Jump to content

Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 4 February 2025 (→Sources describing EMDR as a pseudoscience: ~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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not according to their view, but that it is out of date.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]
Sir Wikipedia is not an opinion article, using a false equivalence fallacy isn't helpful either. Did you legitimately suggest that several trusted organizations and sources are being bribed by foreign countries? to justify not including information/sources that go against your opinion? pray tell if Emdr is equivalent to crystal healing in your view, since you are so unbiased and knowledgeable. Then why don't you include the fact that Emdr isn't only performed with Finger tapping, it's done with pulsors https://neurotekcorp.com/ @Bon courage After all shouldn't you be accurate? EMDR is the only procedure able to heal my PTSD because I'm resistant to medication, and in all my sessions it was only done with pulsors. This article has a blatant agenda, and is dangerous for individuals seeking to research EMDR. Oh yeah and here's an offical government study from the national institute of health https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7839656/
Also including an antisemitic slanderous parody site isn't even informative. And it's very clear from multiple trusted institutions, that emdr is not a mere cult practice. Hey @ 2600:1700:E680:12C0:A8AF:905E:363B:2778 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you legitimately suggest that several trusted organizations and sources are being bribed by foreign countries. No. Have a look at Straw man and come back when you want to argue with things people have actually said. PS: The overwhelming majority of papers reposted by the NIH are not government studies conducted by the NIH. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" Oh yeah and here's an offical government study from the national institute of health" – PMC is a library that just indexes copies of papers. Maybe you should read the notice at the top of the page: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health" Zenomonoz (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is dangerous to those suffering from PTSD given the sources are outdated.
2023
National Center for PTSD. (2023). PTSD Trials Standard Data Repository (PTSD-Repository) [Data set]. https://ptsd-va.data.socrata.com
2022
Susanty, E., Sijbrandij, M., Srisayekti, W., Suparman, Y., & Huizink, A. C. (2022) The effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization for post-traumatic stress disorder in Indonesia: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 845520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845520
2018
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS). (2018). ISTSS PTSD prevention and treatment guidelines: Methodology and recommendations. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.istss.org/getattachment/Treating Trauma/New-ISTSS-Prevention-and-Treatment-Guidelines/ISTSS_ PreventionTreatmentGuidelines_FNL-March-19-2019.pdf.aspx
2016
Cusack, K., Jonas, D. E., Forneris, C. A., Wines, C., Sonis, J., Middleton, J. C., Feltner, C., Brownley, K. A., Olmsted, K. R., Greenblatt, A., Weil, A, & Gaynes, B. N. (2016). Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 43, 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003 2600:1700:6E0:D930:CCC1:6784:2BB3:D42F (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cusack et al. is already cited on the article. The others don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2025


−
[...]in the treatment of Chronic PTSD[...]
+
[...]in the treatment of chronic PTSD[...]

Correction of erroneously capitalized word 'chronic' in the first sentence of section 2.1.1 of the article.

G3560 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view?

This article comes across as a jaundiced critique of EMDR. As a result, some valid concerns, e.g., that it has elements of purple hat therapy, seem like one more stone to throw at a vile pretender, rather than a legitimate critique. I wonder if we can retain such genuine concerns while rewriting the article to achieve a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate tone, i.e., a neutral point of view?

I ask this question because, before I expend time and energy on specific suggested edits, I want to ascertain if other frequent editors of this article are willing to achieve such a goal. If experienced editors believe this article represents, without question, a neutral point of view, than I will refrain from embarking on a Sisyphean task. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you already believe the article is jaundice(d), and because this has been designated as a contentious topic, before you make any edits I suggest that you consider doing the following: firstly, review the many, many previous discussions on this Talk page that directly address NPOV, most of which are archived; secondly, based upon those previous discussions, propose your desired edits here on the Talk page before adding them directly to the article.cJoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read previous discussions that are archived. I think you've answered my question, I.e., I assume that you believe this article reflects a neutral point of view. If I am assuming incorrectly, please let me know. Otherwise, I will not worry about this article, I will not make any edits, and I will not try to propose edits because if experienced editors who have worked on this article believe that it has a neutral point of view then it will be an uphill slog that I don't want to engage in. Thank you. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. See the new section I created (below): Reference review and related undue weight discussion. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for the article to mention the website from the 1990s mocking EMDR therapy. The inclusion and tone of that whole section is hardly neutral at all. Are parodies listed for other psuedoscience articles? 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly here: "included the suggestions that EMDR could drain violence from society and be useful in treating cancer and HIV/AIDS."
The article cites a 22 year old book that makes this statement, but does not cite any of the statements at all. Who made such statements? Are such statements made today by proponents of EMDR? This seems like an obscured strawman to me and hardly neutral.
In fact it looks like most of the sources in Psuedoscience section are 20+ years old and do not reflect any of the more recent research that has happened. 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there are newer WP:MEDRS sources that contradict it? What are they? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the ridiculous reference to a parody site? You want to defend that too? 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this criticism and have for quite a while. The basic fact of the matter here is that EMDR is endorsed at least for the treatment of adult PTSD by tons of big WP:MEDORGs, both national and international. It's true that there was significant skepticism towards it when it first appeared, and it's true that some skeptics still persist, but the clear consensus of the field is much more positive than this article makes it seem. Loki (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improving neutrality

