Further discussion of Hypnosis goes here

[runwolf13]

When you listened to the tapes, did you consider that segments may have been edited and/or removed? What makes you think you're hearing exactly what happened? I'm not rendering a judgment, but it's a sensible question to ask.

It's more than reasonable, it's absolutely essential. We already know that editing occurred, of that there can be no doubt. We know this because there a various places throughout the tapes where names are removed. That may be a benign attempt to protect peoples identity, or it may indicate that far more editing was done. We also do not know what other conversations may have been recorded and not used. To keep in the back of our minds that the tapes are an incomplete story is very important.

 

[runwolf13]

Perhaps you should listen to the tapes. Dr. Jacobs states in his 'professional' opinion his 'diagnosis' is that Ms. Woods has multiple personalty disorder, or MPD (a serious Dissociative Identity Disorder under DSM IV), for which she needs treatment. He tells her this while she apparently is under hypnosis, which reduces her ability to put his statements in the proper context. She also alleges this on her website. While we certainly do not have all the facts, based upon the evidence available it appears as if Dr. Jacobs de facto may have been acting as a mental health practitioner, whether wrapped in the guise of hypnotic counselor or not. Sounds like something a local mental health board would certainly take an interest in exploring further. Additionally, I am unfamiliar with the Pennsylvania State Law (as well as common law & case law) governing mental health practitioners, but I do know many States have such legislation which also may give her a private cause of action (in addition to the State itself potentially taking action). To claim that 'going public' is her only or best course of action is simply irresponsible. Ironically, when Dr. Jacobs had Ms. Woods sign the disclaimer, he probably never anticipated de facto acting as a mental health profession, only hypnotist, but at some point he very well may have crossed the line.

Re: Temple University, do we have a full accounting of how Dr. Jacobs presented himself to Ms. Woods during their multiple years of working together? Do we know whether he used Temple University resources during their years of interaction? Perhaps he did keep their activities completely separate from the University-- supposedly Temple has cleared him of wrongdoing, or at least determined they don't have a dog in the fight (this needs to be confirmed). Nonetheless, it may not be as cut-n-dry as you characterized, unless you are intimately familiar with all the facts of the case. Again, best to stay out of the media until this is run to ground -- going public certainly undercuts her credibility and presents material for anyone looking to discredit her.

Regarding the 'dynamics of the situation', sadly life is full of circumstances where parties have disparate power. Sometimes markedly disparate power. She may have in fact been desperate for answers. However, there is no evidence of coercion or mental incapacity, and she could have chosen to seek the opinion of a qualified professional (as the disclaimer may have in fact suggested). She is an adult and chose to go forward. Again, ironically, Dr. Jacobs' disclaimer won't shield him from most types of legal action if de facto he was acting as a mental health professional without the proper license (cf., hypnotist who works with someone to stop smoking).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most state and local boards have very little power in disciplining non-members for their activities. They are professional organizations and if I'm not a member, they can't do much to me, if anything other than turning the information over to the proper law enforcement (assuming there is such a thing in this case.) So I'm still unclear what the local mental health board is supposed to be able to do.

As to Temple University, from reports not associated with the Emma Woods case, it seams that Jacobs is pretty through about separating his UFO research from his University work. I understand that there may be some overlap, since he does teach a course on the history of UFOs and contemporary society and that he hosts unofficial get together events with University personnel. Again, I'm not sure that is the best course of action.

As for using the legal system as a venue, it is possible she looked into that and decided against it. Then again, this may be a first volley, one I agree with you is a bad one, toward such an idea. What is truly dangerous for her, legally, is the tapes. Pennsylvania has a full consent law on recording conversations. Anything she has recorded that wasn't with full consent is actionable under Penn. law. In fact, the disclosure of information gained in an "illegal" recording is criminal, and if Jacobs can provide evidence that he was unaware of any of the recordings, or worse yet, actively opposed the recording of a conversation she could find herself facing charges in Pennsylvania... a state that as actively gone after people who've violated state laws on recording from a state where the recording party is "safely" performing the recording in a one party consent state. Since Jacobs himself recorded many of their conversations, I'm pretty sure that a reasonable attorney would successful argue that Jacobs had no expectation of privacy, I'm not sure how that would go over with the authorities. But it may be another reason she went public instead of seeking legal action. Without the tapes, she has nothing. The tapes may well not have been allowed in a Pennsylvanian courtroom. By going public, Jacobs may have a tenuous legal action against her, but the damage has been done. The tapes are out and nothing Jacobs does now can retrieve them completely.

Would I have gone public? I'm not sure. Probably not. Jacobs is in a pretty no-win situation of his own creation. I suppose he could go for the libal/slander angle, but that's dangerous for him. Since within his field, Jacobs is a celebrity there has to be shown malice, as I understand it. So simply showing falsehood isn't enough. And if he opens that can of worms, he opens access to her file and the recordings he has made of their sessions. Even if the Emma Woods tapes are edited to just show the worst of the relationship between Woods and Jacobs, it is a pretty damning little display. He would have to show that the tapes are fabrications, that her statements are demonstrably false, in order to prevail. I suspect in such a trial, Woods would be further coached toward the "its a hoax" position forcing Jacobs to either stand fully behind his speculation and methodology, or show how his methodology as been grossly mischaracterized. Even if Jacobs manages to exclude the tapes, he still opens up his own files to inspection. I suspect that's something he'd prefer not to have to do.

 

[runwolf13]

runwolf,
Are you asking about induction, which is the prelude to the hypnotic state or are you asking about the hypnotist's technique once the subject goes under?
There are a number of different induction techniques: http://www.psychwww.com/asc/hyp/art/ind00.html
I would think that the technique of a stage hypnotist towards a subject under hypnosis is different than that of a forensic hypnotist who is trying to obtain information that can be used during an investigation or as evidence in a court of law.

The point I was getting at, and which both you and pixelsmith answered, is that stage hypnotists and forensic hypnotists both have a standardized methodology on how they proceed. In the case of the stage hypnotist, it is to expedite the entertainment, and in the case of the forensic hypnotist it is to preserve the data.

How then is it that David Biedny and others to fell it's acceptable for an abduction researcher to not have some sort of standard methodology that can be looked at and reviewed? Why is it acceptable for the UFO community to accept "going out on a limb and flail" when even the entertainer is using a methodology?

As to your suggestions to how future research using hypnosis should be done, I have to give you kudos for thinking along those lines. Thanks for taking a shot at a workable methodology, and I think it is a really good start. I would think looking into how forensic hypnosis is done would fill in some gaps, since ultimately they have to provide evidence, not just testimony. And that evidence has to stand alone. That is a difficult task, and the reason why many jurisdictions no longer allow hypnotically augmented testimony in court.

But the idea that we can't find and hold UFO researchers to some sort of standard just baffles me. I'd really like someone to explain that thinking in detail to me.

 

[Red]

But the idea that we can't find and hold UFO researchers to some sort of standard just baffles me. I'd really like someone to explain that thinking in detail to me.

Dude, get used to disappointment. This is not an area of research that is officially sanctioned in academic circles, so getting every researcher to abide by academic rules of peer review and scientific standards for experiments and studies just ain't going to happen (as previously stated). Nor do I think it is the responsibility of the Paracast hosts to try to identify every little thing that could be considered questionable, or to act as the UFO police. And I would probably stop listening if they tried.

Personally, I have never been comfortable with the whole hypnosis thing, even though I think Jacobs and Hopkins are well-intentioned. So for that reason, I doubt if I will ever buy Jacobs' books and I take him with grain of salt when I hear him in interviews.

 

[Schuyler]

Personally, I have never been comfortable with the whole hypnosis thing, even though I think Jacobs and Hopkins are well-intentioned. So for that reason, I doubt if I will ever buy Jacobs' books and I take him with grain of salt when I hear him in interviews.

His last one sounds so weird that I may get it just for the strangeness value.

And Red, the notion of the UFO Police: I just had this flash of a saucer with a blue light pulling over another saucer. "Hey, buddy, I just clocked you at 9,000 mph. That's not allowed within the atmposphere."

