What's new

EMDR Therapy

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

Thanks, DagwoodGum.

I also found that the best scn had to offer were those types of drills, the ones that shifted attention, like, Hello & Okay, The Pain is There/The Pain is Not There, etc. Touch Assists didn't hold a candle to them, IMO, but remember how when you'd get that sort of a session, how things would just pop up that bothered you and then sort of dissipate (or became unimportant afterward)?

So maybe it wasn't the communication part that was effective after all, just the shifting of attention. In fact, maybe without the communication emphasis acting as a distraction, those processes would have been far more effective.

EMDR is somewhat similar, but it is apparently guided with questions asked while the client does this. The theory behind it is that it is the conscious shifting of attention with our eyes to actual things that makes it possible to move past traumatic incidents and brings about results, rather than focus on imagining and thinking about an incident in our heads like we normally do and like most auditing demands. Dulloldfart takes it much further and he has a real good point, why just use your eyes? Why not fully grab onto something and actually touch and experience the mass and weight of it, besides? I think he's right and he's got something valuable to contribute to the Psychology community and that the timing is good to present this, since it takes EMDR so much further. Besides, he's had years of others using it successfully and that means a great deal.

I'm encouraging him because I think Rub & Yawn now has legitimate research preceding it, plus all the years and clients who Paul already had use it, and it could take ten or twenty years before EMDR develops into something similar, otherwise.

What you said about shifting of attention reminded me of something Ronnie Miscavige said in his book Ruthless.

At one time he had a bad toothache and someone suggested he go to a gym for some weight lifting. He did go and when he'd finished he realised his toothache had gone. So he decided that the way to overcome pain is to shift attention away from it.

Apparently he then used this technique to help with David's asthma. When an asthma attack started Ronnie would grab David and take him into the garage and make him lift weights until the asthma attack went away.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
What do you think about this?

I think if you feel it does you good THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS!

Find what works for you !

I have friends who feel prayer works for them - and I fully support them !

I have friends who feel channeling works for them - and I fully support them !

I have friends who feel meditation works for them - and I fully support them !

I have friends who feel scientology works for them - and I fully support them !


Whatever you feel works for you .

What the rest of the world thinks about what works for you ? Matters not - it is all what you think !

Enjoy yourself !
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

What you said about shifting of attention reminded me of something Ronnie Miscavige said in his book Ruthless.

At one time he had a bad toothache and someone suggested he go to a gym for some weight lifting. He did go and when he'd finished he realised his toothache had gone. So he decided that the way to overcome pain is to shift attention away from it.

Apparently he then used this technique to help with David's asthma. When an asthma attack started Ronnie would grab David and take him into the garage and make him lift weights until the asthma attack went away.

True, one can not focus on anything & not attract more of it !
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

True, one can not focus on anything & not attract more of it !

But then as is-ness requires one focus one's attention upon and fully duplicate something with the result of ultimately having less of it.
So, once again, it's all a "science" of double speak is it not?
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

But then as is-ness requires one focus one's attention upon and fully duplicate something with the result of ultimately having less of it.
So, once again, it's all a "science" of double speak is it not?

So, please tell me, what have you "as is-ed" ?

Tell me about 'don't of a banana' - does it work, or not ?

This 'as is' shit is Hubbard gibberish of made up 'science' by a drug addled mind of a con artist.

There are things one doesn't have to believe, like gravity - deny it all you want but it still governs your life on this planet :)

But, for those forever stuck with Hubbard, do, by all means, go buy some more books, buy some more auditing, help save the planet by giving money to the IAS ( there is a real LOL ! ) & make sure to promote it as if it was truth & worked !
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

But then as is-ness requires one focus one's attention upon and fully duplicate something with the result of ultimately having less of it.
So, once again, it's all a "science" of double speak is it not?

We're talking about two very different things here, DG. Focusing attention on one thing is not shifting your vision, in fact, it is the opposite.

There are no concepts of keying out or in or communicating with things or as-isness in EMDR therapy (the subject of this thread).

It is about visual shifts during guided questions presented by the therapist in order to obtain relief for those suffering with PTSD. The premise has to do with how the brain and vision work together. It's not Hubbardian or scientological in any way.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

So, please tell me, what have you "as is-ed" ?

