{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019319227230910764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.945355191256831, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Callahan fails to meet the burden of proof for Thought Field Therapy claims.

Callahan's response evades the key issues raised by merely restating and elaborating upon what has already been said, providing citations that are out of context and irrelevant to the issues at hand, and misrepresenting what was actually said by his critics and me and the authors of articles he cites. He spends paragraphs refuting "straw men." He provides additional anecdotes, which offer no convincing evidence for his claims. His critics have expressed concern that Callahan and Thought Field Therapy (TFT) proponents will cite his response article, as published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, to promote TFT, as TFT proponents have repeatedly done for the non-peer-reviewed earlier issue devoted to TFT. Callahan has been given an unprecedented opportunity to present his work in a reputable journal without prior peer review and has failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims, thus undermining his own claim, that his work has been rejected solely as a result of bias against innovation.