As a new account, I would like to raise several tone issues with this article that goes against WP:NOCRIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism and and WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I feel it gives undue weight to the stance that EMDR *is* pseudoscience, which contradicts the article's attempt at neutrality. For example this quote "The founder promoted the therapy for the treatment of PTSD, and proponents employed untestable hypotheses to explain negative results in controlled studies"

This statement is written as fact, despite the citation directly quoting from a biased source. Who and what qualifies as a proponent? Does every therapist who recognizes it as a recommended treatment for PTSD assert untestable hypotheses? untestable hypothesis simply links to pseudoscience, and with no explanation to what these hypotheses are.

The "training" section phrasing gives a false impression that Francine Shapiro *DID* add training to retaliate against doubt on EMDR's efficiency. When that is the criticism/opinion of opposing view. The training section doesn't even go into detail on how EMDR therapists are trained to administer it, it mostly just mentions criticism of it.

The pseudoscience section is also redundant as the article already explains multiple times the argument behind the opposing view. which is that scientific studies show mixed results, and little difference in efficiency when bilateral stimulation is included. The inclusion of the libel website reference is also not needed? why bring up a website that slanders EMDR by giving the founder an antisemitic fake name? This issue has been brought up before, This section repeats information from earlier, but writes it as a conclusive statement to argue *for* EMDR is a pseudoscience

furthermore the article only briefly details how the EMDR practice is done, even the article on Chiropractic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic which does have objective information that it is simply pseudoscience. Has more information on how chiropractic is performed in accordance to their philosophy. The article doesn't even mention the phases of approach https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing

Wiki articles shouldn't argue for any particular stance, it should be objective information such as the scientific studies cited, and allow for the reader to draw their own conclusion free of biased language. It seems clear that the article wants you to think the only legitimate stance to have on EMDR is that it's pseudoscience. Which directly opposes the information in the article that supports EMDR such as the several organizations recommending it as a treatment for PTSD. Plus the positive findings of EMDR within the mixed results.

The opposing views should be properly phrased as opposing opinions rather than as facts, the article consistently cites directly from biased sources. I don't think this article lives up to the standards of Wikipedia's policies, when objectively compared to an article such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic that does live up to the standard

Finally this article's tone doesn't reflect the reality of how EMDR is viewed, most therapists have a neutral stance on it and will even recommend it. Said as somebody with years experience with multiple forms of therapy, including exposure therapy, and only EMDR has worked for me. While it's valid to address that testing bilateral stimulation gives mixed results, the phrasing of criticisms, and a section specifically for criticism gives an inaccurate depiction of EMDR as relatively unpopular that does not reflect reality.

I'm aware that these points have all been previously addressed in the talk page, and that this is a contentious topic. However I've noticed nothing has been done regarding these issues on neutrality repeatedly brought up, and I've noticed the editors of this page tend to delete reliable sources that speaks on EMDR positively.

