Re: Then EMDR isn't science

More misguided rhetoric. More and more and more.

Instead of your usual diatribes try substantiating your inflammatory statements. For instance:

"only those studies done by a few of the EMDR elite are adequate demonstrations of EMDR":

Is Rothbaum, a foremost advocate of exposure therapy, a member of the "EMDR elite"? She found that after three sessions 90% of rape victims no longer had PTSD?

Is Carlson, a foremost advocate of biofeedback therapy a member of the "EMDR elite"? He found that after twelve sessions 77% of combat veterans no longer had PTSD

and the list goes on and on.

You post an abstract and the moderator addresses the scientific problems with the study. You then simply employ accusatory and inflammatory language in response. It seems to boil down to your constant refrain that cognitive behavioral researchers are pure scientists, but EMDR researchers and/or proponents are simply suffering from "cognitive disonance" whenever they point out basic scientific errors such as lack of power, or lack of treatment fidelity. We know you espouse cognitive behavior therapy. Could you be suffering from cognitive disonance? The senior researcher of the study you mention, D.J.Levis is a foremost developer and advocate of a form of exposure therapy called implosion. Could he be suffering from cognitive disonance? How interesting that you apply the term "cognitive dissonance" only to Dr. Paulson, who outlined previously that she is a long time behaviorally trained clinician who started using EMDR only after considerable skepticism--and only continued after she decided that it was effective.

You call for falsifiable hypotheses and unchanging EMDR procedures as if they don't exist. In fact, falsifiable hypotheses, suggested studies, and the standard procedures and protocols have been specifically outlined and available in Dr. Shapiro's book since 1995. Read the Carrigan and Levis study and let us know if it meets the outlined criteria for component analysis in chapter 12. Did they actually use EMDR for phobias as it is described in the basic 1995 textbook? Read the study and determine if Dr. Paulson's statements of scientific errors are incorrect. Other than that, please stop reiterating your inflammatory and inaccurate statements.

Alternatively, I suggest that no further attention or time be paid to this thread until you do. It really does appear to become a waste of time IMHO.

Replies:

Re: Then EMDR isn't science, by Tired of the endless rhetoric, 5/22/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.