Once again, the silly fool has no idea what he is talking about. Once again, he is the cyber equivalent of Ellsworth Toohey doing all he can to discourage people from pursuing individual growth and achievement, giving them excuses not to take actions that could potentially improve their lives. It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives. But he wants to raise a quasi-scientific smokescreen to prevent others from doing it. He is enshrining his own ignorance as a self-righteous bulwark in the path of those who might wish to try Callahan’s approach. If this is not pure, unvarnished evil, I would like to know what on this earth would qualify as evil. Hello Dr. Hardin. Please allow me to introduce myself. Hope you've guessed my name (and no, it's not Robert Stadler). He and I look nothing alike. But seriously, if you can tear yourself away from your ad hominem attacks on Bill Scherk, would you care to have a discussion with me? I pursued this technique for seven years and trained to its highest level, practiced it, taught it and found it to be not as advertised. Testimonials are not enough. Why TFT is attractive to so many Objectivists (not all or most, by any means, but quite a few) is a question I have done some puzzling over and and I think it may relate back to some misinterpretations of Rand's philosophy about what is and is not self evident. TFT's results are not self-evident because there are too many alternative explanations that have not been ruled out and the only way to rule them out is to conduct well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing TFT tapping to tapping on sham points and/or sham sequences that were not obtained through putative "hard science" Callahan claims he has. Waite and Holder did this and I did this with regard to sham points and I did it with regard to treatment sequences Callahan thought were so critical and the basis for his $100,000 Voice Technology and ended up with null results, which have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Did you really think that you could come onto an Objectivist forum and not have your claims challenged?
