Re:Reply to the So-Called Debunking of EMDR: Alternate perspectives

Sorry, can't resist responding to some of the inaccuracies presented by this ostensibly fair anonymous poster.

EMDR has never been a "moving target" - this concept is an invention of the smear campaign. I was trained in EMDR in 1992 and bilateral stimulation (as an alternative to eye movements when necessary) were already being presented as an option. This was long before any component analysis studies had been completed. Furthermore, EMDR was already being presented as a multi-component approach with eye movements as one component.

The "moving target" accusation is nothing more than a tactic to make EMDR proponents appear somehow shifty or dishonest. But it is not substantive and does nothing to illuminate any issue.

The role of eye movements is still an open question. Most of the component analysis studies have not used large enough numbers to detect possibly active components, so the fact that some (not all) of these studies still did detect an apparent eye movement effect indicates the strong possibility that there is something there. The interpretation of existing component analysis studies has been controversial. It would be premature, especially on the basis of inadequate research, to confidently declare eye movements to be inert.

Finally, if EMDR is just the same old stuff in a new package, why does the exposure (in EMDR) happen in small bursts rather than long periods? And why does it appear to be more efficient than the same old stuff? (I provided citations for this in a recent post). EMDR is clearly showing a different effect than we have seen in other treatments. As the anonymous poster pointed out, we don't know why or how.

I think it would be much more interesting to figure out the answers to these questions than to continue using smear tactics and falsehoods to attack EMDR.

Replies:

Re:Reply to the So-Called Debunking of EMDR: Alternate perspectives, by , 02/04/01 Re:Reply to the So-Called Debunking of EMDR: Alternate perspectives, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 02/04/01 Re:Reply to the So-Called Debunking of EMDR: Alternate perspectives, by client, 02/04/01

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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