Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

re reply to [User:Lmaxfield|Lmaxfield]

You are right a section on matters that are still controversial needs to be added I have done so and welcome any additional comments you wish to make Dr Chris Lee

Category

I am not convinced that this article should be in category:psychiatry and category:mental health as well as category:psychotherapy, category:clinical psychology and category:psychology. I have therefore removed it from categories mental health and psychiatry. Are there any objections? --Vincej 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections. However, the author failed to mention the complete finding of the Devilly and Spence (1999) article; the study found a CBT package to be a better then EMDR in a treatment for PTSD.

Claims

Dear Folks,

This article starts with claims, (as if we are talking about quackery). The article on psychotherapy starts with intends.

Psychotherapy is a set of techniques intended to improve mental health, emotional or behavioral issues of individuals, group, or family interactional climates.

How about we just use intends in the description, and leave accusations to the section on controversy?

Good idea. DPeterson^talk 12:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Research for both sides

Please read the following: http://www.perkinscenter.net/page2.html

Kind Regards,

Ben Meijer 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

While interesting, this article was not published in a professional peer-reviewed journal. While that does not necessarily "discredit" the article, it's lack of peer-review should reduce reliance on the article and it's conclusions. Professional peer review is one way to ensure that the article is sound and that the conclusions reached are valid. Therefore this article may be of limited utility. DPeterson^talk 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete sentence if no citations are provided

I propose that the following sentence be deleted if no one can provide a reference: Although the technique has been substantiated through repeated studies and meta-analyses, some in the field of psychology claim that it is non-falsifiable, asserting it should not have scientific status. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. The section should be delted if no citation can be provided. JonesRD_talk 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I've deleted it...if anyone disagrees with my action, please let me know so we can discuss it. RalphLender^talk 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. DPeterson^talk 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits that DPeterson just added ("The long-term effects are still under study, with evidence of a deterioration in gains and relative inefficacy compared to well-practiced" and "The technique has been doubted compared to other treatments through meta-analysis and some claim that it is non-falsifiable") do not sound NPOV to me - they sound POV biased *against* EMDR. Kat, Queen of Typos 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that DPeterson only made one edit and did not make the changes you are suggesting. (I'd first thought you were addressing me...sorry about that) Whomever added those also attached a citation. If the citation/reference supports the statement, then it meets the Wikipedia verifiable standard and should stay. However, if you find those citations and find that the articles do not support the statements, please note that here and then you should either delete and/or edit the statements. JonesRD_talk 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad... the ones Devilly made. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV? Delete sections or provide citations

The following in the beginning paragraph should either be better sourced or deleted: The fact that EMDR appears to be similar to classic exposure therapy dressed up with unnecessary finger wagging lead to Harvard University psychology professor Richard McNally's classic statement on EMDR: "What is effective is not new. What is new is not effective."

If there is disagreement with my actions, I will replace the deletion pending further discussion here. OK? JohnsonRon 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am not good with Wikipedia citations, but someone needs to remove the citations from the article body and place them in footnotes. They are seriously impairing the readability of the article. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from subpage

Hello Team, I finally am on board... Doing some great research. I am excited to post it when I have the confidence.... Meredith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeredithBeard (talk • contribs) .

I am still waiting to get the book that has the case studies in from Summit. I will post them as soon as they arrive. Hopefully it will be no later than Friday. Jen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JenP0623 (talk • contribs) .

I'm with you guys. Elizabeth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElizabethMyers (talk • contribs) .

Hey guys, I added a lot of stuff, not sure if it will stay on for very long, check it out and let me know what you think. Also, feel free to help with the editing and things, I am not very good at that part. See you Wednesday Team!!! Meredith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeredithSoileau (talk • contribs) .

Well team I did some serious editing. I hope you all approve. We still need to do the suggested footnoting of intext citations.ElizabethMyers

Reading Like A Sermon

I've given up helping on this page. I have many scientific publications on this topic and know the research very well. Changes I made (backed with references) have been removed, references to any views other than that which will further the goals of EMDRIA (the company) have been deleted, any edits made by anyone suggesting that there is doubt on the method, it's utility, scientific standing (and even history of how it was 'discovered') have been neatly expunged and there is now a messianic cult feeling to the whole page. Is this really the point of Wikipedia? I think you'll find it isn't. Grant 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

EMDR controversial?

I believe this is an outdated view: Please see the Amer Psychiatri Asso who has EMDR in their guidelines: http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/treatg/quick_ref_guide/ASD-PTSD_QRG.pdf

vets http://www.oqp.med.va.gov/cpg/PTSD/PTSD_cpg/frameset.htm

and other international treatment institutes: http://www.emdrhap.org/emdr_info/researchandresources.php?PHPSESSID=2170

so can we please drop the ultra conservative stance. EMDR is here to stay, even if the sceptics have a problem with it. The sceptics will always have this problem. I dont rate their information as highly as these renown guidelines.

