Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Undue weight on the 2013 meta analysis? Not enough on the 2020

I think we need to make a WP:MEDRS pass on this article. In particular, a lot hinges on the 2013 (Lee & Cuijpers) review. However, in the 2020 meta analysis they say they could not "confirm" the 2013 review. Further, in the 2020 analysis they say it is the "first systematic review of randomized trials examining the effects of EMDR for any mental health problem." From the text of the article a lay reader gets the impression that the quality of the research is much better than it really is. The 2013 analysis is presented as more definitive than it is. If I'm reading this right, we should probably make it more clear that the previous reviews are not reviews of randomized trials. And the 2013 review is particularly weak. Persuasive in this regard is the fact that one of the leads on the 2013 analysis (Cuijpers) is the lead on the 2020 one. Further, I think some low quality and old studies should be deleted from the article. Does anyone want to help with this?DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Novella, Pseudoscience and NOPROMO

@JCJC777: I think it worth discussing your recent reversions of my edits here in Talk. Dr. Novella is a highly credentialed practicing clinical neurologist. I think that makes him an expert on the neurological claims being made about EMDR, don't you? As to whether or not the site Science Based Medicine is WP:RS -- Yes, yes it is. What's more, the specific quote which you cut (see below) gives a valuable big picture of what exactly is being debated here. Critics aren't just saying that the underlying theory is unfalsifiable. Secondly, the analogy to aspirin is problematic. I get your point, so I haven't cut it yet. However, technically unless you can find WP:RS using aspirin in defense of EMDR, then what we have is SYNTH and WP:OR. What's more broadly troubling me (see my comment above) is that when a lay person reads this page, it seems to say that there has been a lot of research and it seems to mostly support the claims. When in fact, the best and most recent research is saying that it has limited application short term effects for PTSD and the broader claims for other conditions are not (yet?) supported. Let's make sure this page isn't verging into PROMO. My specific suggestion: I'd like the ==Pseudoscience== subheading to include the Novella quote and be closer to what I had there before. If you can find WP:RS that supports the idea about aspirin, I think we should keep it, but until we find something like that, it's probably a cut, or, oddly, we should cut the irrelevant citation and let the sentence stand as an unsupported sentence. LMK what you think.

"[T]he false specificity of these treatments is a massive clinical distraction. Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina, thanks for all you are doing for wiki.

I'm happy to agree to your suggestions.

I guess I was wanting (a) the casual reader to get the sense that, although better research is needed, that a number of the small studies look hopeful, and that EMDR really does seem to help some people, with no adverse side effects that I all aware of, and thus 'open the door' to them maybe using it for themselves or loved ones. (b) the researcher reading this to be encouraged to consider doing some of the future research needed.

But maybe both those goals are inappropriate for a wiki article.

Best JCJC777 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

i.e. having the Novella quote so strong up there seems an unnecessary and over-harsh 'slamming of the door' which will put off both public and researchers from using and researching something that, although perhaps off-putting to some (competitive therapies, and to general skeptics), does seem to really help some people. JCJC777 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to check out WP:MEDRS? I understand that you are trying to make good faith edits, but they are amounting to promotion and advocacy. Our individual opinions, even if we happen to be actual experts ourselves (in fact, especially if we happen to be actual experts or practitioners) are not supposed to enter into it. It's best to let qualified and reliable sources do the talking, and if you want to do advocacy that should be done in other forms of media. Then those sources can be used as citations here, not the other way around. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Bilateral stimulation into EMDR. As far as I can tell, Bilateral stimulation is a concept that only makes sense as part of EMDR. And even so, its value to EMDR is disputed. So an independent article about a contested part of EMDR is not notable. Let's discuss what from the Bilateral stimulation page would be of use on this page. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DolyaIskrina. My view is the two articles should remain separate. Research has focused on eye movement effects completely apart from any EMDR connection. In the future this trend may contiue. I think it is wrong to 'bury' bilateral stimulation within the EMDR article. I would probably go the other way; we should possibly take some of the eye movement comment and refs out of the EMDR article and move them to the bilateral stimulation article. JCJC777 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Howso? What specific references support this?

I've asked for help at WP:FTN. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to do the merger in a day or two. Speak now or forever hold your peace.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How emdr really would work.

