EMDRIA was called to action when we received communication from several members about the misrepresentation of EMDR therapy published recently on the Psychology Today website. The letter below is EMDRIA's response from our Executive Director, Michael Bowers. EMDRIA's goal in this endeavor was to ensure that both EMDR therapists and the public can continue to access credible, accessible, and relevant information about EMDR therapy.
January 27, 2026
Dear Psychology Today Editorial Team,
You recently published an article about Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy (EMDR) that contains material inaccuracies and omissions. The EMDR International Association (EMDRIA) is writing to formally request substantive revision, correction, or even retraction of this article.
Why make this request?
The article emphasizes controversies that were debated in the very early years of EMDR's development. However, you failed to report that EMDR's effectiveness, especially for PTSD, is supported by more than 40 randomized controlled trials, as well as multiple meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
It fails to report that EMDR therapy is explicitly recommended in major national and international treatment guidelines, including, among others, those issued by:
- The World Health Organization (WHO)
- The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS)
- The American Psychiatric Association
- The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- The US Department of Defense
- The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
With these omissions and with the use of highly biased language throughout the article, we believe your article puts patients and clinical care at risk. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone who is receiving EMDR and benefitting from it could read your article and then begin to question their care, or even to abandon therapy altogether. We see no public service or good that comes from the slanted presentation of EMDR, but rather significant potential damage.
We know many EMDRIA members also advertise on your referral platform. Given the inaccuracies, obvious omissions and bias of this article, it is difficult to understand why any EMDR clinician chooses to appear on your platform. Ignoring the RCTs and inclusion of EMDR in so many treatment guidelines, and instead saying, "Many contend that the technique is too akin to voodoo," is beneath your publication. In fact, just before that statement, the article cites a possible neurological basis for the eye movements in EMDR…only to have it negated by sensational and fundamentally unsupported language. Speaking personally, I would not be surprised if there are many fewer EMDR therapists to be found in your therapist directory in the future.
Since EMDRIA also publishes a feature-based magazine, we understand that it can be challenging to find vetted and reliable content to meet deadlines and provide helpful information to the public. At the same time, we believe Psychology Today can do better than articles that read more like they come from an AI prompt of "tell me controversial things that have been said about EMDR over the last 30 years" than a good-faith review of scholarly literature that is summarized in a manner relevant and understandable to the general public. Additionally, for articles such as this, it would seem appropriate to have an author attributed to the assertions that are made. I simply cannot understand the "why" for this article. It doesn't seem to do anything except discourage people from seeking a form of therapy that has clear and abundant evidence of effectiveness.
If you would like to know more scientific information about EMDR, EMDRIA maintains a comprehensive and regularly updated summary of recent peer-reviewed research, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews at our 'Recent Research on EMDR Therapy' page, which we strongly encourage your editorial team to review. Additionally, we would happily connect you with EMDR scholars who can provide accurate information rather than the mythology and slanted, biased attributions you published.
For the good of the public and those who are receiving EMDR, and even for your own brand reputation as a publisher of accurate information about mental health and psychological interventions, we strongly urge your editorial team to correct the record. Pull the article. Write a correction or addendum that presents the research about EMDR. Be more thoughtful about the foreseeable clinical and care implications of content you publish.
We would appreciate knowing when and how you might respond and address these concerns through publication. Please let us know your next steps to provide an accurate report on EMDR.
Sincerely,
Michael Bowers
Executive Director, EMDRIA
