EMDR Forum Archive, 1999
Re: new article on EMDR
Dr. Don · 2/16/00 at 11:52 am ET
Dr. Knipe and all,
I am new to the site and perhaps owe an apology. From reading over some of the previous postings it appeared that this was an open discussion of EMDR. However, from the prompt response that my post of a new article received it appears that this board is more for the fully converted. I am not anti-EMDR but pro-science. The article that I posted is critical of EMDR. If anyone would like a copy there is one online and I will send you the link or email you the full text. I find it interesting that you would say that the authors are "on a mission" when the opposite appears true. They are not the ones who have built there careers on EMDR. I find it emabarrassing that in the face of disconfirming evidence you and others deeply "invested" in EMDR roll out a barrage of defenses including that the authors are out to get you, that critics have skewed or omitted data supportive of the effectiveness of EMDR, that the article is simply unsubstantiated negative statements about EMDR when these are all distortions of reality. Who's telling the truth? Is it those who are interested in truth in science and feel that EMDR has not yet met the standards-those who are not personally and financially invested in EMDR? Or is it the other side who has spent significant time and money in EMDR-for some it has become their identity. It does not surprise me that Francine "all of her eggs in one basket" Shapiro fights tooth and nail to discredit every iota of disconfirming evidence (which is unfortunately outweighing the confirming evidence). If I built my career on EMDR I would fight to keep it alive and kicking and continuing to fatten my bank account. Its like the cigarette companies that manipulated the data about the danger of smoking because cigarettes are what fed their families. The tobacco lobby continues to argue against the dangers of smoking. In this example it is clear why. I do not want to imply in any way that EMDR is dangerous or harmful. In fact, I am sure it works well for many people. However, so do the standard cognitive-behavior techniques. If I were to add sugar to aspirin and call it Cureitall it would still be aspirin. If this site is designed for true-believers only and dissenters and others who read the data differently than Shapiro are unwelcome I will respectfully leave. However, if this board is for an exchange of ideas based on good science I would look forward to further discussions.
Sincerely,
Don
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