Okay, so when you think about the process of this therapy. You are working threw a rem inducing state the deepest point into our subconscious At any given point we are only using 4-6% of our concious mind, 94-96% of any choice we make or path we choose is subconscious so directly rewriting the make up of my thoughts and my memories LeighShaeLynne (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This YouTube video by one of the authors of a recent paper published in Nature I believe, mentions four other recent papers all indicating how it works. I'll list it here in case anyone wants to follow up; it's not my area of expertise. Basically, when you move forward, things in your peripheral vision appear to slide away to the left and right. In other words, these left and right visual motions are a cue that you’re moving towards something. Researchers determined this experimentally, and in particular that it’s connected to a third strategy beyond the hard-wired choices of Flight or Flight. When you move forward in the face of a threat (in a healthy way), acetylcholine suppresses the activity of the amygdala and releases dopamine as a reward system. This is an ancient mechanism of the visual system hardwired into the brain, common to many species. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZVw-9ThmSM and https://www.hubermanlab.com/publications.html Lukekendall (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

LukeKendall:: your suggestion and reference to the youtube video by Dr. Andrew Huberman (tenured Professor of Neurobiology and Ophthalmology at Stanford University School of Medicine) is right-on-target. Extremely useful. Concur this material should get coverage in this wikipedia article. I might try a shot or 'jab' at it. James Rodriguez 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

The edit made to the introduction of EMDR is false and misleading. Please correct it. It is referenced from one article and listed as of 2017 not 2020. 184.66.239.83 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro is an opinion and not objective

“Even though EMDR is effective, critics(who?) call it a pseudoscience because only the desensitization component has scientific support.”(where is the source for this?) SteinOnkel (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point (if I understand your point). I think that sentence should be cut since it isn't directly supported by RS. It's an overly ambitious summation of the state of affairs. There is some indication that EMDR is somewhat effective for some things, and on the other hand, the critics have multiple reasons for calling it pseudoscience, not just that one.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xsivfun1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversial

My attempt to reflect this statement present in the Criticism section "EMDR has historically been controversial within the psychological community" in the lead keeps getting reverted by one editor as being POV. I don't see how this change is controversial, as it is already in the article, and the lead needs to summarize the article. Rp2006 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:WTW. I have linked to it several times already. It specifically highlights "controversial" as a word to watch. It is basic common sense: "X is a controversial Y" tells the reader absolutely nothing. It is vague and subjective. It neither summarises nor conveys anything encyclopaedic. You have to explain whatever controversy there is. The final sentence of the lead section very clearly does that.

Even if you had some very good reason to go against the very clear and common sense guidelines, you would want to write something grammatically correct. What you keep adding is not grammatically correct. Nevgerid (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my grammar. And you are misconstruing the guidelines IMHO. Rp2006 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dunno, guy. Just looked up some of your edits and your grammar is kinda not great. Also, EMDR is pseudoscience, sorry. 68.3.76.17 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

EMDR is not psuedoscience anymore than any psycholocical treatment or concept is. Your opinion is not backed by any credible evidence. EMDR is.

"Thirty RCTs have documented the positive effects of the bilateral stimulation used in the EMDR therapy (Lee and Cuijpers, 2013) and a meta-analysis (Swift and Greenberg, 2014) reported a high treatment retention rate. International professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2004); Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (2004, 2017); Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM Collective Expertise Centre, 2000/2004); World Health Organization (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013) designate EMDR therapy as an effective trauma treatment. Yet, in spite of broad recognition of the effectiveness of EMDR therapy, it has been the subject of few veteran-focused research studies. In fact, excluding component analyses (e.g., Boudewyns and Hyer, 1996) and studies utilizing only two sessions (e.g., Jensen, 1994; Devilly et al., 1998), the only RCT evaluating EMDR therapy in the treatment of American veterans with PTSD was conducted in 1998 (Carlson et al., 1998). The treatment resulted in a 76% elimination of PTSD in 12 sessions, with a zero dropout rate. Comparable results have been reported from a variety of case series (Lipke and Botkin, 1992; Silver et al., 1995, 2008; Young, 1995; Howard and Cox, 2006; Wesson and Gould, 2009; Wright and Russell, 2012). In addition, EMDR has proven successful in the treatment of co-occurring phantom limb pain in military personnel (e.g., Russell, 2008)."

