EMDR v EXPOSURE

Thomas Landry's post regarding EMDR is not really about science at all after you scratch the surface. Its about stomping on the new treatment which threatens the establishment. And the fact that it does threaten the academic establishment means that it will be difficult to find studies supporting EMDR published in more reputable journals.

CBT and all its variants are just a conglomeration of approaches which are 20+ yrs old. I should know I've been a licensed Psychologist for 25 yrs AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Psychology was bogged down until EMDR and other therapies arrived and it refuses to move.

Thomas, there's more to people than RELAXATION , EXPOSURE AND COGNITIVE RETRAINING. There has to be because for some people your wonderful CBT DOESN'T WORK.

Replies:

Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE, by Cahill, 04/20/03 Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE], by Ricky Greenwald, 04/22/03 Not Convincing Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE], by Cahill, 04/23/03 Not Convincing Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE], by Ricky Greenwald, 04/23/03 Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 04/21/03

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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