I will now proceed to request review from other editors in the talk page @Markworthen @MrOllie @Bon courage Mistersparkbob (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like to add that the inconsistent mixed findings on EMDR's specific mechanism of Bilateral Stimulation are facts. However the phrasing of quotes from biased sources that have great disdain for the practice. Interprets the facts to mean EMDR is complete utter hog wash, that does not deserve any of it's reputation as recommended practice.
This is an opinion of the facts represented, and communicates to the reader that this is the correct interpretation. Which gives undue weight to the criticism, and contradicts/undermines the inclusion of reliable organizations recommending the practice for PTSD. Which can be dangerous for anyone looking for information on EMDR and stumbling on this Wikipedia article. A person with PTSD can read this, and avoid a treatment that can greatly improve their lives.
Also I've yet to see the justified reason for the libel site, what about it argues that EMDR is pseudoscience? It's just an opposing view, is it history? @Markworthen Mistersparkbob (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have fallen into a common misconception of folks new to Wikipedia, (your opposing views should be properly phrased as opposing opinions) which is that giving equal validity to two sides is the same thing as neutrality, but that is not so (see WP:GEVAL). When the independent sources come down strongly on the idea that a practice is based in pseudoscience, Wikipedia will reflect those sources - that is what we mean by 'NPOV'.
EMDR includes most of the stuff that is known to work from Cognitive behavioral therapy - as well as some extra stuff that isn't evidence based. I'm happy you're seeing results, but just because Cognitive behavioral therapy works does not mean that EMDR's add-ons cannot be based in pseudoscience.
All of this has been explained at length in the talk page archives, I suggest you have a look at them. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever actually tried CBT to treat PTSD? Please refrain from making assumptions on how my treatment is performed. Your article describes EMDR as being more similar with exposure therapy, so at least be consistent with your own view points.
I've browsed through the archives, and I see most of my points have already been heavily discussed repeatedly. However I don't see an argument that justifies the addition of the libel site, can you point me to that?
the quoting of sources sure, but why include the site? why not remove it? Mistersparkbob (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The default position on Wikipedia is to cover things that have support in multiple reliable sources. The question is not 'why not remove it?', it is 'What is your policy-based argument for removing it?' MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy based argument is that it is irrelevant, not a standard practice of any other sort of page, etc etc. The wikipedia mods can sit in their ivory towers with millions of acronyms, but let's live in the real world. 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of such a website, the inclusion of it in the text, and the very text itself does not support that EMDR is a pseudoscience. If you want to report that EMDR is a psuedoscience, how does the presence of a parody website make support that? The presence of a parody website is not evidence something is psuedoscience. 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the parody website mentioned has been explained. I've yet to see the defense for the anti semitic website, I've looked at other psuedoscience pages and see no reference to parodies. 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IT is sad to see the wikipedia editor elites hide behind obscure rules and manufactured complexity rather than address your points, especially on the parody site point. 2601:540:CA02:5710:85C2:615E:7479:1B46 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you (other Wikipedians) are willing, I offer this proposal:

(1) Post references from relevant reliable sources, primarily systematic reviews or other authoritative texts (such as professional guidelines), that have been published in the past dozen years or so, but which are not currently referenced in the EMDR article; and if you wish, include the abstract, conclusion, or a pithy quote from the source that helps others understand that article's focus;
(2) comment on references currently cited in the Wikipedia EMDR article that (you believe) receive undue weight or selective emphasis;
(3) It might prove helpful for all of us to take some time (on our own) to "argue for the other side" (just thinking about it or even writing down reasons that support the opposing viewpoint), an exercise that sometimes enhances understanding, reduces tension, and helps a group move closer to consensus.

→ Please post comments, replies, and other contributions in the appropriate subsection. These are the subsections I set up for this discussion:

Time frame for this discussion – Self-explanatory.
Especially important policy specifics – Please add what you consider to be especially important Wikipedia policy specifics that should guide this discussion and (hopefully) move us closer to a consensus.
New references – This is the section where you can add references (reliable sources) published in the past dozen years or so, which are not currently referenced in the EMDR article. Create a subheading for the references you add, like the one I created.
References added by Markworthen – This is the subsection I created for the new references I have added (so far).
References given undue weight (too much or not enough), or overemphasizing one aspect while ignoring other findings – This is the subsection where you can highlight references currently cited in the EMDR article that (in your opinion) receive undue weight or which emphasize a specific finding in a systematic review, while neglecting to mention other equally important findings (in the same systematic review article). I posted one such article (in the References given undue weight subsection) that serves as a good example of what should go in this subsection.

→ If you believe this topic (Reference review and related undue weight discussion) could be organized more effectively, please feel free to make the changes you believe would enhance understanding and facilitate a more fruitful discussion.

Time frame for this discussion

I will work hard to regularly contribute to this discussion, but I cannot devote more than two or three hours per week to this effort. To accommodate the needs of editors with relatively less time to devote to Wikipedia, I ask that we allow this discussion to unfold over several weeks, as opposed to expecting to achieve a consensus (or lack thereof) within a week or two. This means, if you are willing, avoiding any conclusive statements for at least six weeks (if you would be so kind). (Note: By "conclusive" I mean "so irrefutable as to end all uncertainty or question" (Merriam-Webster Unabridged at synonym discussion).

Especially important policy specifics

In this section, please add especially important Wikipedia policy specifics that (in your opinion) should guide this discussion. I put mine immediately below. Please add yours below the sentence that begins with: → Please highlight other aspects.

The guiding policy for this discussion is WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

And, within WP:NPOV, I believe the WP:YESPOV section is especially important: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia: Avoid stating opinions as facts. ... Prefer nonjudgmental language. ... Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

→ Please highlight other aspects of WP:NPOV or related policies you believe we should keep in mind.

New references

Note: "New" means published in the past dozen years or so, but which are not currently referenced in the EMDR article. Also see the subsection (below), References given undue weight (too much or not enough, or overemphasizing one aspect while ignoring other findings.

References added by Markworthen

The following references are from the first page or two of results on PubMed searching for EMDR (all fields), 2011–2025, systematic reviews. I will review additional results from that search later this week.