reference

Hurley, E. C. (2018). Effective Treatment of Veterans With PTSD: Comparison Between Intensive Daily and Weekly EMDR Approaches. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01458 2600:1702:4420:6430:E942:F4A:7F94:58E9 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have had the same problem. There is an editor who continues to revert that statement to his opinion despite a mountain of cited evidence to the contrary. EMDR is considered evidence-based treatment for PTSD, psychological trauma, childhood trauma, and anxiety disorders by the APA and WHO which *IS* the psychological community .Hopefully as we keep posting evidence, the other editors will stop this person from putting his outdated opinion as fact. No one in the accredited psychological community thinks EMDR is pseudoscience. It is being used in psychiatric hospitals around the world. 2600:1702:4420:6430:E942:F4A:7F94:58E9 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

is EMDR pseudoscience?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

for interest here is GPT-4 view

"EMDR is not considered pseudoscience, as it has empirical support and has undergone a significant amount of scientific research. Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated the effectiveness of EMDR for treating PTSD and other trauma-related disorders. In fact, EMDR is recognized as an evidence-based treatment by organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

However, the exact mechanism by which EMDR works remains a topic of debate among researchers. Some critics argue that the eye movement component of EMDR is not essential for its effectiveness and that it may be the exposure therapy and cognitive restructuring aspects of the treatment that produce positive outcomes.

In conclusion, EMDR is not considered pseudoscience, but further research is needed to fully understand its underlying mechanisms and to refine the technique for maximum effectiveness. JCJC777 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

GPT-4 is not a reliable source for anything. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with MrOllie, GPT-4 can easily be made to say wrong things confidently. Loki (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

agreed. was just for interest. JCJC777 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Pseudoscience" section

Pseudoscience is a WP:LABEL. It requires very strong sourcing to declare a scientific theory as pseudoscience. EMDR has lots of scientific backing, and so two twenty-year old sources and a professional opinion do not qualify to describe it as that. There are more and better sources linked for just the eye movement portion than were linked in that entire section, so there clearly isn't the appropriate WP:WEIGHT to describe it as such.

Frankly the entire criticism section is problematic. There are already criticisms integrated into the "mechanism" section, like they ordinarily should be. Every subsection of the criticism section relies on only a handful of poor sources (one section is sourced to just one Scientific American article, for instance). It's probably justified to just nuke all of it, frankly.

I'm pinging Bon_courage because they recently reverted me on this. Loki (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing seems fine. Anything that says it ain't PS? Bon courage (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, the giant list of sources in the article, such as:

• This Cochrane review
• This other systemic review
• This other *other* systemic review
• This meta-analysis specifically about the eye movement part
• This other meta-analysis
• The WHO practice guidelines
• The APA practice guidelines
• And a bunch more, these are just the highest quality ones I could pick out.

Loki (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Do any of those consider the pseudoscience question? Loads of pseudosciences have these kinds of academic accretions. Classically, homeopathy. If in doubt, I suggest raise this at WP:FT/N (again?) Bon courage (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Homeopathy has a (famously gun-shy) Cochrane review supporting it? News to me! Loki (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cochrane doesn't 'support' it: all the evidence, it says, is of 'very low quality'. And yes, Cochrane still churns out homeopathy reviews. They're uncertain whether homeopathy is effective for IBS, for example.[1] Of course we get homeopathists saying this proves homeopathy isn't pseudoscience. But all it proves is that Cochrane reviews often consider pseudoscientific interventions without discrimination. Bon courage (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly Cochrane did note the evidence was low quality, but it's pretty rare for them to say something like This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician‐assessed PTSD symptoms. They're famously gun-shy, as your homeopathy link proves.

But if you won't accept Cochrane, what about the WHO and APA? They both say EMDR is effective for PTSD.

Basically I feel like you're ignoring WP:V to try and stand a few weak sources above all the other sources in the article. We already describe the real controversy about EMDR (namely, that the evidence for the eye movement stuff specifically is not strong) elsewhere in the article. We don't need to have a whole section describing it as pseudoscientific as a whole as well, because it's manifestly not. Loki (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just follow the sources. Are there ones we're missing that address the pseudoscience categorization? Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All the ones that are scientific support for EMDR (which is to say, most of the sources in the article) address it.

