EMDR, EFT

[beatle]

EMDR, EFT

Absolutely no offense meant. You are one of those I respect most in the world, WIP, so I regret having put things in such an aggressive way towards you. And you always respond in such a rational mode, it makes it impossible to get all worked up (darnit). But I'm going to post a separate thread on this anyway (ok?).

[A Work in Progress]

EMDR, EFT

beatle;448446 wrote: Absolutely no offense meant. You are one of those I respect most in the world, WIP, so I regret having put things in such an aggressive way towards you. And you always respond in such a rational mode, it makes it impossible to get all worked up (darnit). But I'm going to post a separate thread on this anyway (ok?).

Oh, Beatle, I am not offended, and another thread of course is always good. Since this thread went up, I went back and looked again at what might be some more recent publications, and did not find anything that altered my views of where the scientific findings AND the theoretical rationales are, as of now, about EMDR. It seems to be pretty much at a standstill in an unfortunately very polarized field. There are passionate "believers" in EMDR and there are also passionate "debunkers."

There is a third group, in the middle (I would identify with the middle-ground position) that asserts the proposition that EMDR can be very helpful for some conditions and/but undoubtedly NOT for the reasons advanced by many of the passionate believers or promoters of EMDR. The mechanism of action likely boils down to the standard basic intervention: exposure to the distressing or feared object, in a carefully managed therapeutic environment. Very likely it has nothing to do with the person's eyes moving back and forth. The eye movement provides a distraction condition that helps to titrate and/or minimize the distress involved in deliberate exposure. Other distraction methods can and do work just as well. The language of "processing" trauma memories seems to be falling out of favor. It doesn't fit well with contemporary models of brain/memory function.

And I respect you tremendously, too, Beatle. When I arrived her just 3 months ago I quickly learned how incredibly knowledgeable and helpful you have been here at MWO, for quite a while.

wip

[Guest]

EMDR, EFT

Just wanted to add that the American Psychiatric Association has endorsed EMDR as a method accepted to be just as effective as sytematic desensitization and cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of PTSD. The Veteran's Administration has issued a similar endorsement. Yes, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of its use for other disorders such as substance abuse. There are protocols for using EMDR with substance abuse which clinical experience, at least, suggests it can be effective. I use EMDR in my clinical practice for treatment of PTSD in abuse victims and it is highly effective. Again, I agree that more research is needed for treatment of other disorders. The EFT, IMO, can be very effective for substance abuse. I also am trained in science but there is so much more that science has yet to discover....or should I say rediscover. Many Eastern healing practices such as meditation and acupuncture are now accepted my "mainstream" Western medicine. Food for thought. My best to all, Gaia

[A Work in Progress]

EMDR, EFT

Gaia, I think the question, or argument, is not so much about whether EMDR can be effective. The question has more to do with this: what is the point of having people's eyes moving back and forth? Does that add anything to the effectiveness of other exposure methods that do not employ such an odd technique? It appears, from the research findings that have been published to date, that it does not add anything; so, why do it? The reasons advanced by the promoters of EMDR are not convincing, and not supported by contemporary models of brain function.

I am certainly not opposed to any "healing practices" that can be demonstrated (and not just in a therapist's office!) to be helpful. Meditation is an excellent example of an "Eastern" practice that is currently being subjected to excellent research designs, which are beginning to show convincing evidence that it is in fact very helpful in a lot of areas, including improved immune function and diminished inflammatory response, along with improved mood. I did some of that research myself, recently, and presented it at an international scientific conference this past spring.

As to EFT, there again will be a few questions that need to be answered by well-designed research methods: is it in fact effective (which means that "effectiveness" needs to be measured, not just subjectively assessed by therapists and clients on an individual basis); is it more effective than methods that are already in use; and if so, what is it about the "novel" components of the method that are making it effective?

We would ask these questions for any new medical treatment; we certainly should ask them for a psychotherapeutic method.

wip

[Guest]

EMDR, EFT

Good Morning WIP; I'm on my way to a 5 day Mind Body Medicine Conference. Just wanted to let you know I've read your last post and respect your opinions. As for the eye movements I'd refer you to the EMDR Institute website for answers. I don't want to get into a big discussion about this right now....I came here to focus on my sobriety.
Have a great weekend, Gaia

[A Work in Progress]

EMDR, EFT

Gaia, I hope you have a great time at the conference! As to EMDR and a "big" discussion about it... with respect, you are the one who started this thread, saying you wanted to talk to others in mental health about this... And, I thank you for the reference to the EMDR Institute but, since they are the folks who are the "true believers," I don't consider them the best source of info about the scientific findings or underpinnings of the method!

Focusing on sobriety is absolutely top priority for me, too! And, I do like to discuss other topics, along the way... I think we all do. It's inevitable that we will not always agree about everything, and that's OK.

best wishes,

wip

[Evie.Lou]

EMDR, EFT

Check out U Tube...they take you step by step thru EFT tapping sequences for many different problems...I used it last night to get to sleep.

[fickle]

EMDR, EFT

OMG this is so silly!
I had ONE EFT session with a stranger over the phone in a moment of acute distress and found immediate relief. What the hell is there to argue about? It either works for you or it doesn't.

There are a million techniques on offer out there and none of them come with any guarantee. My advice is to try and if it works then great! If it doesn't work then on to the next option. What is the problem with that? I am no great fan of science and having to 'prove' everything. If a person wanted to perform surgery that would be different, but when it comes to the mind & emotions I would place any EFT practitioner on a similar level to the medical guys any day. I would in fact consider them more advanced & open minded than the medicos.

Homeopathy has been around for ages and science was only able to catch up with how it works in the last couple of years and finally 'prove' that it works.

If it WORKS it is GOOD. That is my opinon.
Sorry if I have offended anyone but I think the above argument was pointless.

Fickle

[A Work in Progress]

EMDR, EFT

Well, Fickle.... if you want to pay money to people who say that they have magical, mystical ways to cure your emotional or cognitive or behavioral problems... then go for it!! As you say, you are "no great fan of science." That's OK for you, of course. It might not be OK for everyone else, however.

I do tend to be frustrated by the viewpoint that is fairly common in our culture these days that tends to minimize the importance of science, an attitude that tends to promote the idea that all ideas are equal in validity... sort of a new version of "anything goes... if it feels good to you, then it must be good!" That's the same attitude that dismisses the science of evolutionary theory, in favor of, let's say for example, a literal interpretation of the creation story in Hebrew scriptures... Many people tend to demand (and offer!) respect for any and all ideas, opinions, and beliefs... no matter how bizarre.

Those of us who are trained and licensed to provide mental health treatment are ethically obligated to use only treatment methods that have some support by way of objective, empirical, investigation. And the scientific questions as to how, and why, a particular treatment method is effective are actually quite important, because they can provide us with a better picture of how the mind/brain work, and how things go wrong within our cognitive (thinking), emotional, and behavioral functioning. If we know how our brains/minds work, and what goes wrong in these areas, and how they can be put right, then we have engaged in progress in the work of alleviating human suffering. And that is what most of us who work in mental health are all about.

Of course, there will always be charlatans in this area, outright frauds, and they hurt people every day. It is not wrong to keep a skeptical eye on people who create novel treatment methods, and who then make a lot of money marketing them. And, aside from charlatans, there will be well-meaning and adequately trained individuals who develop new treatment methods that appear "helpful." The burden is on the individuals who develop or market these methods to demonstrate their effectiveness. In many cases, in the world of mental health treatment, the initial small-scale positive results can be found to be attributable to non-specific or unrelated factors within a therapeutic relationship. The impact of expectations (placebo) is a huge factor that accounts for much of the short-term gains that many people experience with novel "treatment" methods.

I agree with this part of what you say: "If it WORKS it is GOOD." What I suggest, and what I believe, is that this proposition then leads to the practical question: How do we demonstrate that it "works"? That is what science is all about. I do think that the consumer public has a right to demand that therapeutic methods marketed to them be subjected to objective scientific outcome studies, just as we demand for new drugs, surgical procedures, or other new treatment methods for any types of human illness or cognitive, emotional, or behavioral problem.

This discussion is far from "pointless," Fickle. But then... that's "just my opinion"!! Right?

Cordially,

wip

[beatle]

EMDR, EFT

The eye movement thing does, in fact, have established science behind it, according to my therapist-- but I have not researched this enough personally to defend it. (My therapist is a well-respected, very involved mental-health provider in the city I live in).

What I have learned leads me to believe that there is a scientific basis for this. I do also agree with WIP that questions remain and perhaps the research has not been so extensive as to be able to be certain. But certainly it is conclusive enough that well-respected mental health-care providers are using it.

Let us not forget that the scientific community, perhaps (in the best-case scenario) in its efforts to protect the patients, has vehemently resisted new forms of health care, using stringent regulations as a reason.

I know that there are many licensed health-care providers in this field who use EFT/EMDR, and that seems to me to give it some credibility. My own feeble research also leads me to believe there is something there... in addition to personal experience (which is, of course, just anecdotal).

As Fickle points out, Homeopathy is now quite recognised for its efficacy... in fact, it is accepted by health insurance in the country where I live (Northern Europe)-- just a few years ago, it was considered outside of science and therefore not valid.

I'd like to hear what you have learned at the conference, Gaia.

[A Work in Progress]

EMDR, EFT

Beatle, I'm sure you have an excellent therapist.

I'll look forward to hearing about Gaia's conference, too.

wip