Tell me about 'don't of a banana' - does it work, or not ?

This 'as is' shit is Hubbard gibberish of made up 'science' by a drug addled mind of a con artist.

There are things one doesn't have to believe, like gravity - deny it all you want but it still governs your life on this planet :)

But, for those forever stuck with Hubbard, do, by all means, go buy some more books, buy some more auditing, help save the planet by giving money to the IAS ( there is a real LOL ! ) & make sure to promote it as if it was truth & worked !

Never as is'ed anything.
I have ended cycle on mental masses by hitting them with an energised ack though.
Just pointing out that "asising" is one more contradiction as an example of Hubbard''s slick double talk.
It would seem that the purported workability of auditing would be the asIsing of mental mass, but it probably is more likely that it all just piles up until they have an excuse to cs you for some expensive repair action.
 
Last edited:

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

We're talking about two very different things here, DG. Focusing attention on one thing is not shifting your vision, in fact, it is the opposite.

There are no concepts of keying out or in or communicating with things or as-isness in EMDR therapy (the subject of this thread).

It is about visual shifts during guided questions presented by the therapist in order to obtain relief for those suffering with PTSD. The premise has to do with how the brain and vision work together. It's not Hubbardian or scientological in any way.

Yes, I know nothing of EMDR therapy, I'm just innately skeptical is all. I'very seen so many new therapies come and go over the years. Oddly, I just drove past a storefront with a big Eckankar sign out front, I'd thought that had long since fizzled out.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

Yes, I know nothing of EMDR therapy, I'm just innately skeptical is all. I'very seen so many new therapies come and go over the years. Oddly, I just drove past a storefront with a big Eckankar sign out front, I'd thought that had long since fizzled out.

Oh! Now i get you. EMDR Therapy is a legitimate style/form of Psychotherapy for PTSD and requires a trained, certified practitioner. It isn't New Age stuff. Earlier on this thread (Thank you very much, Mod, for combining this thread with the original. :thankyou:) ESMB was fortunate to be joined by a retired psychologist, Dr. Patti Jane. She wrote the following:

As a recently retired psychologist, I used EMDR therapy as my primary psychotherapy treatment and I've also personally had EMDR therapy for anxiety, panic, grief, and “small t” trauma. As a client, EMDR worked extremely well and also really fast. As an EMDR therapist, and in my (now retired) role as a facilitator who trained other therapists in EMDR therapy (certified by the EMDR International Association and trained by the EMDR Institute, both of which I strongly recommend in an EMDR therapist) I have used EMDR therapy successfully with panic disorders, PTSD (acute and chronic), anxiety, social anxiety, depression, grief, body image, phobias, distressing memories, bad dreams, and many other problems. It's a very gentle method with no significant "down-side" so that in the hands of a professional EMDR therapist, there should be no freak-outs or worsening of day-to-day functioning.

It is NOT Scientology!

EMDR therapy is considered a first-line treatment for trauma by organizations such as ISTSS (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Departments of Health in Northern Ireland, UK, Israel, the Netherlands, France, and other countries and organizations.

The World Health Organization published Guidelines for the management of conditions that are specifically related to stress: Trauma-focused CBT and EMDR are the only therapies recommended for children, adolescents and adults with PTSD. "Like CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR therapy aims to reduce subjective distress and strengthen adaptive cognitions related to the traumatic event. Unlike CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR does not involve (a) detailed descriptions of the event, (b) direct challenging of beliefs, (c) extended exposure, or (d) homework." (Geneva, WHO, 2013)

One of the initial phases (Phase 2) in EMDR psychotherapy involves preparing for memory processing or desensitization (memory processing or desensitization - phases 3-6 - is often what is referred to as "EMDR" which is actually an 8-phase method of psychotherapy). In this phase resources are "front-loaded" so that you have a "floor" or "container" to help with processing the really hard stuff, as well as creating strategies if you're triggered in everyday life. In Phase 2 you learn a lot of great coping strategies and self-soothing techniques which you can use during EMDR processing or anytime you feel the need. Always talk with your therapist at the beginning of your work about what you already know is grounding for you. To me, EZ Linus, it sounds like you "jumped" right into the processing phases without laying the groundwork.