I feel like we're talking in circles here, so I'm going to bring this over to WP:DRN. Loki (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems premature. Will decline to participate. Would be happy to see some discussion at WP:FT/N to widen the viewpoints gathered. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I refuse to take this to FTN because I don't believe it's a fringe theory. I'm happy to take it to WP:NPOVN, however. Loki (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

At FTN you'll get told whether or not it's fringe. It's been discussed there multiple times before. At least you now have put your personal POV on the table. Me, I'll follow the sources, wherever they lead. (ADD. Anyway, I've saved you the trouble: see WP:FT/N#EMDR.) Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Is EMDR pseudoscience?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which best describes the state of the research into EMDR:

• A. EMDR is well-supported by evidence and not pseudoscience.
• B. EMDR is not pseudoscience, but parts of it are not supported by evidence.
• C. Parts of EMDR are pseudoscientific, but not all of it.
• D. EMDR is pseudoscience.

Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A or B: There's lots of evidence for the effectiveness of EMDR in PTSD, including several large meta-analyses, and many recommendations by professional organizations. The evidence for its effectiveness for other conditions is a little weaker, and the evidence that the eye movement part of EMDR is a significant part of its effectiveness is weaker still, to the point that it's still in active dispute. But no part of that means that EMDR is pseudoscientific in any way. That allegation comes from a handful of die-hard critics of EMDR that originally made it in the 90s and 2000s when the evidence base was much less robust, a few of whom still refuse to give it up despite increasing amounts of evidence for it. Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would be a total violation of NPOV. You simply cannot say "EMDR is not pseudoscience" when NO source says this any may sources say the opposite. This seems like either trolling or a WP:CIR problem. I would support a block/TBAN for this editor. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Many sources say "EMDR is not pseudoscience" through the mechanism of doing science about it. It's very rare in any situation for a source to explicitly say that something is not pseudoscience, and so that is not and never has been the standard Wikipedia has for these situations. I understand that you disagree with this argument but, frankly, I don't need to WP:SATISFY you on this point and would like you to refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING. You only need to say what you have to say once, not everywhere. Loki (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above. EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience in whole and in part. These subtle distinctions need to be apparent. Follow the sources to achieve WP:NPOV rather than trying to shoehorn things into reductive pre-conceived editorial silos. Bon courage (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Other. Taking a well known scientific treatment and adding pseudo-scientific tinsel on top leads to something that is both effective and pseudoscience. This has been explained to the RFC poster at length at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#EMDR. Looking at studies that show that EMDR is better than nothing (or even various other weakly effective treatments) and twisting that to mean it isn't pseudoscience as the OP does is WP:OR, pure and simple. But even so, the current position of the article is not represented in this RFC, which states that it has been characterized as a pseudoscience which is a weaker statement than is contemplated here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a phrasing for an option you would like me to add? Loki (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also, a quick note: the reason the question is phrased as it is is that the edits being made to this page that I objected to were stuff like adding it to the category "pseudoscience", and asserting that it's considered pseudoscience in Wikivoice. The yes-or-no "is this pseudoscience" framing here is not mine, I've tried to break out as many subcategories as I can. Loki (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Other and None of the above. -Roxy the dog 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain your reasoning please? Loki (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Status quo looks good. It's not syntactically proper to say that EMDR is pseudoscience, but the various 'theories' promoted to explain it certainly are pseudoscientific. Feoffer (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure which option best encapsulates this, but I support the status quo, which includes the section §Pseudoscience and the line "EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience, because the underlying theory is unfalsifiable." I think there are improvements to be made, but they don't align well with either having to declare EMDR (or parts of it) as pseudoscience or having to remove all mention of pseudoscience. By "status quo", I mean the status quo ante, before the recent content dispute (something lik this version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC) underlined content added 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question to you and Feoffer: is the option you're looking for something along the lines of Some researchers have characterized EMDR or parts of it as pseudoscientific, but not enough to describe it as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice? Or no? Loki (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone really pitch the case for a wikivoice statement that EMDR is pseudoscientific, so I don't feel ready to weigh in on that question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can say a 'practice' is pseudoscientific, but the theories and claims certainly are. At the same time, there's nothing at all pseudoscientific about the legitimate research that have tried to estimate effects of the practices, if any, or theory that any effect derives from known mechanisms already present in exposure therapy. Feoffer (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, the practice of pseudoscience is usually called quackery, a different thing. So whether EMDR practice is quackery would be a different question. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree! If there are RSes accusing EMDR practice of being 'quackery', I certainly wouldn't object to including such a attributed quote to that effect. It is on QuackWatch, after all... At best, EMDR would be like osteopathic manual therapy or chiropractic adjustments; Something born out of pseudoscientific folk practice that may have accidentally had a very limited utility for reasons entirely coincidental to the false (if not unfalsifiable) theories that initially inspired it. Assuming sources exist to support it, there's no doubt readers should be warned about EMDR's deceptively scientific name, for example. FRINGE and Category:Pseudoscience are very relevant on this article. Feoffer (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Other and None of the above...So each of the choices seem to mention pseudoscience, while none of the current RS I've found seem to mention that term, including these NYT, Journal of Neurology & Neuromedicine, Cambridge.org...DN (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you offer a phrasing for your "other"? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That there's no sourcing for the claim that it's pseudoscience? That there's no sourcing either way? Loki (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • NYT is lay press
  • The Journal of Neurology & Neuromedicine is predatory junk
  • For a discussion of pseudoscience from a CUP publication, see [2]. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  JNeurology&Neuromedicine is not a reliable source, and NYT and Cambridge.org are not WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above capture the essence of WP:FRINGE/QS that EMDR seems to fit into: hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific. My preferred version would be not to unambiguously state that it is pseudoscientific, rather to describe the notable critique that believe it is pseudoscientific, both in whole and in part. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• non-neutral RFC and Support "characterized as pseudoscience". The choices here are designed in such a way that the most logical option is obscured in favor of the proposer's preferred choices. There also is no "status quo" option provided. Based on the best available sources, EMDR is, at its core, based upon pseudoscientific theories with no clear mechanism of action and no reproducible demonstration of efficacy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  no reproducible demonstration of efficacy with Rosen saying most everyone agrees that EMDR can be beneficial in the treatment of PTSD demands an explanation, maybe science-based and evidence-based should make an appearance in the content? fiveby(zero) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Explain why Pseudoscience in Therapy citing "Why Evidence-Based Practice Isn't Enough: A Call for Science-Based Practice." and Debates over this central question (e.g., Herbert et al., 2000) have challenged the very foundations for using empirically supported treatments as a guide to sound clinical practice might generate some informative content for the reader. fiveby(zero) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above per Bon courage, with a side of non-neutral RfC per Shibbolethink. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Here's a description of the relevant sourcing about EMDR. First, about its effectiveness in general:

• This 2013 Cochrane review found The evidence for each of the comparisons made in this review was assessed as very low quality. This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician‐assessed PTSD symptoms. There was evidence that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non‐TFCBT are equally effective immediately post‐treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There was some evidence that TFCBT and EMDR are superior to non‐TFCBT between one to four months following treatment, and also that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non‐TFCBT are more effective than other therapies.
• This 2016 systematic review found Effect sizes for PTSD symptom reduction were large for exposure-based therapy, CPT, cognitive restructuring, CBT-mixed therapies, NET, and EMDR.
• This 2019 systemic review found EMDR may be effective in the treatment of PTSD in the short term, but the quality of studies is too low to draw definite conclusions. There is not enough evidence to advise it for the use in other mental health problems.
• This 2021 meta-analysis specifically about EMDR for non-PTSD disorders found A positive effect was reported in numerous pathological situations, namely in addictions, somatoform disorders, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders, disorders of adult personality, mood disorders, reaction to severe stress, anxiety disorders, performance anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), pain, neurodegenerative disorders, mental disorders of childhood and adolescence, and sleep but Despite a generally positive outlook of EMDR as an alternative treatment option, more methodologically rigorous studies are needed
• The following professional organizations recommend EMDR for PTSD in their guidelines: NICE, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, the American Psychological Association (but only "conditionally recommends"), the American Psychiatric Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the International Society of Trauma Stress Studies, and the World Health Organization.

Second, about the effectiveness of the eye movements specifically:

• This 2001 study finds little effectiveness for the eye movements (and also uses the word "pseudoscience").
• This 2001 meta-analysis also finds little effectiveness for the eye movements.
• Same with this 2002 meta-analysis.
• This 2012 systematic review, in contrast, does find that the eye movements are important.
• This 2013 meta-analysis also finds that the eye movements have a "moderate and significant" additive effect.
• The third meta-analysis I linked in the section above did not find a significant difference between EMDR with and without eye movements; I do feel the need to point out here that they also say the assumption that EMDR only works through the cognitive-behavioral elements seems to be too simple.