 

[runwolf13]

Dude, get used to disappointment. This is not an area of research that is officially sanctioned in academic circles, so getting every researcher to abide by academic rules of peer review and scientific standards for experiments and studies just ain't going to happen (as previously stated). Nor do I think it is the responsibility of the Paracast hosts to try to identify every little thing that could be considered questionable, or to act as the UFO police. And I would probably stop listening if they tried.

No, not the police... but the gold standard. *snark*

But seriously, who is the ufo police? We all are. It's called peer review. If we all don't critically review the research others put forth, then shame on us all. I'm not suggesting we all grab pocket watches and hypnotize the neighbors, but the idea that we don't have the right to question the methodology, or hold these researchers accountable, is not helping the field at all. Maybe we don't have officially sanctioned "academic" circles, but we can have peer review. To an extent, isn't that was some of these podcasts are doing? I've just started listening to esoteric podcasts, and it seems most of them do ask some pretty tough questions about the research. Not all... BOA seems to want to get the information out there and have the listeners research it on their own. Paracast and Paratopia seem to go after people with a bit more regularity, but I'm just getting a feel for their style (I've been listening to BOA a bit longer) But clearly, if things like what Jacobs seems to have pulled is allowed to go uncontested, then we really are flailing about on a limb.

 

[paraschtick]

My partner works in one of the top universities here in New Zealand, and is also studying psychology on a part-time basis, and has informed me that when researchers are working with human "subjects" they have to "go through" an ethics committee before the research can go ahead. I was wondering if this happened in the Emma Woods case? Maybe we'll find out if Dr Jacobs decides to comment about this matter.

And as for Emma Woods going to the internet first ... well I feel that she was driven to doing so after trying to come to some sort of an agreement with Dr Jacobs ... which of course failed since Dr Jacobs wanted to control things. Of course, I can only go by what I've heard and read so far. However, I believe Dr Jacobs gave enough rope to hang himself by without Emma Woods having to resort to editing the audio files in a way that makes Dr Jacobs seem like the bad guy. I think he did that himself to a great degree.

It still comes down to in the end, incompetent and/or deliberate misuse of his "research subject", Emma Woods ... in my opinion. And this is before we have to take into consideration the "alien hybrid instant messages" ... which adds a whole other dimension to the status of Dr Jacobs in my view.

[The whole legality of Woods taping the phone conversations is another question. I understand that Dr Jacobs was well aware that she was taping him at the time. And ... is there a precedent in law for the legality of someone taping another party when the first party is located in another country? ... if as Schyuler is correct in saying that Emma Woods resides in another country ie New Zealand??]

 

[Paul Kimball]

An earlier interview with Jacobs that is well worth listening to can be heard on the Strange Days... Indeed podcast, episode 446, at: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/podcasts/. Scroll down. The interview with Jacobs starts at about 40 minutes into the show.

An excerpt:

"When I say know, when I talk about knowledge, you have to remember my standard disclaimer that I just have to make every time I speak about this subject. We are dealing with "evidence" that is derived from human memory with all it's problems, and speaking as a person who is almost sixty-five I understand the problems of memory personally [laughs]. That memory is derived from hypnosis, with all it's problems, usually administered by amateurs, who don't know what they're doing - like me, for instance. So consequently, we are dealing with a level of knowledge that is low indeed in terms of its verifiability, in terms of its credibility, in terms of everything, and we all have to keep that in mind."

That comes around the 44 minute mark. It is at this point that any rational person, interested in real research, would say, "well, I guess we shouldn't be using hypnosis at all then, should we - particularly amateur hypnosis."

Not Jacobs. He makes this perfectly sensible statement... and then completely ignores it.