In phase 2 you learn how to access a “Safe or Calm Place” which you can use at ANY TIME during EMDR processing (or on your own) if it feels scary, or too emotional, too intense. One of the key assets of EMDR is that YOU, the client, are in control NOW, even though you weren’t in the past, during traumatic events. You NEVER need re-live an experience or go into great detail, ever! You NEVER need to go through the entire memory. YOU can decide to keep the lights (or the alternating sounds and/or tactile pulsars, or the waving hand, or any method of bilateral stimulation that feels okay to you and your parts) going, or stop them, whichever helps titrate – measure and adjust the balance or “dose“ of the processing. During EMDR processing there are regular “breaks” and you can control when and how many but the therapist should be stopping the bilateral stimulation every 25-50 passes of the lights to ask you to take a deep breath and say just a bit of what you’re noticing, anything different, any changes. (The stimulation should not be kept on continuously, because there are specific procedures that need to be followed to process the memory). The breaks help keep a “foot in the present” while you’re processing the past. Again, and I can’t say this enough, YOU ARE IN CHARGE so YOU can make the process tolerable. And your therapist should be experienced in the EMDR techniques that help make it the gentlest and safest way to detoxify bad life experiences and build resources. Your therapist should also be using a variety of techniques to make painful processing less painful, like suggesting you turn the scene in your mind to black and white, lower the volume, or, erect a bullet-proof glass wall between you and the painful scene, or, imagine the abuser speaking in a Donald Duck voice... and so forth. There are a lot of these kinds of "interventions" that ease the processing. They are called "cognitive interweaves" that your therapist can use, and that also can help bring your adult self's perspective into the work (or even an imaginary Adult Perspective). Such interweaves are based around issues of Safety, Responsibility, and Choice. So therapist questions like "are you safe now?" or "who was responsible? and "do you have more choices now?" are all very helpful in moving the processing along.

Grounding exercises are essential. You can use some of the techniques in Dr. Shapiro's new book "Getting Past Your Past: Take Control of Your Life with Self-Help Techniques from EMDR." Dr. Shapiro is the founder/creator of EMDR but all the proceeds from the book go to two charities: the EMDR Humanitarian Assistance Program and the EMDR Research Foundation). The book is an easy read, helps you understand what's "pushing" your feelings and behavior, helps you connect the dots from past experiences to current life. Also gives lots of really helpful ways that are used during EMDR therapy to calm disturbing thoughts and feelings.

I can't say enough good things about EMDR therapy. It's changed my life both as a person/consumer, and as a therapist. It has been so satisfying to have someone come in for help and then to witness them get through their issues and finish therapy relatively quickly (compared to regular talk therapy, it's like night and day). I am both humbled by and grateful for this wonderful method that heals suffering.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I'm not sure of the relation but there is something with eye movements in a therapy that was developed over at USF (University of South Florida) which I've heard reports of dramatic results in a very short period of time, sometimes as little as an hour.

I've not read this particular paper, it's just some random article I found in a search, but have read other things in past directly from USF:

Accelerated resolution therapy significantly reduces PTSD symptoms, researchers report

<snip>

For anyone interested, here's a post which goes into some of the similarities between EDMR therapy and ART (Accelerated Resolution Therapy):
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/accelerated-resolution-therapy-art-quick-fix-for-ptsd-0301175

Here's an excerpt:
What Is ART?

ART is an eye-movement therapy. The person in therapy moves their eyes back and forth following the therapist’s hand, and the therapist gives specific directions before each set of eye movements. ART draws on a number of other established and evidence-based therapies, such as cognitive behavioral theory, gestalt, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). However, it is unique in being a procedurally oriented therapy. Other therapies typically focus on the content of the person’s thoughts and emotions.


Since ART is procedurally oriented, the person in therapy doesn’t have to talk about what happened. This makes the approach great when working with people who may have trouble talking about their emotions, as might some individuals in the military. It also may be easier on the therapist, who doesn’t have to experience secondary (vicarious) trauma as a result of hearing about terrible things.

ART Is Said to Work Quickly
Very rapid healing is a hallmark of accelerated resolution therapy. Many therapists trained in ART report people can heal from a single traumatic event—such as an auto accident, assault, or witnessing an atrocity—in as little as one session. Some therapists report healing phobias in one session as well.

