Re: Double talk and double standards

Perhaps I am wrong in concluding that you have had all the information and just weren't presenting it Ricky. Perhaps you actually don't have all the evidence.

Are you aware of the study by Rothbaum, a highly respected PTSD researcher as I'm certain you know, presented last year at a conference that should be published in due time? It was a RCT of prolonged exposure (the actual empirically supported treatment for PTSD) versus EMDR that met Foa and Meadows' gold standards for PTSD research. 95% of PE-patients versus 75% of EMDR-patients achieved remission by post-treatment. Also, the advantage at post treatment was not statistically significant, but favored PE. However, at 6-month follow-up, PE retained its good results, while those who had EMDR started worsening and were statistically inferior to those who had PE. Both groups were better than wait list. This was similar to Devilly and Spence's results, which contrary to your erroneous characterizations (see previous discusssion further up on the board), was a well designed controlled trial. Finally, both treatments were well-tolerated (contrary to Dr. Paulsen-Inobe's clinical insights) and were equally efficient. Foa and Francine assured treatment integrity.

I don't think this is "fancy logic," which might be an argument from the GW Bush line of fallacies, but is clear evidence that you fail to consider fully.

Replies:

Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/24/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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