Lewis C, Roberts NP, Andrew M, Starling E, Bisson JI. Psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020;11(1):1729633. Published 2020 Mar 10. doi:10.1080/20008198.2020.1729633

Conclusions: A recent increase in RCTs of psychological therapies for PTSD, results in a more confident recommendation of CBT-T and EMDR as the first-line treatments. Among the CBT-Ts considered by the review CPT, CT and PE should be the treatments of choice. The findings should guide evidence informed shared decision-making between patient and clinician.

{COMMENT: Note that these authors classify EMDR as a separate type of therapy from the "CBT-T's" (CBT with a trauma focus)}

---

O'Doherty L, Whelan M, Carter GJ, et al. Psychosocial interventions for survivors of rape and sexual assault experienced during adulthood. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;10(10):CD013456. Published 2023 Oct 5. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013456.pub2

Our review consolidates evidence on mainstay treatments for PTSD, supporting the continued use of trauma-focused psychotherapies such as EMDR, Cognitive Processing Therapy and Prolonged Exposure as first-line treatments for PTSD. (p. 30)

{COMMENT: Thus, this Cochrane review concludes that EMDR is a first-line treatment for PTSD that developed after rape or sexual assault experienced during adulthood.}

---

Valiente-Gómez A, Moreno-Alcázar A, Treen D, et al. EMDR beyond PTSD: A Systematic Literature Review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1668. Published 2017 Sep 26. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01668

Abstract: Background: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapeutic approach that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) through several randomized controlled trials (RCT). Solid evidence shows that traumatic events can contribute to the onset of severe mental disorders and can worsen their prognosis. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the most important findings from RCT conducted in the treatment of comorbid traumatic events in psychosis, bipolar disorder, unipolar depression, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, and chronic back pain. Methods: Using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, we conducted a systematic literature search of RCT studies published up to December 2016 that used EMDR therapy in the mentioned psychiatric conditions. Results: RCT are still scarce in these comorbid conditions but the available evidence suggests that EMDR therapy improves trauma-associated symptoms and has a minor effect on the primary disorders by reaching partial symptomatic improvement. Conclusions: EMDR therapy could be a useful psychotherapy to treat trauma-associated symptoms in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Preliminary evidence also suggests that EMDR therapy might be useful to improve psychotic or affective symptoms and could be an add-on treatment in chronic pain conditions.

{COMMENT: Note that the authors emphasize the tentative nature of the evidence, e.g., "EMDR might be useful" (emphasis added). I don't know that we should necessarily cite this article, but if we do, we should emphasize that these findings are tentative. I think this is particularly important given the tendency of some EMDR practitioners to believe (and market) EMDR as a cure-all, e.g., "it can be used to treat almost any mental disorder!" I stress this point not to argue for editorializing in a Wikipedia article, but to argue for stating in Wikipedia voice that strong evidence does not exist at this time demonstrating that EMDR is an effective therapy for non-trauma mental disorders. (Note: There might be evidence out there that I have not seen yet, which shows that EMDR is an effective intervention for a specific non-trauma mental disorder.)}

---

Gillies D, Maiocchi L, Bhandari AP, Taylor F, Gray C, O'Brien L. Psychological therapies for children and adolescents exposed to trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):CD012371. Published 2016 Oct 11. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012371

For reduction of PTSD symptoms in the short term, there was a small effect favouring CBT over EMDR, play therapy and supportive therapies (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05; 7 studies; 466 participants). The quality of evidence for this outcome was rated as moderate. ... Authors' conclusions: The meta-analyses in this review provide some evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapies in prevention of PTSD and reduction of symptoms in children and adolescents exposed to trauma for up to a month. However, our confidence in these findings is limited by the quality of the included studies and by substantial heterogeneity between studies. Much more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different psychological therapies for children exposed to trauma, particularly over the longer term. High-quality studies should be conducted to compare these therapies.

{COMMENT: Thus, for reduction of PTSD symptoms in the short term, there was "a small effect favouring CBT over EMDR, play therapy and supportive therapies." However: "Much more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different psychological therapies ..." so I think we should succinctly summarize the conclusions of this Cochrane review when discussing EMDR with children, but I would be hesitant to also cite this Cochrane review in a general statement about comparative effectiveness of trauma-focused CBT vs. EMDR because lumping together adult and pediatric research is, to some extent, comparing apples to oranges, and it would be giving undue weight to a finding wherein the authors emphasize that "much more evidence is needed."}

---

Scelles C, Bulnes LC. EMDR as Treatment Option for Conditions Other Than PTSD: A Systematic Review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:644369. Published 2021 Sep 20. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644369

Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The technique is known to facilitate reprocessing of maladaptive memories that are thought to be central to this pathology. Here we investigate if EMDR therapy can be used in other conditions. ... Despite a generally positive outlook of EMDR as an alternative treatment option, more methodologically rigorous studies are needed. We discuss the advantages and limitations and possible implications for the hypothesised mechanisms of action.

