Re:bls/das

Your comments about EMDR doing something "to the box" is speculation based on your clinical experience. Other people may have different ideas based on different clinical experiences. Who is right? This is why we do research, to put our beliefs under intense scruitiny to see if they hold water. Clinical experience is the basis, for example, of Wilhelm Riech's Orgone Therapy, where he charged people good money to climb in a box that had no particular special properties in order to rejuvinate their orgone levels. Incidentally, he died in jail for marketing his particular brand of snake oil.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying EMDR doesn't work, because the scientific data (not just clinical experience) clearly shows that it does. I'm not even saying eye movements add nothing, because it is logically impossible to prove the null. What I am saying is that the burden of proof rests with those making claims that eye movements contribute to treatment outcome. To date, that burden has not been met. All I am asking is that those who practice and promote EMDR be honest about that fact and take serioulsy their burden of proof. For example, if they don't think the extant dismantling studies were conducted adequately, then do they study right.

Also, let me be clear. I am not "against" EMDR nor am I out to topple it. What I am against is bad science and clinical practice based on "clincal experience." A huge literature of research on clinians' ability to make judgements based on their clinical experience in a variety of areas (e.g., prediction of dangerousness) all converge on the finding that clinical judgement is poor. Why would we expect it to magically be any better in assessing treatment outcome?

Your comments about off-lable drug use and the echinacea example are perfect examples of why clinical observation is an inadequate base for determining whether a treatment is effective or not. Just think of the harm that would have been prevented if they had conducted studies BEFORE off lable use. What about thalidymide (sp?)? Just think the amount of suffering that could have been prevented had studies been conducted to assess the effect of administering the drug to mothers on the fetus.

More importantly than what I am against, however, is what I am for. I am for good science and for science-informed practice. And if that makes me an ogre, then so be it. However, let me remind you that nobody forced Shapiro to toss her hat into the scientific ring. She chose to do so by reporting the results of her study in a scientific journal. Moreover, I applaud her for doing so. It because of the intense scruitiny, skepticism, and criticism levied against hers and several other studies that resulted in better studies, such as those by S. Wilson et al. (1995) and B. Rothbaum (1997) which demonstrated the efficacy of EMDR.

Science is not about "Everyone has played and all must have prizes." Science is about subjecting our ideas to careful logical and empirical scruitiny, and tossing aside the worst ideas while looking for better ones.

Regarding you comments about some of these posts seeming like "a civilized lynching," I personally think that you can disagree with someone and argue with them without getting personal. But even if things get personal, so what? Finding out whether or not a particular treatment works and why is far more important saving someone's feelings.

Replies:

Re:bls/das, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 10/29/02 Re:bls/das, by Cahill, 10/29/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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