George,

I'm wondering what sort of result you hoping for from the APA?

Certainly Gelb is a phony PhD, but no accreditation is needed to be a polygrapher. The APA may be the "accrediting" board for polygraphers but it by no means has any administrative or legal authority to revoke someone's ability to be a polygrapher. It merely provides a way of fooling consumers into thinking there is a true accrediting board. I could become a homeopathic doctor in mere minutes by filling out the "proper paperwork" and fool people into thinking that because I've been certified by a homeopathic governing board that I'm somehow practicing a viable alternative medicine rather than a dangerous pseudoscience.

If anything, Gelb should be sanctioned by the courts and other adminstrative bodies that he has testified in front of for perjury and/or false representation.

Unlike MDs, nurses, psychologists, and social workers who are licensed through the state, polygraphers do not have a true governing legal body which is enabled to revoke licenses or begin legal proceedings for fraud and misrepresentation.

Getting the APA to admit that one of their own is fraud will never happen. I still think the best course of action against this pseudoscience is to convince consumers (rather than practitioners) of this flapdoodle through research and science that it is a useless procedure that poses a tremendous risk to public safety.

In that regard, the NAS, Feinberg, yourself, Iacono, Furedy, Saxe, Crosse, and others are certainly providing enough evidence that the polygraph is useless. It's now time to challenge and convince the consumers of this junk that they need to stop using it because it causes more harm than good.

Trying to convince the APA that they're wrong is about as useful as talking to the taxman about poetry.

-digithead