{COMMENT: I believe we should cite this article because it emphasizes that the current evidence base for EMDR as a treatment for conditions other than PTSD is not sufficient to recommend it as a firstline treatment for other mental disorders when trauma is not an etiological factor. (I acknowledge that is my conclusive language based on my reading of the literature on this topic, so we would need to phrase it more precisely in the article.)}

References given undue weight (too much or not enough), or overemphasizing one aspect while ignoring other findings

For example, consider the following quote from an explanatory essay, titled, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

---

Cusack K, Jonas DE, Forneris CA, et al. Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;43:128-141. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003 {COMMENT: Selective conclusions are drawn from the article while ignoring other more positive conclusions and recommendations about EMDR.}

Quotes from article:

Evidence supports the efficacy of EMDR for reduction of PTSD symptoms, but SOE is low because of some inconsistency and imprecision. {COMMENT: The preceding point is emphasized in the Wikipedia EMDR article.} Evidence supports the efficacy of EMDR for achieving loss of PTSD diagnosis and improving depression symptoms (moderate SOE for both); {COMMENT: The preceding finding is ignored in the Wikipedia EMDR article} ... Discussion: However, other factors must be considered in selecting a treatment for PTSD, including patient preference, access to treatment, and clinical judgment about the appropriateness of an intervention. For instance, exposure therapy and CPT are now readily available in most VAMC outpatient settings, but are less likely to be available in community-based mental health centers. A majority of the studies we reviewed excluded patients with substance dependence or suicidality. Most clinicians would agree that stabilization of suicidality and, at a minimum, detoxification from substances should occur prior to initiating a trauma-focused psychotherapy such as exposure therapy. There is less consensus on whether substance use disorder therapy should be integrated with PTSD therapy or conducted prior to or concomitantly with PTSD25 therapy, although emerging research shows promise for integrated therapies (Mills,et al., 2012; Sannibale, et al., 2013). Given the magnitude of benefit and SOE for cognitive therapy (including CPT), CBT-mixed, NET, and EMDR, we recommend that these therapies should also be considered based on the above considerations. {COMMENT: The preceding quote from the Discussion section is ignored in the Wikipedia EMDR article; emphasis added - italicised text.}

-- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:WALLOFTEXT which is quite difficult to parse.
Evidence supports the efficacy of EMDR for achieving loss of PTSD diagnosis and improving depression symptoms (moderate SOE for both); {COMMENT: The preceding finding is ignored in the Wikipedia EMDR article
On this point, though. Worth saying that we on Wikipedia SUMMARIZE. We do not simply repeat or re-host systematic reviews and meta-analyses. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that we should include everything I wrote in the Wikipedia article. I'm sorry I did not make that point clear. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that everything I wrote should be included in the Wikipedia article. I was trying to include enough information for you to understand my point without having to read the entire research article. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk)

The coverage of this article is inadequate

I added a comment here, which, despite my request that it not be censored, was abruptly removed without discussion by JoJo Anthrax. The comment was as follows:

The coverage of this article is inadequate. The problem is not confined to just this acticle, but is becoming increasingly widespread on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to retain (and perhaps recover) credibility, it needs to start gearing up for a reexamination of how it selects sources, and how the reliability of those sources is presented.

The original discussions nearly two decades ago on verification, were ground breaking and established the key Wikipedia policy. Briefly, the policy means that on Wikipedia, the focus is not to directly ask whether something is true, but to establish whether it can be verified. Verification means that what is present in Wikipedia should be supported with "reliable sources" (mainly scientific article reviews and mainstream media).

But things have moved on with the decades. In the West, mainstream media (and even to some extent scientific publishing houses) have been captured and distorted by ideological claptrap. Wikipedia increasingly creaks from growing failures to present information acceptably and cope with a changing world. Establishing what is "true", or "acceptably true", is becoming increasingly problematic. The relation between what is on Wikipedia and what is acceptable truth needs reassessment, and might take some years. Perhaps Wikipedia could go global and appeal for constructive input from users on, say, X and BlueSky. Policies may need modifying to reflect better operational criteria, unless in the meantime the established media cleans up its act. AI is beginning to grow muscle, and can both assist with resolving this issue (as well as presenting addition difficulties).

Please do not censor this comment, by deleting or hatting it. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has categorised this article as pseudoscience. There is a large section titled "Pseudoscience" which uses only dated sources from 10 and more years ago. If Wikipedia is getting this wrong, then it is a serious matter which could be inhibiting acceptance of the area and of legitimate scientific inquiry.

DeepSeek, centre of the current AI imbroglio, can provide a wider perspective here, since it provides a distillation of what a number of the top current AI machines are thinking. When asked: "Is EMDR a pseudoscience?", it replied...

No, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is not considered pseudoscience. It is a well-researched and evidence-based psychotherapy approach, particularly for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other trauma-related conditions. EMDR has been endorsed by numerous reputable organizations, including:

• The World Health Organization (WHO)

• The American Psychological Association (APA)

• The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

• The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS)

How EMDR Works

EMDR involves a structured eight-phase approach that helps individuals process traumatic memories and reduce their emotional impact. A key component of EMDR is bilateral stimulation, which typically involves the therapist guiding the patient to move their eyes back and forth (following the therapist's fingers) while recalling traumatic memories. Other forms of bilateral stimulation, such as tapping or auditory tones, can also be used.

The goal is to help the brain reprocess traumatic memories, making them less distressing and integrating them into the individual's broader memory network.

Evidence for EMDR

• Effectiveness for PTSD: Numerous studies have shown that EMDR is effective in reducing symptoms of PTSD, often with results comparable to or better than other evidence-based treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).

• Mechanisms of Action: While the exact mechanisms of EMDR are still being studied, research suggests that the bilateral stimulation component may help activate the brain's natural information-processing systems, facilitating the resolution of traumatic memories.

• Broad Applications: EMDR has also been used to treat other conditions, such as anxiety, depression, phobias, and chronic pain, though the evidence is strongest for its use in trauma-related disorders.

Criticisms and Controversies

While EMDR is widely accepted, it is not without criticism:

• Eye Movements: Some researchers question whether the eye movements themselves are necessary or if the therapeutic benefits come from other aspects of the treatment, such as exposure to traumatic memories or the therapeutic relationship.

• Theoretical Basis: The theoretical explanation for why EMDR works is still debated, and some argue that it overlaps significantly with established principles of exposure therapy.

Conclusion

EMDR is not pseudoscience; it is a legitimate and empirically supported treatment for trauma-related conditions. However, like any therapy, its effectiveness can vary depending on the individual and the skill of the therapist. If you're considering EMDR, it's important to work with a trained and licensed mental health professional who specializes in this approach.

AI-generated, for reference only

So Wikipedia is seriously out of step with assessments by current AI.

Anyone with an ability to assess what is available on Google Scholar will find that, over the past decade, EMDR has built a solid science track record. So, in this case, Wikipedia is also out of step with Google Scholar and the scientific community.