And finally, criticism of EMDR:

• This 2007 Scientific American article (which we have mislabled in the article as from 2012 for some reason) asserts that “What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective.” However, it does not use the word "pseudoscience" directly. (E 01:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC): It seems the researcher who originally said that line appears to have been convinced otherwise since he said it.)
• This article from 2000 explicitly accuses EMDR of being pseudoscientific.
• This 2002 article raises similar concerns about EMDR's effectiveness relative to other therapies as the 2007 article but only mentions the word "pseudoscience" when it discusses the 2000 article above.
• This 2011 opinion article in Science-Based Medicine says that the eye movement part of EMDR "sounds pseudoscientific to this neurologist".
• (E 04:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC): According to Bon_courage, this chapter of a book about pseudoscience in social work practice from 2015 mentions EMDR.)

Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Adding this up here so it's easily visible) This very recently released book on "Pseudoscience in Therapy" lists EMDR under "Implausible Therapies Based on Quirky Methods" in its section on Trauma. I will say however that on a quick read, it actually seems somewhat equivocal about how scientific exactly EMDR is, and furthermore most of its citations in that regard are pretty old: from the 90s or early 2000s. Loki (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help your case that you've omitted recent sources from previous discussions that are entirely on point, just because it seems thy don't conform to your WP:PROFRINGE POV. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I omitted the book sources you mentioned because I couldn't link them, so they wouldn't be very useful. I presumed you were going to bring them up anyway, and so of course my intention was not to exclude them. That'd just be dumb, wouldn't it, to assume that I could exclude sources that my opponent was obviously going to bring up immediately, right?

Also, to be clear here, I don't believe I have much of a POV at all here. My first encounter with the EMDR controversy or any of the details of EMDR practice was literally reading this article a few weeks ago. Upon reading it, my first reaction was "it seems silly to describe this thing with so much scientific evidence as pseudoscientific, that's just not what that word means at all". Honestly, it's mostly your insistence specifically that EMDR is pseudoscience hard stop that has made me push back so hard on this point. Loki (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You need much better reasoning than that! - Roxy the dog 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean you 'couldn't link them'? Have you read this sources? Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean they're not websites, they're books. I can't access them easily, and I can't exactly cite you on a different noticeboard, right? So I figured, you have access so you cite them. Loki (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You can cite them with a cite template. How can you possibly be arguing for NPOV when you haven't read the relevant sources? NPOV means being aligned to sources. Bon courage (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Feoffer and Firefangledfeathers, when you say you "support the status quo" do you mean the status quo before the edits that inspired this RFC were made or the status quo as in the current state of the article (including the category "pseudoscience" and sections which describe EMDR as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice)? Loki (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Note the current state of the article linked does not have 'sections which describe EMDR as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice'. Bon courage (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  You recently added the line Unusually for interventions that are considered pseudoscientific, EMDR has been subject to a number of randomized controlled trials., which is to say, you're saying that EMDR is pseudoscientific in Wikivoice. You also added it to the category "pseudoscience".

  Furthermore, you also describe it in the lead as It has been characterized as a pseudoscience and is only as effective as its underlying therapeutic methods without EMDR's distinctive add-ons, which doesn't quite describe it as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice but does describe it as the definition of a purple hat therapy in Wikivoice, which I also object to. Loki (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wrong. Saying that things "are considered pseudoscience" is saying that they are "considered" pseudoscience, in Wikivoice. Not that they "are" pseudoscience. Nor do we say it "is" a purple hat therapy in Wikivoice, but that it has been called that. You are objecting to your own misunderstanding. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to clarify this in my !vote above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Err, you mean you want to remove any mention of pseudoscience from the lede, and any discussion of it using the more recent academic books?!? Because that's how your reply will be interpreted. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/Question None of the most recent sources even seem to mention the word "pseudoscience" from what I glanced, and individual opinions should not be compared those of consensus by institutions and authorities on the subject. Older opinions and research needs to take a backseat to current evidence and events. Are we still using sources from 10+ years ago? Are we ignoring what current sources say? See WP:FRINGE. I can concede there has been criticism over lack of, or quality of research, but this is about what the consensus from the best RS is. Words matter. If there isn't a current consensus of RS that calls it pseudoscience that term doesn't have WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC has been framed to exclude more recent sources discussing pseudoscience. See the discussion at WP:FT/N for some. Bon courage (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did add one source and, again, you're welcome to add others. Please do, in fact. Loki (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC is already a dumpster fire because of its non-neutral framing. Creating a list of "the relevant sourcing about EMDR" and only including old sources about pseudoscience, when you knew full well there were recent ones, of course has the effect of bamboozling editors, as we see in Darknipples's response. Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCNEUTRAL says the question of the RFC has to be neutral. But past that, supporters or opponents do not have to be neutral in their support or opposition, and can argue however they like so long as it conforms with other Wikipedia policy.

