Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bernhard source

New (to this article):

  • Bernhard M (2023). "The Enigmatic Method". Virginia Quarterly Review. 99/1 (Spring/Summer).

contains some very pertinent material on Shapiro and the genesis of / reaction to EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's a literary magazine, not a scientific journal? Tom B (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good on Shapiro though (who was an English literature person, not a scientist, by education). Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, yes so more for the Shapiro article rather than this medical one, Tom B (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful for the history of how the stuff was dreamt up. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... 'effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy, not from EMDR's distinctive features.'

Stated as fact, rather than theory. Please amend, I do not have editing rights. Full sentence is "It has been called a purple hat therapy because any effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy (or the standard treatment), not from EMDR's distinctive features." ~~ WykiP (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accurate summary of the cited source as it is. It is unclear what the basis to 'amend' it would be. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

In this section, there should be clarification of the data used in the citation research contradicting the efficacy of EMDR. General statements or summaries limit the understanding of the criticism or validity of EMDR. What/where/how is the exact disagreement explained.

Training

Shapiro was criticized for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy.[15][16] This included requiring the completion of an EMDR training program in order to be qualified to administer EMDR properly after researchers using the initial written instructions found no difference between no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups. Further changes in training requirements and/or the definition of EMDR included requiring level II training when researchers with level I training still found no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls and deeming "alternate forms of bilateral stimulation" (such as finger-tapping) as variants of EMDR by the time a study found no difference between EMDR and a finger-tapping control group.[15] Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".[17] 91.217.105.54 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that information in the cited sources. Click on the little numbers. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any new evidence on EMDR in the last 16 years?

@Bon courage, you've reverted several people who've said that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years, even though there are multiple sources in the article that show that. Can we get consensus that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years and therefore the 2008 point needs to be removed the summary? Tom B (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the National Institute of Medicine changed their view? It's due to mention. Research has tailed off since EMDR's heyday and many views are simply settled. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what one country's institute said in 2008 isn't weighty enough to be in lead, compared with all the research undertaken since 2008 and all the institutions such as the UN, EU, UK etc, Tom B (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now you're edit warring. Suppressing one view that you evidently don't like is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that their view has changed, and the IoM view would seem to be just as relevant as the other organizations mentioned in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems a bit odd to exclude orgs according to their view. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not according to their view, but that it is out of date. That I see 2008 as 16 years ago and lots of evidence has been undertaken since then, isn't a point of view, it is maths, Tom B (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's also merely one institution from one country, not a government or the UN etc. Again, that I think that isn't a point of view, it's a fact. You thinking something the NHS and UN uses is fringe science is POV pushing and edit warring. That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK means it cannot be fringe or pseudoscience, Tom B (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What rubbish. The most recent MEDRS on this seem to view it just as pseudoscientific fluff, working just because of the non-fluff basis (i.e. the not EMDR parts). Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got a source? that it is supported by the UN, EU and UK is not rubbish, Tom B (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rubbish is the WP:OR that because of this that or the other, we can ignore RS because it "cannot be" fringe or pseudoscience. I suggest reading this page's archives. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK isn't OR, Tom B (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the World Health Organization in 2023 recommended EMDR for adults and children treating PTSD with moderate evidence. The American Psychological Association recommended EMDR for PTSD treatment in 2023. Similarly, other international and national health organizations have provided varying levels of endorsement for EMDR, recognizing it as an effective treatment option for PTSD. I.e it cannot be fringe science. The World Health Organisation is not fringe, Tom B (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the thread at FTN is also useful.[1] Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can be fringe science. These groups are subject to politics just like any other - look at the WHO's record on Traditional Chinese Medicine, the APA on Energy psychology. India has a whole ministry set up to promote Ayurveda and Homeopathy. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing"