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)
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)
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)
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)
not according to their view, but that it is out of date.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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)
" 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)
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.2015.10.0032600:1700:6E0:D930:CCC1:6784:2BB3:D42F (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
