Behavior OnLine EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000

    Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis
    Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD · 06/18/01 at 9:48 PM ET

    Here's another thing.

    Given that the treatment is efficacious (and it has been found to be efficacious by Division 12 of the APA, and by the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, not to mention the metaanalysis in question) here is an interesting question.

    If EMDR is merely exposure (I don't believe this but just for the sake of argument, let's accept the premise for a moment), then why would self-proclaimed skeptics be so against it? Indeed, examine the situation from an ecological and cultural vantage point: we have 35,000 mental health professionals trained in the world's most rigorous tightly controlled, prepped, processed and matriculated exposure therapy known to man. In a decade, instead of exposure therapy being conducted by the handful of PhD psychologists who hatched from University cognitive behavioral programs alone (such as myself), we have social workers, marriage and family counselors, and even Gasp! psychiatrists and nurses marching along applying an efficacious exposure treatment. This wouldn't be a bad thing folks, if this construction were true. I'll bet there are cognitive behavior therapists who wish they'd had the wherewithall and chutzpah and sheer grit to advocate for the "exposure" treatment and insist it be conducted ethically and with appropriate training and adherence to the protocol that Shapiro has done. She has the world's attention and they just can't stand it. There is a sociological and/or anthropological dissertation to be done here.

    For the record, I am convinced it isn't just exposure therapy. I'll explain why in another post.

    By the way, Skeptic, it is good form in academic circles to identify oneself in a post such as this or yours. The lay public can be anonymous, but why would a professional hide?

    Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD
    Fair Oaks, California

    Replies:
    • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Skeptic, 07/07/01
      • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/08/01
        • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Skeptic, 07/09/01
          • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/10/01
    • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Skeptic, 07/07/01
      • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/08/01
        • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Skeptic, 07/09/01
          • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/10/01
            • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by A Skeptic Still, 07/10/01
              • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Tim, 07/11/01
                • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Still "Skeptic", 07/11/01
                  • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/12/01
                  • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Skeptic, 07/12/01
                  • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 07/12/01
                  • Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis, by client, 07/12/01

    Reply Index Next Previous Help



    | Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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