Dr. D, your only substantive point seems to be that you are competent therapist and you have seen it work firsthand. My answer is, so what? And I don't mean this disrespectfully. I can provide examples of highly experienced, trained, and intelligent people who back all forms of quackery. Some are in it for profit, most are sincere and truly believe what they are saying. For example, Dr. John Mack, Harvard psychiatrist, is a leading proponent of uncovering alien abduction through hypnosis. The problem is that when the evidence does not support what we experience, we should believe science and not our preceptions. You know that this is why we do controlled studies in the first place. I also point to the evidence which suggests that EMDR mainly, or entirely, works based on imaginal exposure. EMDR is integrated with traditional CBT so it takes component studies to unravel the exact mechanisms of effectiveness. These studies support the notion that bilateral stimulation is totally unnecessary. What else makes EMDR really different? You tell me because I can't figure it out! Therefore, of course EMDR would "work". If you haven't already please read: Lohr, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O, Tolin, D. F., & Herbert, J. D. (1999). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: An analysis of specific versus nonspecific treatment factors. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 185-207. It provides a comprehensive summary on the topic and can help people wade through the evidence and see the forest through the trees. Let me remind you that you haven't presented any specific evidence that would contradict the reserach findings that fail to support EMDR. Brian
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.