EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:Reply to the So-Called Debunking of EMDR: Alternate perspectives
· 02/03/01 at 11:56 PM ET
In all fairness, I wanted to take a look at the press release to see if indeed there are erroneous statements being made about EMDR. Let us see: <The eye movement component is what makes EMDR unique. Take that away, and there's nothing left in the package that's unique," Dr. Herbert told Reuters Health.> It should be obvious to anyone that eye movements were considered so important that the technique describes half the name of the procedure. I believe that Herbert is making the observation that when this was "debunked" (which is the terminology that some would use to describe the results of the dismantling studies) Shapiro moved the target and claimed it was now more general "bilateral stimulation". When eye movements were compared with fixed eyes and again null results, the target was shifted again and it was claimed that EMDR was a unique distillation of other techniques. <"We know now from study after study that the eye movements don't add anything to the protocol."> I do not hear anyone arguing that the dismantling research has proven that eye movements are an active component of the treatment. If future research confirms the role of bilateral stimulation then such comments would necessarily have to be changed, but until then….. <Dr. Herbert claims that without the eye movements, EMDR is "the same stuff psychologists have been doing for 20, 30 years, exposing patients to the thing that they're afraid of, and the reprocessing or cognitive restructuring."> Dr. Shapiro describes the rest of the protocol as being "influenced" by many theoretical schools of thought including cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic. Although she claims that she offers a unique integration of existing techniques, she has never demonstrated this empirically. <The researchers criticize "the use of obscurantist language to compensate for an absence of content and to discourage would-be skeptics."> The theoretical explanations for EMDR are total speculation at this point and even though the neuropsychological language sounds scientific, it is without scientific support at this point. None can disagree with this. These direct quotes from Herbert do not seem to be objectively in error, although some people may disagree with his conclusions. The other parts of the story are the interpretations of the reporter who I am sure made his/her own conclusion about EMDR. The only thing that I would quibble with was the statement that "EMDR is just the latest in a string of unvalidated therapies…" Although the therapy is empirically supported to some degree, perhaps it should be amended to "EMDR is just the latest string of therapies attempting to add unvalidated techniques (ie, eye movements) to traditional techniques in the hopes of looking like something new and improved." This would be more accurate based on the research at this stage. In sum, the criticisms of the piece seem largely based on disagreements in interpretation, and not errors or misstatements.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
