not interest you,
              > feel free to delete this message!

              > This is what I posted to the TFT list:

              [long post deleted]
              I'd liked to comment on your post in more detail, but at the moment I
              don't have the time. But in view of my criticisms in the past I want at
              least to compliment you on the scientific attitude you've shown here.
              Keep up the good work!

              --

              Peter Smitt
              psmitt@...
              http://www.xs4all.nl/~psmitt
            • Walter Foddis
              Peter Smitt wrote: I d liked to comment on [Monica s] post in more detail, but at the moment I don t have the time. But in view of my criticisms in the past I
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 21, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Peter Smitt wrote:

                "I'd liked to comment on [Monica's] post in more detail, but at the
                moment I don't have the time. But in view of my criticisms in the
                past I want at least to compliment you on the scientific attitude
                you've shown here...Keep up the good work!"

                For some reason, I totally missed this thread! I would also like to
                commend Monica for her willingness to question her beliefs and making
                truth her guiding principle in her journey through TFT & energy
                psychology.

                It's difficult not to let strong, emotionally-laden personal
                experience override objectivity. It's one of the weaknesses of being
                human. Vulcans, on the other hand, have no such problems :-).

                Walter
              • kurtz101
                ... wrote: ... Live long and proffer... -JFW
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 21, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Walter Foddis"
                  <wffoddis@r...> wrote:
                  <snip>
                  > It's difficult not to let strong, emotionally-laden personal
                  > experience override objectivity. It's one of the weaknesses of
                  >being human. Vulcans, on the other hand, have no such problems :-).
                  > Walter

                  Live long and proffer...
                  -JFW
                • madmaxmedia
                  Hi Monica, Thanks for posting this here. In light of your recent experience, what is your current viewpoint on EFT? Thanks, ... practitioners ... critical ...
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 22, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Monica,

                    Thanks for posting this here. In light of your recent experience, what
                    is your current viewpoint on EFT?