"Now, having said that of course, it is also important to say that we have a tremendous amount of it, and that it is evidence, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, and that it adds up to a concrete, precisely detailed stream of information that conforms to the idea of reality rather than fantasy. In other words, if this were fantasy, if this were something that were being made up for whatever reason, it does not matter what the reason is, if it is therefore psychological, and we would be getting, without question, a wide variety of accounts, oftentimes based on a person's culture and life and upbringing and all that, and they would all have a certain sort of psychological story that they want to tell us, and we'd be all over the place, and I would have dropped out of this subject many, many years ago, and I would have gone on to have a normal life, but it never did that, and when we see stories, abduction accounts, that are all over the place, invariably there's a problem with some memory retrieval process - in other words, the person who is doing the hypnosis doesn't know what he is doing, or doing it with some sort of tranformational or New Age agenda or something like that. Or, and here is what is even more common these days, a person simply remembers things consciously."

It gets more ridiculous from there, as he in essence asserts that hypnotically induced "memories" are actually more valid than conscious memory, and that amateur hypnotists like Jacobs, who are familiar with the abduction narrative, are more qualified to deal with alleged abductees than trained hypnotists. The mind boggles!

Here is why the hypnotically induced memories all seem to conform to a general narrative that seems the same - it is the "researcher" who is planting that narrative in the minds of the subjects.

Why this man and his "colleagues" in the alien abduction research cult were ever taken seriously by UFO researchers is simply beyond me.

Paul

 

[runwolf13]

"Now, having said that of course, it is also important to say that we have a tremendous amount of it, and that it is evidence, regardless of how low on the totem pole it is, and that it adds up to a concrete, precisely detailed stream of information that conforms to the idea of reality rather than fantasy. In other words, if this were fantasy, if this were something that were being made up for whatever reason, it does not matter what the reason is, if it is therefore psychological, and we would be getting, without question, a wide variety of accounts, oftentimes based on a person's culture and life and upbringing and all that, and they would all have a certain sort of psychological story that they want to tell us, and we'd be all over the place, and I would have dropped out of this subject many, many years ago, and I would have gone on to have a normal life, but it never did that, and when we see stories, abduction accounts, that are all over the place, invariably there's a problem with some memory retrieval process - in other words, the person who is doing the hypnosis doesn't know what he is doing, or doing it with some sort of tranformational or New Age agenda or something like that. Or, and here is what is even more common these days, a person simply remembers things consciously."

I have not listened to this, although it is now on my list (which is growing longer). So taking this at face value, what upsets me the most is his logic. He says that if we see abductions stories that are "all over the place" then the it wouldn't be real. He then goes on to say if you get an abduction story that is "all over the place" then it is a problem with "memory retrieval process."

In other words, either the story matches or the story was retrieved wrong. That's a pretty scary method of obtaining data.

 

[jratcliff]

Just a bit of information to help the discussion. Emma did not just suddenly 'go to the Internet'. She has kept this matter private for a long time. The events which are in the recordings happened back in 2008. She contacted Temple University first, to try to get them to take action on Jacobs. Probably in their own self-interest, Temple said that had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. They treated it as a completely private issue and they would not have anything to do with it.

She also filed complaints with the 'Office of Human Research Protections' and got no satisfaction there either.

After over a year of efforts to have Jacobs in some way be restricted in his ability to take advantage of other 'research subjects' she went the route of publicly 'outing' him.

I just wanted to make clear that this was *not* the 'first thing she did'. She spent well over a year trying to resolve the matter less publicly but in a way that would still result in some sort of reprimand on Jacobs and restrict him from continued interaction with research subjects.

Clearly she is unwilling to let this thing go. Maybe you could call it being obsessed but, if you had happen to you what she alleges happened to her, maybe you would be obsessed too. Maybe you might even think it is honorable that she is simply trying to make sure no one else is hurt by Jacobs questionable research tactics.

I'm sure this matter will be discussed and debated for months to come. However, to be clear, this was by no means her 'first course' of action.

To get the perspective of Emma directly, here is what she wrote me in an email. You guys can decide for yourself, but I think you will see that she exhausted a number of avenues of recourse before she decided to go the public route.

From 'Emma Woods':

"I laid a complaint about Dr. Jacobs’ conduct with Temple University in September 2008. Unfortunately, they, in my opinion, chose to cover it up to protect themselves from liability. I subsequently laid a complaint with the US Department of Health’s Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), about Temple University’s failure, in my opinion, to investigate the matter properly.