I recently watched the developer of ART, Laney Rosenzweig, heal a woman from two phobias in less than an hour. These very rapid results may seem unbelievable to someone familiar only with other therapies. Most of the evidence-based therapies for treating posttraumatic stress expect to take between 12 and 20 sessions to be effective. ART, meanwhile, has been shown to be effective in only three to five sessions in scientific studies of both military and civilian populations (Kip et al., 2012; Kip et al., 2013; Kip et al., 2014). It was even shown to be effective working with a population of homeless veterans (Kip et al., 2016). Some of them didn’t complete treatment because they found jobs or housing, but despite this, a study found a success rate of over 50%.
One consideration when choosing a therapy is how likely the person is to complete the full course of treatment. The longer a therapy takes to complete, the less likely it is the person will complete it. Because ART is such a brief treatment, more people may be likely to complete a course using this approach to healing.

<snip>
How ART Differs from EMDR

Col. Charles Hoge, an Army psychiatrist who trained in both EMDR and ART, compared the two and noted 10 points of difference (Hoge, 2015). Some of the major ones are:

  • EMDR uses a variable number of eye movements, while ART uses a fixed number.
  • EMDR uses free association, while ART therapists are directive.
  • EMDR pays attention to content, whereas ART therapists focus on visual imagery and emotional sensations.
  • EMDR is content-oriented, while ART has a procedural orientation.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I posted about ART (which is a cousin of EDMR) in the past on ESMB but was unable to find my previous postings. But believe this media report was part of it:

[video=youtube;NgopTcJ2234]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgopTcJ2234[/video]


and this one as well:

[video=youtube;w_bi0eW_WsU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_bi0eW_WsU[/video]


Here's an interview with a lady who had a phobia eliminated in a one hour session using ART:
[video=youtube;9gfvoNxPoKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gfvoNxPoKw[/video]
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Re: EMDR: A New Psychological Therapy for PTSD

Oh! Now i get you. EMDR Therapy is a legitimate style/form of Psychotherapy for PTSD and requires a trained, certified practitioner. It isn't New Age stuff. Earlier on this thread (Thank you very much, Mod, for combining this thread with the original. :thankyou:) ESMB was fortunate to be joined by a retired psychologist, Dr. Patti Jane. She wrote the following:

Sheila, thanks for setting me straight on it. I Googled it just now as well and it's definitely food for thought as well as something more legitimate for ex's to transition into and fulfill their long standing goals of finding a tech that can handle unresolved issues they may have.
When I say food for thought it made me think "what if the supposed big bugaboo "reactive mind" was nothing more than the flip side of the brain that is not normally brought into play but during times of overwhelm it is?"
And the thought "what if the "reactive mind" is nothing more than the uncharted 95% of the brain that one normally doesn't use?"
I'm going to be learning more about it and can hopefully get some answers, thank you again for your thoughtful response!
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
In scn perhaps the best process they ever came up with was R 2-45 ! C'mon, at least it'd been over in a hurry !

Imagine, if only Ron had done the research on that one himself ! Look at what we'd have been spared ! !

My biggest complaint now is that Ron didn't proof that one out on his own thick skull !

What an opportunity got missed !
 

EZ Linus

Cleared Tomato
Since originally participating on this thread in July 2016 (after my first and only session of EMDR), I have learned a lot more about, especially since my psychologist is fully trained and certified in it. I'd always been critical of it for at least a year before I tried it. She is a Ph.D after all, and I expected her to have her head on straight. But, now I've read a ton of research on it. It really IS a legitimate therapy that helps many, many people with PTSD. I knew that before, kind of, but now I know that it's true.

However, not all PTSD cases are the same, and this is perhaps more likely the reason why my EMDR session went horribly wrong, or at least compounded other reasons. It's true it also triggered me into a tailspin. But I don't think it was just because it reminded me a little of auditing and e-meters, or even the feeling of suspicion of being duped again.

It's that EMDR is only good for certain types of PTSD.

It works well on soldiers (most likely) because they are probably traumatized over something pretty specific, and maybe if I was traumatized only by Scientology, it could have worked for me too. But I have Complex PTSD and EMDR doesn't work so great for this type of PTSD.