  I could have not included any criticism section, or I could have included all the component studies and not just meta-analyses to give a more impressive but somewhat misleading impression of the state of the research. But instead I made a good faith effort to present those sources I genuinely thought were most relevant, and only excluded sources because I couldn't link them directly. (And not just your sources, by the way, there are supportive sources I excluded for this reason too.) When I found an accessible link to one of your critical sources I even added it up there. So, I've been way, way, way more neutral than I have to be here.

  If you think it's best to add two extra critical sources, then go ahead. I will even graciously add them up above in my summary of the sources if you can find a way to quickly summarize the relevant info from them. But I suspect the reason you're not doing that at this point is that you also realize that mentioning the existence of two sources people can't access easily isn't very useful to them anyway. Loki (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's a good source that's not instantly accessible, I "expect" people to GET ACCESS. Wikipedia is based on sources, so blowing past ones which require a library (say) to access is just bad editing. Views expressed on this topic which have deliberately avoided the WP:BESTSOURCES are just worthless. Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  For one, I don't think I have avoided the WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic. I think I've listed most of them above, in fact. For two, I did read the quotes you gave over at FTN, but given that I can't access the sources, I can't really verify your full characterization of them. You can see above that when I managed to access it I thought the most recent source you linked was noticeably more equivocal on EMDR than I felt you were characterizing it as (and also it seemed to be based only on older research without considering newer research). Loki (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Funny, I could have sworn there was an argument made at Ayurveda that a respected nonprofit organization, Cancer Research UK, was an authoritative source on its effectiveness. . . .

  Here we have another nonprofit organization, the Cleveland Clinic stating that “EMDR therapy is very common around the world. In the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense list EMDR as a “best practice” in treating veterans experiencing PTSD. Research on EMDR includes dozens of clinical trials, research studies and academic papers. It has official approval from the World Health Organization (WHO) and government organizations and agencies in the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany, among others.”

  [[3]] Cedar777 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cleveland Clinic is not MEDRS, CRUK is (as a major research organization). The "non-profit" status of either is completely irrelevant, But whatever CC says is completely irrelevant to the pseudoscience question anyway, as they don't consider it. Bon courage (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is the same Cleveland clinic that supports Reiki: [4] MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yup, they went full-on woo a while ago.[5] Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Bon Courage is correct, Loki. "They're not online" is not a valid reason to dismiss a source. Feoffer (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not dismissing these sources. As far as I can tell, they are perfectly good sources. All I'm saying is that I do not have a good way of linking them that would be relevant to readers of this RFC. Bon_courage, as they have access, is welcome to post them and despite me saying that over and over has not. I'll even add them above if they do. Loki (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right. From WP:V (core policy): "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". And from WP:NPOV (core policy): "Try the library for reputable books and journal articles". And these days it's not even that hard: we have WP:WL and WP:RX and there are myriad online ways to access content. I think this admission that this RfC is predicated on not reading the most pertinent sources just confirms the POV issue. (Besides, it's simply wrong these sources can't be linked. The first source is linked[6] in its very reference.) Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I did miss that. In my defense, the abstract doesn't mention EMDR at all so I'm still not confident that link is useful, but I will add it. Loki (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say, the 2019 quote from Richard McNally was an eye-opener. He famously said 'what's new is not effective", but by 2019 he's saying "I’ve changed my mind... I’m willing to do that based on new evidence. It looks like there’s something going on there; the representation of the trauma seems to be reconsolidated in a way that doesn’t distress people as much when later recalled." Feoffer (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

