This response to McNally challenges the notion that scientific controversy should be waged with smear tactics. McNally’s anti-EMDR conclusions are contested as premature and based on red herrings, selective neglect of the literature, and erroneous application of scientific principles. The importance of treatment fidelity is highlighted as a way of distinguishing between EMDR studies of widely varying quality.

This is the abstract only.
Please feel free to request a copy of the full paper.