Temple University responded to the OHRP by claiming that Dr. Jacobs is not conducting research, but is just recording “oral history”, and that therefore that the OHRP does not have the mandate to investigate the matter.

The OHRP accepted that position, but nevertheless asked Temple University to investigate it. Temple University, however, told me that, although they were sympathetic with my position, that they could not do this as Dr. Jacobs is not conducting research. Temple University said that they have told Dr. Jacobs that he is to remove all references to Temple University and to “research” in his work with his research subjects. In my opinion, they have done this as a way to avoid liability for his misconduct with his research subjects.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jacobs is still promoting himself publicly as a Professor at Temple University and as an academic researcher in the field, and is successfully convincing people that he is a competent and ethical hypnotist, in spite of his extremely unethical and abusive research practices.

In my opinion, Dr. Jacobs has been able to get away with this because his work is not under public scrutiny. Instead, it is done behind closed doors with research subjects who are in an extremely vulnerable social position, who have to maintain anonymity to protect themselves and their families. In addition, Dr. Jacobs is able to use his high status and connections in the field of Ufology to shut down any research subject who criticizes him publicly, as I have discovered myself. At the same time, Temple University, in my opinion, is covering it up to avoid liability for it. It is an appalling situation.

I have been made weary by how hard I have had to fight to have my voice heard, against the vested interests who do not want to know about this. However, I believe that it is important that research in this area be conducted in an ethical manner if research subjects are to be protected. It is important, not just to myself, but as a matter of public interest, that this issue should not be covered up. "

 

[Rocketsauce]

Nice find Paul. Seems like he is more than self aware of the weaknesses of hypnosis for getting accurate memory recall yet still thinks it has a lot of value in this context.

On one hand it seems quite apparent that hypnosis has a lot of weaknesses and can be dangerous in creating false memories. On the other hand, what other methods are there to get clues as to what happened to some dude that was missing for 5 hours who can't remember anything? Tricky stuff.

I don't totally throw out all of the UFO hypsosis stuff since there seems to be a consistent pattern to the content. But is this because of outside factors (leading people, cultural contamination, etc...) or because people actually say these things on their own with no outside influences? I think it's a bit of both, although the more popular this stuff becomes the more I think people minds are contaminated before hypnosis.

 

[dyingsun]

Just a bit of information to help the discussion. Emma did not just suddenly 'go to the Internet'. She has kept this matter private for a long time. The events which are in the recordings happened back in 2008. She contacted Temple University first, to try to get them to take action on Jacobs. Probably in their own self-interest, Temple said that had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. They treated it as a completely private issue and they would not have anything to do with it.

She also filed complaints with the 'Office of Human Research Protections' and got no satisfaction there either.

After over a year of efforts to have Jacobs in some way be restricted in his ability to take advantage of other 'research subjects' she went the route of publicly 'outing' him.

I just wanted to make clear that this was *not* the 'first thing she did'. She spent well over a year trying to resolve the matter less publicly but in a way that would still result in some sort of reprimand on Jacobs and restrict him from continued interaction with research subjects.

Clearly she is unwilling to let this thing go. Maybe you could call it being obsessed but, if you had happen to you what she alleges happened to her, maybe you would be obsessed too. Maybe you might even think it is honorable that she is simply trying to make sure no one else is hurt by Jacobs questionable research tactics.

I'm sure this matter will be discussed and debated for months to come. However, to be clear, this was by no means her 'first course' of action.

To get the perspective of Emma directly, here is what she wrote me in an email. You guys can decide for yourself, but I think you will see that she exhausted a number of avenues of recourse before she decided to go the public route.

From 'Emma Woods':

"I laid a complaint about Dr. Jacobs’ conduct with Temple University in September 2008. Unfortunately, they, in my opinion, chose to cover it up to protect themselves from liability. I subsequently laid a complaint with the US Department of Health’s Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), about Temple University’s failure, in my opinion, to investigate the matter properly.

Temple University responded to the OHRP by claiming that Dr. Jacobs is not conducting research, but is just recording “oral history”, and that therefore that the OHRP does not have the mandate to investigate the matter.

