Re: Initial response

It should be obvious to any reader who has been paying attention that your argument is quite specious. Anyone who knows the EMDR literature should know why. Here are a few reasons:

1. Francine Shapiro *approved* the protocol used as valid!

2. There is *absolutely no* scientific evidence that adding the "R" in the name and other superfluous components adds *anything whatsoever* to the efficacy of the treatment. If fact, if you review the studies, Francine reported better results with EMD than many others who have tried to replicate the results using updated versions of EMDR. If you have any such evidence to refute this, provide it please.

3. If you believe that the EMD procedure as originally presented is invalid, then you much negate the original work done by Francine and others. Doing that will leave you with even less empirical findings to stand on.

4. Francine claimed that the EMD procedure could result in dramatic improvement in as little as one session. This is a fact--read the original articles. Again, if you criticize the authors for simply testing what she said, you are critiquing her assertion. Either way, I'm glad you agree that EMDR is not the "miricale cure" that it was once billed to be. This should make anyone suspicious of the new claims of Francine if this is the case.

Replies:

Re: Research Standards , by Sandra Paulsen Inobe PhD, 10/17/02 Re: Research Standards (continued), by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 10/17/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/17/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by , 10/19/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/21/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by , 10/21/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/21/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/22/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/23/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/23/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/23/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/24/02 Re: Research Standards (continued), by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 10/17/02 Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Ulrich Lanius, Ph.D., 10/20/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by JT STratten, 10/21/02 Notice to Readers, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 10/22/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Ulrich Lanius, Ph.D., 10/23/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by JT Stratten, 10/23/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Shawn Cahill, 10/26/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Ulrich Lanius, Ph.D., 10/27/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Cahill, 10/28/02 Re:Eye Movements vs. Fixed Eye Conditions, by Ulrich Lanius, Ph.D., 11/01/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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