Ben Meijer 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I'm afraid that you're very wrong here. Many serious scientists have stopped researching EMDR because it has been shown quite convincingly that "what is new is not effective, and what is effective is not new" (McNally, 1999). APA and NICE are now starting to revise their guidelines based upon how their analysis is being used / interpreted. Here's what happened: A meta-analysis can look at treatment modality or it can look at mechanism of change. They used treatment modality for their analysis (commenting that it's probably the exposure which worked) and EMDR International jumped on this as an endorsement. I was on the scientific committee which put the Australian guidelines together (coming out officially in early 2007) and we made it very clear that the exposure is what seems to be effective and that there are concerns with EMDR regarding long-term follow-up. The problem is the lack of falsifiability with EMDR (see Devilly, G.J. (2005) Power Therapies and threats to the science of psychiatry and psychology. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry). Other therapies which suffer from the same problem include TFT, EFT, TAT, VKD, etc. These same sceptics helped to write these renown guidelines. No matter your opinion on EMDR - it's a waste of time vs it's a panacea - it will be controversial. Grant 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You mention that APA and NICE "are now starting to revise their guidelines..." but have those guidelines acutally changed? Is there any current and recent (say published within the last three years) research in professional peer-reviewed journals that supports the view that EMDR is controversial? I think, given the heat of feelings on this subject, sticking to reliable and verifiable evidence will be most helpful. DPeterson^talk 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why certainly - I'd be only too happy. I've put some of my papers (published in Tier 1 and 2 Journals) on a website for you to download. Go to http://www.clintools.com/publications.zip and you'll have a few of mine (it's a bit of a grey area for me to post too many of other people's articles). Then I'd suggest looking at Rothbaum et al's in Journal of Traumatic Stress (2005 or 6 from memory) and maybe see Taylor et al (2003) in Journal of consulting & clinical psychology who ended their abstract with: "Compared with EMDR and relaxation training, exposure therapy (a) produced significantly larger reductions in avoidance and reexperiencing symptoms, (b) tended to be faster at reducing avoidance, and (c) tended to yield a greater proportion of participants who no longer met criteria for PTSD after treatment. EMDR and relaxation did not differ from one another in speed or efficacy". I've just thought about it and included that paper in the zip file too. There's no way of quibbling around this - it's controversial and it's verifiable. I've cited the literature and had my referenced edits removed from the page but if people aren't willing to read the citations then I can't really be held to blame. Grant 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But have APA and NICE actually changed their guidelines? DPeterson^talk 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Taylor article concludes, "EMDR and relaxation did not differ from one another in speed or efficacy." I'd suggest that if you want to post on the topic, that the best way to avoid the conflicts you've had in the past would be use actual complete and contextually relevant quotes to support your points...that would clearly meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiable and should not, then, be deleted or altered. DPeterson^talk 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, getting personal? hmmmm. What I posted above was in the abstract and I've given you the actual manuscripts. If you want I can ask Steve Taylor to drop by the discussion? But all aside, surely your interpretation of his article confirms "controversy" - which was the point. I research trauma treatments, which do tend to stir emotions. It's not really surprising I would have disagreements with people. I didn't say, however, that APA and NICE "HAVE" changed their guidelines. QED. Grant 01:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you said, "APA and NICE are now starting to revise their guidelines based upon how their analysis is being used.." I merely asked if they actually had revised their guidelines...if not, then the point your implied is not relevant. DPeterson^talk 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

```

As I said - "starting" not "have". The controversy (the point of this thread) is now taken, I assume. In the spirit of Wikipedia - would you like me to send you the Australian Treatment Guidelines the day they're released? Should be first quarter of next year. Grant 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the "revised" guidelines have not been published, there are not a relevant source to support your statements here since the statement is not verifiable. So, I'd suggest making your arguments using verifiable materials as that will engender more support and less conflict. DPeterson<sup>talk</sup> 10:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My only thought is, that Grant, if you've written some of the research papers that are referenced in the article - which, unless I'm misunderstanding, you are suggesting we use those as references - well, it might be a Conflict of interest.Kat, Queen of Typos 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point...my reading of the Conflict of Interest leads me to reach the same conclusion RalphLender<sup>talk</sup> 14:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not guys - read it again and then consult someone else uninvolved with this debate. I must admit that it's quite funny that when the 'expert' who wrote the research papers and is not involved with EMDR Institute (which is the main body that stands to gain from advertising EMDR as this article currently does) then there is a conflict of interest :-))) Funny. Grant 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello folks,

Re: Grant 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first posting. I'm talking about EMDR being controversial. Not why or how it works. Not about your personal opinion. Re; Other therapies which suffer from the same problem include TFT, EFT, TAT, VKD, etc. These same sceptics helped to write these renown guidelines. Is this opinion or fact? Sounds like opinion.

EMDR works, and people accept it so much to include it in the guidelines. What is the dictionary definition of controversial? And what does inclusion in the guidelines mean about acceptance?

Ben Meijer 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remove controversial in the title, not the working mechanism.

anybody who cures is entitled to an opinion about how things work. Instead of trying to squash new approaches, lets concentrate (and state in the article) on the simple fact that EMDR is accepted, just looking at the number of practitioners, acceptance of the public, + guidelines. Now tons of people may debate why EMDR works, and what the active ingredients are. Fact stands, EMDR is now so accepted it is included in GUIDELINES. I really dont care if EMDR may be no more than a form of exposure, and that the explanation may be hogwash. Explanations change over time, this has been the case since the earth was considered flat. Does this EMDR form of therapy work? Is it accepted? Also, how do EMDR people look at therapy?

I really dont care if it has been PROVEN to work, just if it works.

EMDR is not controversial, the mechanism as to how is debated.

Ben Meijer 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Research Institute?

After searching Google, the only reference, period, to "Mortal Research Institute" is on this Wikipedia article. Is it possible the name of the institute is incorrect? Kat, Queen of Typos 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're after: "Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto". I would correct it myself but, knowing a thing or two about EMDR, it seems it might be a conflict of interest ;-) Grant 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The sarcasm is unnecessary. I refer to where you said "Why certainly - I'd be only too happy. I've put some of my papers (published in Tier 1 and 2 Journals) on a website for you to download." Kat, Queen of Typos 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fix reference 17

I am not sure how - can someone fix reference 17? The URL near the end of the page, in the References column, stretches from column 1 across column 2 and makes it hard to read. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5