The OHRP accepted that position, but nevertheless asked Temple University to investigate it. Temple University, however, told me that, although they were sympathetic with my position, that they could not do this as Dr. Jacobs is not conducting research. Temple University said that they have told Dr. Jacobs that he is to remove all references to Temple University and to “research” in his work with his research subjects. In my opinion, they have done this as a way to avoid liability for his misconduct with his research subjects.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jacobs is still promoting himself publicly as a Professor at Temple University and as an academic researcher in the field, and is successfully convincing people that he is a competent and ethical hypnotist, in spite of his extremely unethical and abusive research practices.

In my opinion, Dr. Jacobs has been able to get away with this because his work is not under public scrutiny. Instead, it is done behind closed doors with research subjects who are in an extremely vulnerable social position, who have to maintain anonymity to protect themselves and their families. In addition, Dr. Jacobs is able to use his high status and connections in the field of Ufology to shut down any research subject who criticizes him publicly, as I have discovered myself. At the same time, Temple University, in my opinion, is covering it up to avoid liability for it. It is an appalling situation.

I have been made weary by how hard I have had to fight to have my voice heard, against the vested interests who do not want to know about this. However, I believe that it is important that research in this area be conducted in an ethical manner if research subjects are to be protected. It is important, not just to myself, but as a matter of public interest, that this issue should not be covered up. "

Once again, lets seperate Jacobs and Hopkins.Mr. Hopkins seems like such a nice and down to earth guy, though he and Jacobs aren't Doctors with a PHD, I think one can actually hear his contempt and even love for the work he's doing.

 

[Rocketsauce]

I should add, that even if the UFO hypnosis evidence turn out to be 'real' memories that people have, given the nature of the phenomena, I still think anything that someone recalls is still a result of something manipulating those memories. So for me that leaves 2 likely options:

1. Hypnosis is crap for legit memories
2. Hypnosis can be reliable but tells us what the 'beings' want us to know which is probably completely misleading

At this point in my paranormal evolution I just don't buy the straightforward abduction scenario that takes these hypnosis sessions as being literal. That doesn't mean there aren't clues though. But .... what the fuck do I know!

At the least, hypnosis in the UFO context, gives us something to talk about and provides some information where most traditional methods don't. Which can be a positive (gives us clues) or negative (totally muddies the water using new age BS) depending on who you talk to

 

[Rocketsauce]

Yeah, Bud seemed like a great dude when he was on the paracast. Very interesting guy.

 

[runwolf13]

Just a bit of information to help the discussion. Emma did not just suddenly 'go to the Internet'. She has kept this matter private for a long time. The events which are in the recordings happened back in 2008. She contacted Temple University first, to try to get them to take action on Jacobs. Probably in their own self-interest, Temple said that had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. They treated it as a completely private issue and they would not have anything to do with it.

She also filed complaints with the 'Office of Human Research Protections' and got no satisfaction there either.

I'm not surprised Temple University said it had nothing to do with the matter, because it doesn't. I'm less clear on the jurisdiction of the Office of Human Research Protections. I've looked over their site, and on a quick glance I'm not sure they have any jurisdiction either. But I'll not pretend to fully understand their jurisdiction.

 

[jratcliff]

Yeah Runwolf, I was just trying to make the point that the 'first thing she did' wasn't to splash this thing far and wide on the Internet. And, since she doesn't have recourse from Temple and she doesn't have recourse from the OHRP, what is left?

Her problem is one on one, simply between herself and Jacobs. She allowed him to hypnotize her over the phone. (They have never met in person!?)

When you consider this, the whole thing is even more absurd. I doubt she has legal recourse, since she completely brought herself into this situation of her own accord. Chances are likely that Jacobs might have a libel case on his hands; but that could be difficult for him to prove. Jacobs is a public figure so he would have to prove that what she did was 'with malice'. By going public like she is, it certainly seems to be with malice; as there is a clear intent to hurt his reputation.

In a case like this, the ultimate arbiter is the truth. If what she has said is completely true and backed up by the facts, then, really Jacobs would not win this case. I'm not an attorney but I recently had someone in the UFO field threaten me with a libel lawsuit and I've had a pretty fast (and expensive) education on how this stuff all works.

