EMDR Nonsense

[The SkepDoc]

In the commentary, Hal Bidlack commented that EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) seems to be effective for some people. Sure it does! It SEEMS to. It has a a great placebo effect, helps the patient concentrate, and is a form of suggestion therapy similar to hypnosis. It has the added advantage that it works just as well without the eye movements!!

EMDR is a cheap trick not based on any believable scientific rationale. I would stick with proven cognitive behavioral treatment instead.

[screw_dog]

I concur. My fiancee was treated for PTSD with EMDR following a nasty car accident. She actually made a full recovery, took about two years but she is now without the requisite symptoms to be diagnosed with PTSD. I have grave doubts that any of that was attributable to EMDR, but the counselling and physical therapy sure helped a lot.

[Elaedith]

To the extent that it works, it is probably because it contains elements that are very similar to desenitisation treatments that are known to work.
The patient is encouraged to relax and is distracted by making the eye movements while thinking over the traumatic memories. That helps to knock out associations between the thoughts and the anxiety response. There pseudoscience is in attributing a specific role to the eye movements.

[Blue Wode]

EMDR is a cheap trick not based on any believable scientific rationale. I would stick with proven cognitive behavioral treatment instead.

I think the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) should be told about this. It recommends EMDR as a psychological treatment “specific for PTSD sufferers”, saying “it is hoped that through EMDR you can have more positive emotions, thoughts and behaviour in the future”. It goes on to suggest that 8-12+ treatments, each lasting 60-90 minutes, may be required.

Does anyone know what studies could have been used in support of this recommendation?

http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=CG026publicinfo