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

Once again it appears that you clearly make my point about the Medscape release--it is a matter of differing opinions on the topic and not inaccuracies. (That was the only point remember, the other topics have been covered elsewhere.)

You start by criticizing the last post because it supposedly contains similar "errors". Once again let us see:

<EMDR has never been a "moving target" - this concept is an invention of the smear campaign>

That is a difference in opinion of course. I think the evidence speaks for itself but you are welcomed to disagree.

<The role of eye movements is still an open question>

Again depends on your interpretation. The fact remains that numerous studies have NOT demonstrated the benefit of "bilateral stimulation" on standardized measures of improvement. Research can not easily demonstrate that an effect doesn't exist, just that one does. (Even though I should not have to mention this because it should be obvious). Therefore, it is clear that your interpretation of the dismantling studies is inappropriate from a scientific standpoint.

If you continue to do study after study UNTIL you find what you would like then I believe that you are open to being labeled a pseudoscience. Like it or not, many can easily come to this conclusion based on your line of reasoning.

<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?>

Again, please refer to the recent article by Devilly (2001):

"This article presented a brief review of a growing trend for EMDR-related samples to show dissipation in treatment gains over time. This is a direct comparison to exposure-based treatments to maintain gains over time or to continue to improve the functioning of those treated...The explanation offered in this article was based predominantly on the effects of distraction on exposure and, specifically, its interfering effects on habituation."

However, I agree that this hypothesis requires more direct empirical evidence. Research investigating the use of brief exposures in EMDR is the only thing that would be interesting at this point. Especially considering that EMDR clearly has been shown to be inferior to CBT now in 3 independent controlled studies for PTSD, specific phobias, and recently panic disorder.

Again, you are welcomed to disagree but you have not pointed to any acutal inaccuracies, even though you make such claims repeatedly.

Your frequent and vocal cries of "ad hominem" do not succeed in obfuscating the issues.

Replies:

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.