If articles like this one are not going to be treated with more awareness and sensitivity by their legacy gatekeepers, then Wikipedia is going to decline into disrepute. As one of the main content builders on Wikipedia, I find that dismaying. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't rely on large language AI models as a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I suggest you should? — Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't waste people's time by pasting AI-generated blather onto talk pages. It is utterly unusable and will not convince anyone. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie is, of course, entirely entitled to his position. Though he hasn't established whether his position is any more grounded than the Wikipedia article. To recapitulate, The Wikipedia position in this article is seriously out of step with a distillation of assessments by current AI. A casual examination of scientific findings over the past decade using Google Scholar seems to confirm this. Can people here bring a fresh objective approach to the issue, and establish whether the AI position is, or is not, essentially accurate? — Epipelagic (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Current AI" probably shouldn't be used at all. --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can use older versions of AI if that's more comfortable. Please be clear I am not proposing a policy of using AI outputs as citations in articles. That would be as ridiculous as not being willing to see if you can refute an AI output if the challenge is reasonably presented on a talk page. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is here to argue with bots. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI has moved way past the traditional bot — Epipelagic (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with Wikipedia policy, an objective approach to the issue is already provided by the reliably sourced content in the article. Please see WP:RS. It might also help to review WP:NOT, specifically its subsections WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for that flurry of wikilawyering. Now can you start over again and take a fresh look at the article? – Epipelagic (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, I don't know what you'd like us to do. For now at least, there aren't any AIs that qualify as an RS. I never think of Wikipedia as 'in competition' with AI -- when, AI can write good articles, I'll be happy to let it. But for now, AIs can't cite sources and will randomly hallucinate. We're just left with your argument that EMDR isn't pseudoscience -- but if you note, the article doesn't actually say that it is. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... more random diversions. Aside from a large out-of-date section on how it is a pseudoscience, the article is categorised as pseudoscience. And we are back again with the pretence that the issue is about reliable sources. And additionally the issue now mysteriously includes AI writing Wikipedia articles?
To clarify, yet again, what this thead is about: it is a challenge to refute the AI assessment of whether EMDR is a pseudoscience, particularly by examining the scientific research over the past decade. Anyway, that is clearly not happening. Thank you gentleman for these clarifications on why the article is and must remain in the state it is. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yet again, what this thead is about: it is a challenge to refute the AI assessment of whether EMDR is a pseudoscience, look talk pages are not a WP:FORUM for debate. We don't need a "challenge to refute the AI". That is a waste of time. The AI isn't providing any WP:RS, just repeats whatever it scraped from some clinic websites. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again goes the ludicrous claim about using AI as a reliable source! I have never advocated using AI output as a reliable source. It changes, it can be wrong, it can hallucinate and even lie. Also, AI is not a unitary thing – there are different versions with different strengths and weaknesses. Please don't make that nonsense claim again!
Even so, AI is becoming increasingly perceptive. The AI output used here distills, or in a sense "repeats what it scrapes", from some of the most powerful AI machines. That is a lot more formidible than just "clinic websites". AI may be at the cusp where it is appropriate and helpful sometimes for editors to consider the validity of selected AI output on article talk pages. Certainly not treating it as though it were a reliable source and blindly accepting the output just because it is AI – but to consider it's validity. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, I'm not making any argument, I'm sincerely listening in good faith! I don't have any pre-formed conception about EMDR. I write about REALLY fringe things like Dianetics, Scientology, Mormonism, UFO believers, Nation of Islam and I try to help give them all a fair presentation, not attack them for being a little different. If humans are doing something, it's up to us to describe it and help readers understand it, not just proscribe it. But we've gotten a little far afield here, with meta-discussions about AI. I have no ax to grind against EMDR -- how can we make the article better, specifically? Feoffer (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion, I hope some of you will participate in the discussion I started a week ago: Reference review and related undue weight discussion. For example, if you know of any "new" (since ~2015) systematic review articles (or similar good secondary sources) on EMDR efficacy, please add them to the list I started. Also, of course, comment on anything I've added or respond to my remarks. In other words, let's discuss the scientific evidence, pro or con, and then decide if newer evidence should lead us to modify the article's content and tone or not. Many thanks -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please correct any formatting errors or sources of confusion in that section I started. It looks funky on my phone, but I cannot figure out why. I welcome any formatting changes that would improve usability and reader experience. Thanks! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best available sources, particularly WP:MEDRS sources, agree that EMDR is a form of pseudoscience. a type of "purple hat therapy" and that the individual or unique features of EMDR are not the source of its efficacy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink, I'm aware of this recent source that might fit your claim – and that seems more a blog entry than a formal academic review. Would you mind listing the other recent sources that fit your claim. – Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth noting here that WP:RSN has recently cast a lot of doubt on SBM articles written by the editors of SBM, like this one was. Loki (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They very specifically do not. None of the big WP:MEDORG sources say this and many explicitly endorse EMDR as an evidence-based therapy. Just because you can find academics that say this does not mean they are the WP:BESTSOURCES. Loki (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this many times. That a source is silent on a point cannot be construed to mean it disagrees with a point. That a purple hat therapy is effective does not mean it is scientific. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is silent on a point can it be construed to mean it agrees with a point? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't claimed anything of the sort, so you should follow up with whomever it is that did. MrOllie (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "That a source is silent on a point cannot be construed to mean it disagrees with a point." Is it not also true that if a source is silent on a point, it cannot be construed to mean it agrees with a point? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in debating hypotheticals. Again: take it up with someone who has actually made such a claim. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about logic, not hypotheticals. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still think it's irrelevant to this article. Feel free to take the last word of you require it, I won't respond to this tangent again. MrOllie (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The deeper issue here is that if we have, say, 10 sources that say EMDR is evidence-based and effective without technically commenting on whether or not it's a purple hat therapy, and two sources that say "it's only effective because it's a purple hat therapy", we can't represent "it's a purple hat therapy" as the academic consensus per WP:DUEWEIGHT. This is especially true since the large number of sources that say EMDR is effective are big international WP:MEDORGs that are explicitly trying to represent the consensus of the field, while the sources that say it's a purple hat therapy are individual articles or books that only claim to represent the professional opinion of their specific authors.
I'll also add that some academic sources do claim that EMDR has some mechanism of action tied to the eye movements specifically. While this is definitely a more contentious claim than the bare fact that EMDR is an effective treatment for PTSD in adults, it is an explicit contradiction of the purple hat therapy claim: the eye movements can't be a purple hat if they're a part of the effectiveness of the treatment. Loki (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But "evidence-based" and "pseudo-scientific" aren't mutually exclusive. Traditional "bone-setters" are pseudoscientific, but evidence shows they have effectiveness. Feoffer (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional bone-setters aren't really pseudoscientific by the definition we use. They're more pre-scientific. The harder example is something like chiropractic, which is definitely pseudoscientific but may be effective for back pain. But even then, to the extent it's evidence-based it's not pseudoscientific and to the (much larger) extent it's pseudoscientific it's not evidence-based.
Pseudoscience is a pattern of defense against contradictory evidence: a pseudoscience claims to be an ordinary evidence-based science but retreats to unfalsifiable claims in response to contradictory evidence. A traditional claim that is borne out by scientific evidence becomes a scientific claim. Loki (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest, I originally wrote my comment about Chiropractic, but switched it to bonesetter to avoid opening another can of worms! lol very perceptive. Feoffer (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink What are your criteria for deciding which reliable sources are "best"? -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page sealioning

This talk page is an absolute torrent of "sealioning", wall of texts absolutely impossible to read, tengantial, hypothetical, whataboutist arguments, etc. Kudos to the people holding the fort, but there seem to be some "bad faith actors" that are given a little too much leeway and seemingly taking up valuable time from reasonable editors while having nothing to contribute. It's difficult to assume good faith at this point; the case can be made (and reviewed) very quickly, and yet is dragged on to no end. It should probably be stopped before attrition sets in. DommageCritique (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is EMDR pseudoscience?