                    Thanks,

                    --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "mpignotti2001" <pignotti@w.
                    ..> wrote:
                    > Since TFT has been discussed extensively on this list, I wanted to
                    > share this statement with you all that I just sent to the TFT list
                    > servs.
                    >
                    > I am no longer associated with Roger Callahan, Callahan Techniques
                    > TFT (TM), the TFT Voice Technology (TM) or the Association for
                    > Thought Field Therapy. What follows is an explanation.
                    >
                    > -- warning -- it's very lengthy, so if TFT does not interest you,
                    > feel free to delete this message!
                    >
                    > This is what I posted to the TFT list:
                    >
                    > Please be forewarned that the results I am about to announce are
                    > going to be very surprising to supporters of Roger Callahan and TFT,
                    > because I believe that they completely overturn the basic premises
                    > behind CT-TFT.
                    >
                    > As you all know, the critical distinction between TFT and forms of
                    > most energy psychology offshoots of TFT, is causal diagnosis, which
                    > provides a precise code of specific treatment points. The TFT
                    > algorithms were developed through causal diagnosis and when
                    > algorithms don't work, individualized treatment sequences are
                    > obtained through TFT Dx or Voice Technology. Dx and VT
                    practitioners
                    > have reported being able to help people through causal diagnosis,
                    > where algorithms failed, thus it would seem reasonable to conclude
                    > that especially for such complex cases, precise sequence was
                    critical
                    > to the success of the treatment.
                    >
                    > However, there are those who have challenged this notion. As most
                    > of you know, Gary Craig, the first person to train in the Voice
                    > Technology adamantly disagrees with Roger Callahan. He has
                    > repeatedly claimed that he can disregard the VT and still get the
                    > same results he got with the VT. More recently on his list serv
                    > postings, he is claiming that his success rate with EFT is close to
                    > 100% and the way he got it this high was not with causal diagnosis
                    or
                    > dealing with toxins, but by having the client get more specific
                    about
                    > issues being treated.
                    >
                    > In 1998, Gary Craig conducted a seminar that several Dx trained
                    > people attended. The transcript of this seminar can be downloaded
                    > from his website. During this seminar, he had a discussion with
                    > several Dx trained people who have very different reports about
                    their
                    > experience getting VT support, some even claiming that most of their
                    > clients who received VT support were not helped by VT. Roger
                    > Callahan, however has his side to the story, that these people have
                    > apexed or forgotten that he did, in fact, help these clients. The
                    > upshot of all this was that some people believed Gary Craig and
                    these
                    > Dx trainees and other people believed Roger Callahan. Basically,
                    > what we had, as much as we hate using this word, is conflicting
                    > anecdotes --- their word against his. Although Roger does have
                    tapes
                    > of the session, the trainees' interpretation and perception of what
                    > went on is very different from Roger's.
                    >
                    > How is this to be resolved? In the summer of 2001, I decided that
                    > the only way this could be definitively resolved would be to take
                    the
                    > bull by the horns and do a single-blind controlled study on VT vs.
                    > random sequences. I undertook to conduct such a study. Over a
                    > period of several months, I collected data from eight different
                    > algorithm trainings held in the US, the UK, and Australia. I
                    > informed the instructors that I was collecting data, but I didn't
                    > tell the instructor or the participants that I was using a random
                    > algorithm on half the group. Every other person got VT, and every
                    > other person got the random sequence, and no one could hear the
                    > difference over the phone because I kept everything else about the
                    > protocol, including all the reversal corrections, CB2, etc. the
                    > same.
                    >
                    > I obtained the random sequences by putting cut up pieces of paper
                    > with the initials of the treatment points into a container and
                    > drawing 5-7 points (the number of points also randomly determined).
                    > I ended up with 24 random sequences.
                    >
                    > Because I was expecting to have a high failure rate with the random
                    > sequences, especially at trainings where people were sometimes
                    > presenting problems that didn't respond to algorithms, I had
                    > predetermined that whenever a random treatment sequence failed to
                    get
                    > a drop in the SUD for 3 holons in a row, I would switch to VT, thus
                    > not depriving the person of a cure and each person, regardless of
                    the
                    > group they were assigned to, would get the highest quality help
                    > available.
                    >
                    > The results I got from this experiment stunned me. It turned out
                    > that I had identical results for each group - a 97% success rate,
                    > success being defined as it was in the 4 other VT studies cited by
                    > Roger Callahan on p. 51-2 of *Stop the Nightmares of Trauma*
                    > (Callahan, Leonoff, Daniel & Pignotti), as a SUD of 1 (using a scale
                    > of 1-10) - complete elimination of all subjective units of distress.