When someone has Complex PTSD (plus, remember, I have bipolar as well), they could very well have aspects of a dissociative disorder too. Bringing their attention to the lights and the clicking and all that, can be too much. I have an extreme dissociative disorder because of everything I've been through (a ton of abuse before I even got into Scientology). But the tapping, that helps me when I feel temporarily panicked, stressed, angry, upset, etc. There's also a thing called havening which is additionally connected to the whole EMDR model, and that helps too. The havening is a lot like the tapping (based on the meridian system thing) and works even faster. People have basically been doing something just like it as a natural reaction to soothe themselves forever -- cradling themselves and rubbing their own arms when feeling extremely upset, shocked, etc.

Anyway, in full disclosure, ever since that "incident," that day I received my first EMDR session -- for those of you just tuning in -- I felt pretty good afterward. But then I went to lunch with a friend an hour afterward and told her about it. She, of course, had never heard of it before, and was naturally very skeptical. She was just looking out for me. As a matter of fact she's a big anti-Scientology/free speech/Anonymous friend of mine (I mean, neither of us are in Anonymous but she's connected to them on Facebook and loves that they dislike Scn). She's also never been in the cult either. I've known her as a "wog." Anyway, when I tried to tell her about EMDR in a quick nutshell, I was hearing myself talk about the eye machine and holding the little buzzies in my hands. Just before, I could gauge her reaction. I couldn't help but agree. "It sure sound like a Scientology's e-meter," she said with her mouth half stuffed with un-chewed sandwich.

For the rest of the day, that was all I could think about. It's just another bullshit mind bending apparatus. I'm so fucking gullible! By the evening, I was having a bit of an obsessive meltdown, and three days later, I'd been crying and couldn't make it stop. I can't remember if I mentioned this part on the forum (probably not), but my therapist and I decided that EMDR wasn't for me. Still, all the other treatment surrounding it (mainly the reading), I've done, and I've even made drawings pertaining to some of the concepts. But all in all, I have not been doing well since that point in time. That's not to say it is because of that day. That's just the time I've used to mark the calendar as to when my depression took a major turn for the worst. It could be other factors, like having had quit smoking a couple of months before that. Or maybe my meds began to wear off? I'm not sure. Still, the tapping and havening are little temporary fixes when things get escalated.

I also was working on a book, which could explain all of this. Editing, drafting, writing and rewriting all the tragedies in my life -- every day, over and over. That's probably "why." I finished it on the 3rd of March and now I am just so glad to get some distance, but the depression is still with me.

Thanks for listening, I mean reading. :p
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: ANY and ALL Therapy

I came across a person long ago who said :

" At least 85 % of the results of any therapy is the belief in it that the patient brings to it ".

In my experience, and observation, I've found that applies to everything I've ever heard of.

Tends to go along with others who say that we as individuals have all the strength and wisdom we will ever need - we just need to have the courage to use it.

Like most of my fellow readers here, I've seen great results and great failures from almost every form help ever foisted off on mankind.

Can it be true that it is what we bring and what we believe that determines the outcome ?
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Re: ANY and ALL Therapy

I

Can it be true that it is what we bring and what we believe that determines the outcome ?

I think it is correct in part to say that!

Because any therapy to bring a change begins with:

1) hope to change what need to be changed (views, reactions, resentment, fear, sadness, toxic emotions\thoughts ..whatever..
2) the willingness to work on it and do it

The 2nd part is the most important. It adresse the lcient own involvement. (there no magic in it..rewards comes with work)
For example if the therapist offers you to work on a specifictc therapy and you don't believe those therapies can help you because..this and that...
well, if you make an agreement with the therapist that you do your work to follow the procedures and processes..then it will work.

That is the difference with Woo Woo..and prooven therapies have been measured to give results per scientific studies and double blind controlled. There must be a significant difference to conclude it is efficient. So the part (competence and techniques) the therapist brings is key to success.

But I would agree that when the client believes it will help, + like and appreciate his\her therapist, and both do a wonderfull team..it helps to gives even better results.