I suspect what will happen is, well, nothing. I don't think Jacobs will talk; he doesn't gain anything by doing so. He will probably drop out of the field, as so many do over time when they realize what a pile of shit they have stepped into.

This will probably fade away and Emma will get what she wanted because Jacobs will probably stop doing his 'research'.

Or, maybe there will be a giant flaming legal battle. Who knows. I guess Emma will have to be satisfied with the results of the media bomb she dropped this past couple of weeks.

To try to find something positive about it..I do think the open discussion about the danger of hypnosis, the risk of working with human subjects, the questionable practice of acting in the role of a therapist without the proper qualifications, has all been really useful to have.

John

 

[runwolf13]

To try to find something positive about it..I do think the open discussion about the danger of hypnosis, the risk of working with human subjects, the questionable practice of acting in the role of a therapist without the proper qualifications, has all been really useful to have.

I wanted to say that I completely agree with this. Yes, it is useful to have.

I just read your edit adding the response from Emma Woods. That makes perfect sense to me. Temple University "cleared" Jacobs because his research was unrelated to the University. In the law regarding the mandate of OHRP it specifically allows for an exemption for "oral history." The exempting authority in this case would be the University. By claiming that his abduction research is an example of oral history, they have placed him out of reach of OHRP.

Neither of these "findings" does anything to bolster the critics claims that Jacobs acted rationally or ethically with Emma Woods. It just means that the two venues she used are unwilling or unable to review them. But ultimately, his work should come under peer review. And it has not. The only peer review of his works that we have is the work of Emma Woods. But that's not enough for some people.

 

[Schuyler]

The only peer review of his works that we have is the work of Emma Woods. But that's not enough for some people.

That's laughable. Emma Woods attacking Jacobs is hardly 'peer review.' 'Peer review' is a review of a scholar's work by another academically qualified scholar who, theoretically, is not associated with the first at all. This is done PRIOR to publication. Indeed, the results of the reviews determine whether or not a given article is published at all. Peer review is done in a 'double blind' system where neither the reviewer or the reviewed is aware of the other's identity. That's one of the major criticisms of the Climategate scandal. The scientists in question were reviewing each other's stuff and they clearly knew who was reviewing which papers. Further, when some of their critics published articles in the 'peer reviewed' literature, they sought to remove those journals from lists of acceptable ones to climate science.

Emma Woods is a disgruntled subject attacking a researcher. That doesn't qualify for 'peer review' in the slightest. And it shouldn't be enough for anyone.

 

[runwolf13]

That's laughable. Emma Woods attacking Jacobs is hardly 'peer review.' 'Peer review' is a review of a scholar's work by another academically qualified scholar who, theoretically, is not associated with the first at all. This is done PRIOR to publication. Indeed, the results of the reviews determine whether or not a given article is published at all. Peer review is done in a 'double blind' system where neither the reviewer or the reviewed is aware of the other's identity. That's one of the major criticisms of the Climategate scandal. The scientists in question were reviewing each other's stuff and they clearly knew who was reviewing which papers. Further, when some of their critics published articles in the 'peer reviewed' literature, they sought to remove those journals from lists of acceptable ones to climate science.

Emma Woods is a disgruntled subject attacking a researcher. That doesn't qualify for 'peer review' in the slightest. And it shouldn't be enough for anyone.

What you've described is 100% accurate in publication in peer review journals. Can you tell me what peer reviewed journals Dr. Jacobs has published his hypnosis research in? Who has reviewed it?

But the idea that peer review simply stops with publication is false. We don't stop questioning, reviewing, inspecting, looking at and discarding something simply because it has been published. And we don't throw out "disgruntled subjects." Unless we're going to throw out every significant advance in ethical human subject research of the past century. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Schuyler]

You can't simply change the definition of 'peer review' to suit your purposes. Emma is in no way a 'peer' of Jacobs. If you call the one-sided witch hunt you are pursuing an advance in ethics, then I can only hope you are a small minority.

I can't understand why the members of this mob are behaving in the way they are. It almost seems as if they are hypnotized.