individual experts don't determine the scientific consensus, of course. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't, but as far as I can tell McNally's about-face sure is representative of a general shift in opinion. Loki (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Expert recommendations, mostly. The big professional organizations have all increasingly come to recommend it over time. (Side note regarding your recent edit: that does include the WHO. You've just misread their guidelines: just because there are situations where they don't recommend it doesn't mean they don't recommend it for PTSD in adults. This sort of clear ideological misreading of a source is why I think you have a strong POV here.) It's also been increasingly endorsed by government agencies, and when experts are interviewed (say, in the NYT) you hear a lot of doctors who say it probably works.

This shift in opinion, AFAICT, is because of the increasing evidence for its effectiveness. I think but cannot prove that the meta-analysis in 2013 that found the eye movements specifically do help also seems to have overcome some skepticism, because when compiling that list above a lot of the studies afterwards made sure to mention it prominently. Loki (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You'd need sources to show a 'shift in opinion'. Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If we wanted to say in the article that opinion has shifted, yes. The only source that seems to specifically address it is the NYT article that quotes McNally. (I swear there was an APA publication that mentioned something similar in the article before but I can't find it.) It's a shame there aren't more and better sources to source that point directly, but it's also not surprising.

However, we can absolutely notice that the most recent sources appear to be a lot more positive on EMDR than older sources, and let that information affect the WP:WEIGHT we give to the older sources. Loki (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Follow the sources to avoid WP:POVSOURCING. The pseudoscience strand has been running for over twently years consistently. Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: it appears nobody likes the options I provided, and that's clearly my fault. How would people prefer switching to or adding on a more direct question about which version of the page they prefer? Loki (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to re-write an RFC already in progress is always a bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous and, as I have said elsewhere, disruptive. We are at a stage where a high-traffic but somewhat neglected article is being updated; new sources are being searched-for, discovered, sifted and applied. Meanwhile we have ONE editor desperately trying to lock wording in place (no matter what the sources say - those they can be arsed to read anyway). Even if this editor did succeed in settling on a wording, new sources would produce new evidence and the RfC outcome would fall. The whole thing is against the grain of how Wikipedia works and our need to follow sources to achieve NPOV, not the novel notions of an editor. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a bunch of editors at this point that object to what you're doing. Loki (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What matters is getting good content in line with the WP:PAGs. All else is gaslight. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC attempt 2: Which version of the page is best?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which version of the page is best:

• A: The status quo ante.
• B: The current version as of the opening of this RFC, which includes these changes.
• C: Something else (please describe).

Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A or even C (reduce criticism section): There is solid evidence for EMDR and it's recommended by many large professional organizations. See the evidence list at the previous RFC for more detail, but in short there's several meta-analyses that find it effective and basically every major professional organization recommends it as an option for the treatment of PTSD. Critical sources are mostly decades old: though there are a handful of exceptions, they certainly aren't more reliable than even just the APAs, the WHO, and the NHS combined, much less the tons and tons of professional organizations that recommend EMDR. Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Close, and block/TBAN OP. Wikipedia articles are not decided by multiple choice. The article needs to evolve in the normal way as the process of finding sources continues. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Another Bad RFC. Misrepresents option B / the current text in a nonneutral fashion. I recommend closing this ASAP, and if another RFC is actually warranted, working to develop an opening statement with other editors first. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree the question is not neutral, but in the interest of compromise I've cut down my description of option B. Loki (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Also a bad RFC. These options are basically "What I want option 1", "What I want, but less option 2", and "Everything else". OP has reverted from several changes, stonewalled changes to this page, etc. Instead of allowing only yourself to choose the options, you should have done a proper WP:RFCBEFORE and worked out the choices ahead of time. What I would want out of this is not present in the current choices, and thus defaulting everyone else to "C" splits the vote improperly, preventing people who disagree from achieving any meaningful consensus. Withdraw this RFC and do a proper WP:RFCBEFORE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC and recommend author refrain from creating new RfCs until more familiar with the process. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Pinging all participants of the previous RFC: Bon_courage, MrOllie, Roxy_the_dog, Feoffer, Firefangledfeathers, Darknipples, Shibbolethink, Bakkster_Man, fiveby, XOR'easter, Cedar777. Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.