As an example: I have a good friend of mine who entered last week a last stage of a very aggressive cancer. She was not prepared to it. She was devastated. She began today to consult the psychologist she previously had seen in her oncology programm few years ago. He had now begun to help her to prepared for this next stage of her life. So I just saw her today..and she really is doing way better. We laughed and she is preparing to enjoy the next coming days of spring, adopting a day-to-day philosophy of taking the best as she can while putting orders into her $$affairs.

It addressed her comfort and emotions as she was expecting, with pretty good results.
 
Last edited:

EZ Linus

Cleared Tomato
I think I may only partially agree about the patient's attitude in any one particular therapy working, or not. I fully understand the concept that it would benefit the patient to have the perspective to: 1. feel optimism/hope for real change to happen and be willing to do the work necessary to get there, and 2. have a great relationship with the therapist. That is a major plus. I think these things are certainly helpful in the therapeutic process, sure. But, I wouldn't be sure that any one specific technique will work whether those factors are in play or not. And that's only because of this other thing I've come to believe in that outweighs both of those helpful tidbits, more than the old "positive attitude" or "mind over matter" concepts, and that's just science. It at least has to work as close to science as possible in that all the patients are getting consistently the same results no matter what kind of attitude they bring in with them.

It's what we bring and what we believe that determines the outcome blah blah blah reminds me of more of the same Scientology ideal. It's just more of the same: being responsible for your own case gain BS. It's pan-determinism light. Then you can blame the patient for not believing in himself enough, or his rapport the therapist, but not the technique itself. See what I mean?

Personally, for me, I didn't like the idea of closing my eyes, holding little buzzies in my hands and imagining anything. It didn't matter if it was thinking of a peaceful place or not. It's didn't matter if I was thinking of someone loving or not. I did not want to be in that vulnerable, possibly hypnotic position ever again, and it kind of felt like I was. So, for me the concept seems pretty sound, but the eye movement part I'm not sold on, or even the buzzing. I will need to keep reading, or, maybe I won't. I think for someone who has been so burned by auditing, it just might not be the correct type of therapy for me.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
I think I may only partially agree about the patient's attitude in any one particular therapy working, or not. I fully understand the concept that it would benefit the patient to have the perspective to: 1. feel optimism/hope for real change to happen and be willing to do the work necessary to get there, and 2. have a great relationship with the therapist. That is a major plus. I think these things are certainly helpful in the therapeutic process, sure. But, I wouldn't be sure that any one specific technique will work whether those factors are in play or not. And that's only because of this other thing I've come to believe in that outweighs both of those helpful tidbits, more than the old "positive attitude" or "mind over matter" concepts, and that's just science. It at least has to work as close to science as possible in that all the patients are getting consistently the same results no matter what kind of attitude they bring in with them.

It's what we bring and what we believe that determines the outcome blah blah blah reminds me of more of the same Scientology ideal. It's just more of the same: being responsible for your own case gain BS. It's pan-determinism light. Then you can blame the patient for not believing in himself enough, or his rapport the therapist, but not the technique itself. See what I mean?

Personally, for me, I didn't like the idea of closing my eyes, holding little buzzies in my hands and imagining anything. It didn't matter if it was thinking of a peaceful place or not. It's didn't matter if I was thinking of someone loving or not. I did not want to be in that vulnerable, possibly hypnotic position ever again, and it kind of felt like I was. So, for me the concept seems pretty sound, but the eye movement part I'm not sold on, or even the buzzing. I will need to keep reading, or, maybe I won't. I think for someone who has been so burned by auditing, it just might not be the correct type of therapy for me.

I hardly an advocate of scientology. But, after looking at many things that work for some people & not for others ?

How come be it science or pure mumbo jumbo BS sometimes it works, sometimes not ? :rubeyes:

Perhaps you can explain why science sometimes doesn't work ? :omg:

Gee, you think maybe God does ' divine intervention ' to fix things ? :roflmao:
 
Last edited:

EZ Linus

Cleared Tomato
I don't know if we somehow misunderstood each other Gizmo, but I certainly can not explain to you how science "doesn't work sometimes." Then it wouldn't be science, would it? :eyeroll: I was trying to be as polite as possible (and probably wound up just not being very clear) that I don't believe in "mind over matter." I can see positive thinking making someone "feel" better while they a battling out cancer or some such thing. I do not think however, it changes the ultimate outcome.
 
Top