The Tapping Evidence Base
Governance & independence

How this is run — and how we keep it honest.

A directory is only worth trusting if you can see who built it, how, and what stops them from putting a thumb on the scale. Here's all of that, in the open.

Who funds and maintains this

The Tapping Evidence Base is compiled and funded by The Tapping Solution, a company that makes a tapping app. We state that plainly because hiding it would be the fastest way to lose your trust. The obvious question is whether that makes this a marketing piece dressed up as science. Our answer is the rest of this page: a set of commitments, checkable against the site itself, designed so the funder's interest can't quietly shape what you see.

Our independence commitments

These are the rules the directory is built on, and every one of them is verifiable right now on this site:

  • Pre-specified inclusion criteria. What gets in is defined in advance on the methodology page, not decided study by study based on whether a result is flattering.
  • Null and critical studies are included. Dismantling studies and trials that found no benefit sit in the main list alongside the positive ones — search any condition page and you'll find them.
  • A public corrections log. When we found effect sizes that were too good to be true, we corrected them and said so. Overstated numbers are a liability here, not an asset.
  • Open data. The full dataset is downloadable. Anyone can audit our claims against the original sources, or reach a different conclusion from the same records.
  • Editorial separation. The people who compile and grade the studies work to these criteria, not to a marketing brief.

The editorial model

Credibility here is built on two roles we hold deliberately separate — and we openly invite people into both:

Independent methodology review

One or more reviewers with no stake in tapping — systematic-review methodologists or evidence-based-medicine specialists — review whether our inclusion criteria and grading are neutral and sound. They are not asked to endorse tapping. They vouch for the process, which is the part that has to be trustworthy.

Subject-matter contributors

Researchers who know this literature deeply help ensure we haven't missed studies or misread findings. Several are active EFT researchers — a real conflict of interest, which we disclose rather than hide. Their role is to improve completeness and accuracy, never to gate what's included. Any contributor's relevant affiliations are disclosed with their involvement.

Conflict-of-interest policy

Every named contributor's relevant affiliations and interests are disclosed on this page. The funder (The Tapping Solution) is disclosed at the top. Where a study included here was authored by a contributor or funded by the company, that will be notable in the record. Disclosure is the mechanism: you should be able to see every interest in play and weigh the evidence accordingly.

Independent reviewers welcome. If you're a methodologist, statistician, or evidence-based-medicine researcher — especially a skeptical one — we would rather you audit this than dismiss it. Review our criteria, challenge our grading, tell us what's wrong. Reach us at contact@thetappingsolution.com. Serious critique makes this more citable, not less.