                    >
                    > Note that this study was identical to the one done by Stephen
                    Daniel
                    > (n=214) and an additional study done by myself (n=72), where just VT
                    > was used with algorithm trainees. These studies were adduced by
                    > Roger in support of the power of TFT VT. Please keep this in mind,
                    > that any criticisms that people might have on the limitations of my
                    > study (and there are indeed valid criticisms) must also be directed
                    > at the two VT studies done by Stephen Daniel and myself. The only
                    > difference was that this time I added a control group.
                    >
                    > There was literally no difference between the two groups and it
                    took
                    > the same average number of holons to get the SUD to a 1 (3 holons).
                    > The control group had 1 failure, someone with fybromyalgia who
                    > started at an 8 and only got down to a 7. After 3 failed holons, I
                    > switched to VT and the VT also failed to help this person. In the
                    VT
                    > group, I also had one case where the SUD failed to get to a 1, but
                    > this one was partially successful - the SUD dropped to a 3. In
                    > short, there was no statistically significant difference between the
                    > two groups at all.
                    >
                    > What was even more incredible was that there were individuals at
                    > that training who had utterly failed with algorithms who were helped
                    > with these random sequences. For example, a woman had a SUD of 10
                    on
                    > a trauma that she had been trying to treat all day with the trauma
                    > algorithm. With the random sequences, her SUD came down to a 1 and
                    > she was greatly relieved and thanked me profusely.
                    >
                    > Once I had collected and analyzed this data, I reported my results
                    > to Roger Callahan and he was, of course, stunned. We both were.
                    > Neither of us knew what to make of these completely unpredicted
                    > results. What he suggested I do was to post to the Dx list,
                    > announcing that I was doing research on some cutting edge
                    > algorithms. This was the post I made, which I reposted here
                    > recently. The reports I got back were overwhelmingly positive with
                    > individuals being helped where Dx had failed.
                    >
                    > The treatment sequences I have been been sending out to people who
                    > requested them, where such powerful results were reported, are these
                    > randomly selected treatment sequences. They were not derived from
                    VT
                    > or any form of causal diagnosis. They were not even derived from
                    > intuitive diagnosis because I literally drew slips of paper out of a
                    > hat. In every test I have done so far, they have performed just as
                    > well as VT.
                    >
                    > The failures reported with these algorithms were people who had
                    also
                    > failed with VT, either previously or subsequently, with one
                    > exception. That exception was myself. One day in late Sept, 2001,
                    I
                    > was experiencing a high degree of anxiety so I decided to try some
                    of
                    > the random sequences. They failed to reduce my SUD. I then called
                    > Roger and reported this to him. He quickly got my SUD down with the
                    > VT. However, there are three additional factors to consider: 1)
                    > Roger identified toxins I had, in addition to the VT treatment,
                    which
                    > I hadn't done with the random sequences. 2) I obviously wasn't
                    > blinded to the fact I was doing random sequences on myself; and 3)
                    it
                    > has been my experience and that of several other people, that there
                    > have been times when we try to treat ourselves and the treatment
                    > fails, whereas if we call another VT person and have them treat us,
                    > the treatment succeeds. Therefore, these are three alternative
                    > explanations for my treatment success.
                    >
                    > Nevertheless, as Roger recently pointed out to me when I brought
                    > this up on the VT list, having my very high anxiety which was
                    > bordering on a panic attack, so immediately eliminated was a
                    powerful
                    > personal experience for me and one which did, at least temporarily,
                    > have an impact on my conviction that the results of my previous
                    > controlled study were conclusive. Roger did not believe that the
                    > results of my study were conclusive enough to overturn 20+ years of
                    > his own personal experience to the contrary and at the time, I was
                    > convinced also and so refrained reporting what, at the time, I
                    > considered to be inconclusive results. There was too much at stake
                    > here because if I were to prematurely report these results, this
                    > could completely destroy the credibility of the Voice Technology, in
                    > some people's eyes. If I was in error, I could potentially be
                    > putting an end to the most powerful treatment in the history of
                    > psychology and I wanted to be certain before doing this.
                    >
                    > Around that same time, I made a move to the west coast from NYC and
                    > this further took my mind off the study I had conducted. I thought
                    > very little about the study until very recently. However, during
                    > that time I had been increasingly having a number of doubts and
                    > misgivings about a number of aspects of TFT, Voice Technology and
                    > even HRV. I will be outlining these in a separate posting, which
                    > will more clearly help people to understand the process I went
                    > through which culminated in my changing my mind about the meaning of
                    > my results and what must appear to all of you to be my radical
                    change
                    > in my opinion of TFT and VT. I began to once again think about the