I agree with the comment immediately above, and would like to reframe and reboot the thread I initiated above. The specific issue that thread came down to was whether or not EMDR is pseudoscience. Relevant points (and claims) that have already been made are:

The best available sources, particularly WP:MEDRS sources, agree that EMDR is a form of pseudoscience. a type of "purple hat therapy" and that the individual or unique features of EMDR are not the source of its efficacy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They very specifically do not. None of the big WP:MEDORG sources say this and many explicitly endorse EMDR as an evidence-based therapy. Just because you can find academics that say this does not mean they are the WP:BESTSOURCES. Loki (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink, I'm aware of this recent source that might fit your claim – and that seems more a blog entry than a formal academic review. Would you mind listing the other recent sources that fit your claim. – Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth noting here that WP:RSN has recently cast a lot of doubt on SBM articles written by the editors of SBM, like this one was. Loki (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Epipelagic (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue can be rapidly settled by establishing there are indeed reasonably current available sources in line with Shibbolethink's claim (immediately above). Shibbolethink is the main contibutor to the current EMDR article, and clearly is well positioned to substantiate his claim. Alternatively, can anyone else provide the sources he speaks of? — Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources describing EMDR as a pseudoscience

  • Bernhard M. The Enigmatic Method. Virginia Quarterly Review. 2023;99(1/2):172-184. (Not a MEDRS, but summarizes and references MEDRSes.)
    • "The most strident critics called EMDR a pseudoscience, while others contended that it was nothing more than exposure therapy with a bit of hand-waving. Some clinicians still contest its efficacy, as research into EMDR remains plagued with quality issues like small sample sizes and limited follow-up data. McNally summed up the criticism with one neat line: “What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective.”"
  • Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem. By: Fasce, Angelo, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 02698595, Sep-Dec2019, Vol. 32, Issue 3/4 (Not a MEDRS, but summarizes and references MEDRSes.)
    • "In Fasce ([20]) I developed a demarcation criterion that fulfils the requirements of this discriminant metacriterion, where pseudoscience radically differs from science regarding domain, method, and evidence. So, it can be identified by being uncontroversially outside the domain of science, particularly due to untestable content — such as reiki, morphic fields, acupuncture's qi, and vertebral subluxations — and through the use of radically flawed methods — for example research on EMDR without controlling exposure"
  • The messy landscape of eye movements and false memories. By: Kenchel, Jillian M., Domagalski, Kirsten, Butler, Brendon Jerome, Loftus, Elizabeth F., Memory, 09658211, Jul2022, Vol. 30, Issue 6 (A high quality MEDRS.)
    • "However, empirical support for the contribution of EM is mixed at best...Ost stepped into this battlefield when he criticised the endorsement of EMDR by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) in England, stating evidence that "a closer look at dismantling studies would have shown that only the desensitisation component (D) appears to be active, whilst the novel eye movement (EM) and reprocessing (R) components appear to be inert and have no coherent theoretical underpinning"...Evidence also exists suggesting that reprocessing (R) does not bear additional therapeutic benefits...Thus, the desensitisation component of EMDR, which closely resembles beneficial components of existing exposure therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), may be the only efficacious part of the treatment, leading critics to suggest that EMDR is merely another brand of exposure therapy."

Here you go. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you Shibbolethink. Now we have the beginings of ground and can make some progress. Are there other reasonably current available sources, particularly WP:MEDRS sources, pointing to EMDR as pseudoscience? Anyone? If so, please add them here. — Epipelagic (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Shibbolethink's sources...
The most interesting source I can find is perhaps this very recent one (October 23, 2024):
  • EMDR Is Still Dubious published as a kind of blog by an organisation called Science Based Medicine (SBM). In a discussion above, Loki noted that WP:RSN has cast doubt on SBM articles written by the editors of SBM.
I cannot find further recent sources that seem relevant. Going back into history, the most influential and most cited relevant source seems to be:
Is this an accurate and sufficient account of the best available sources? — Epipelagic (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

spelling error

I can't edit, but "sudotherapy" should be "sudotherapay" 216.229.95.146 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing&oldid=1273821125"