[lisper]

EMDR looks mighty hinky to me.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11393607/

"In sum, EMDR appears to be no more effective than other exposure techniques, and evidence suggests that the eye movements integral to the treatment, and to its name, are unnecessary."

[howinteresting]

These days EMDR is a synecdoche for bilateral stimulation techniques. Eye movements aren't actually integral to EMDR.

[lisper]

That doesn't make it any less bogus.

[howinteresting]

There's plenty of anecdotal experience saying it's been helpful. I've tried it personally and I found it "too much" which is why I stopped.

[theGnuMe]

That research is likely out of date.

[lisper]

Out of date does not necessarily mean wrong. If you want to challenge this result the burden is on you to cite some more recent work with different results.

[theGnuMe]

You can simply google more recent things dude. You picked an article from 2001. Try 2021 or 2022. Clearly you have an agenda.

But here's a case report showing a reduction in tics after EMDR.

https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-...

[lisper]

In a single patient. Published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, which is not exactly a top-tier journal.

If that's the best you've got, that makes me even more confident that EMDR is bogus.

> Clearly you have an agenda.

Indeed I do. My agenda is to seek the truth, and to debunk bogus scientific claims wherever I encounter them.

[theGnuMe]

There is growing evidence that EMDR works. If you can't find any articles yourself and read the literature well then it is your loss.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0218...