                    > study I had conducted, the summer of 2001 and to reconsider.
                    >
                    > What I ended up doing was discussing my study and my results to two
                    > PhD friends of mine, who were not TFT trained who have a high
                    > expertise in research and asked their opinions of my data. These
                    were
                    > people who I trusted to hold what I told them in confidence until
                    > such time I chose to release the data, and they have kept their
                    > promise.
                    >
                    > The opinion of both of these people is that the data from my
                    > controlled study, which had 66 people, were conclusive, in terms of
                    > falsifying the claim that the VT provides precise treatment
                    sequences
                    > which are critical to the success or failure of treatment. A sample
                    > that size with the p values being what they were yielded highly
                    > conclusive results. I then remembered that from everything I had
                    > learned in my research training, this was correct. I also was
                    > running my data with smaller numbers and noticed that as my sample
                    > grew, the numbers got more and more alike. If a sample any bigger
                    > was needed to get statistical significance, that could hardly be
                    > considered clinically significant. A robust treatment as VT was
                    > claimed to be, should have gotten large clinically significant
                    > differences, even with a small number of people.
                    >
                    > Note, that even though there was a success rate of 97% in both
                    > groups, this does not prove that either is efficacious. There were
                    a
                    > number of serious limitations to my study which precludes drawing
                    > this conclusion. What my study does conclusively show is that there
                    > is no difference between the VT and random sequences derived from
                    > drawing treatment points out of a hat.
                    >
                    > Had there been any truth to the claims of the VT being a precision
                    > treatment on a par with hard science, there should have been a
                    > difference between my VT group and my control group. Some people
                    > would be expected to be helped by the random sequences, but there
                    > should have been a sizeable number who were not helped and needed
                    > VT. This isn't what the facts have shown, ladies and gentlemen. My
                    > data show that there is no difference between the VT and random
                    > sequences that anyone, regardless of training level, could randomly
                    > determine.
                    >
                    > To summarize, I have decided that in spite my previous tremendously
                    > high enthusiasm for and investment in the Voice Technology, I am
                    > forced by the facts of reality I am faced with, to conclude that no
                    > longer need to use it. I cannot, in the face of these results, in
                    > all good conscience, continue to use VT. Thus, I have decided that
                    I
                    > no longer will be accepting any new VT clients. I am announcing my
                    > results publicly and will leave it up to each person to decide how
                    > best to interpret them.
                    >
                    > When I first became acquainted with TFT, I was highly skeptical.
                    > However, I have always been open to evidence and the truth has
                    always
                    > been more important to me than being "right" or "wrong". At that
                    > time, I had been debating Roger and other TFT proponents on a list
                    > serv, but when Roger offered me evidence, in the form of an
                    > algorithm, I tried it and when I saw the results, I announced that I
                    > had been wrong in my negative judgment against TFT. You all know
                    the
                    > rest of the story. I became one of the most passionate advocates of
                    > TFT and of Voice Technology. However, now, the facts of reality
                    have
                    > presented me with another correction and I have to, once again, say
                    > that I have been wrong.
                    >
                    > During my life, I have repeatedly found myself coming to
                    conclusions
                    > that have surprised me. I could never have predicted my involvement
                    > in TFT and I never could have predicted the conclusions I have now
                    > been forced to come to about the VT.
                    >
                    > Roger has repeatedly pointed out that this is the way of the
                    > scientist is to be completely open, as much as possible to the facts
                    > of reality and to strive for objectivity. This is how I have always
                    > lived my life and this openness, to me, is the ultimate
                    > spirituality. My path in life has always been to follow the facts
                    of
                    > reality, as best as I can determine them by rational thought,
                    > wherever that takes me. While it saddens me to have to have a
                    > parting of the way with Roger on this issue, I must continue to live
                    > by the principle of truth and loyalty to my values, above all else.
                    > Roger said in a posting to the VT list that I am passionate about
                    > truth and he is correct in his assessment of me.
                    >
                    > I also want to state, for the record, that in my opinion the secrecy
                    > behind the VT proprietary procedure is the antithesis of scientific
                    > openness and is the biggest mistake Roger Callahan has ever made. I
                    > am now of the opinion that the VT is not at all objective -- far
                    from
                    > it.
                    >
                    > I intend to write up this research and attempt to have it published
                    > in whatever forum I can publish it. All I can do is present you
                    with
                    > my data and what my interpretation of it is. The rest is up to you
                    > and I will respect whatever conclusions people come to.
                    >
                    > Monica Pignotti
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.