I realize that I probably should have used a more objective tone in my first response, so I apologize if I offended anyone. I also probably should not have alluded to a comparison between EMDR and things like healing crystals. However, the reason I did so is because my friend's EMDR therapist actually does use healing crystals in her practice (I realize that most EMDR therapists do not). However, despite my tone in my first response, I still believe that the research on EMDR is inconclusive (and have cited resources below). I had already read the studies parttijane cites, as well as the EMDR Institute Website, so my opinion is not based on misinformation or vague assertions, but on carefully reading and considering the available scientific literature. Those in the field have differing opinions on the efficacy of EMDR, so it is not surprising that those of us on the forum have differing opinions as well. I was also aware that the APA recognizes EMDR, but I am still of the opinion that just because the APA recognizes something as a therapeutic treatment, does not mean that it is beyond reproach. The APA still recognizes Electroconvulsive Therapy for severe major depression (American Psychiatric Association). There have been studies conducted that indicate Electroconvulsive Therapy is effective-- however, I believe there are some serious flaws (and cultural and gender biases) in the way in which these studies were conducted. There is a reason why some APA-approved forms of psychiatric treatment are controversial. The APA also frequently gets it wrong with respect to what constitutes a mental disorder. The APA "got it wrong" about homosexuality (and its "treatments") for decades, and the APA still "has it wrong" about transgender issues (it still pathologizes trans identity and diagnoses "gender dysphoria"). My point here is not to make any direct comparisons but, rather, to explain why I do not believe that the APA's endorsement necessarily means that a form of therapeutic treatment is valid. I prefer to read the available research studies and scientific literature and come to my own conclusions. That does not mean I don't respect those who hold different opinions, practice, or benefit from these therapies. Like I said initially, a very good friend of mine does EMDR and finds it helpful. If it helps her, that's great. My views, however, are much more in line with those of Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld, who is now a researcher at Emory University (and used to work at my own University). He wrote the following article on EMDR.

EMDR Treatment: Still Less Than Meets the Eye?

The wikipedia page also recognizes that there is a lot of controversy surrounding EMDR, and presents both sides quite well. (Even though I recognize that Wikipedia should not be used as an academic source, as I tell my students).

From the wikipedia page: "EMDR has generated a great deal of controversy since its inception in 1989. Critics of EMDR argue that the eye movements do not play a central role, that the mechanisms of eye movements are speculative, and that the theory leading to the practice is not falsifiable and therefore not amenable to scientific inquiry.[41]

The working mechanisms that underlie the effectiveness of EMDR, and whether the eye movement component in EMDR contributes to its clinical effectiveness are still points of uncertainty and contentious debate.[42][43][44]

Although one meta-analysis concluded that EMDR is not as effective, or as long lasting, as traditional exposure therapy,[45] several other researchers using meta-analysis have found EMDR to be at least equivalent in effect size to specific exposure therapies.[30][31][32][33]

Despite the treatment procedures being quite different between EMDR and traditional exposure therapy, some authors[28][46] continue to argue that the main effective component in EMDR is exposure.

An early critical review and meta-analysis that looked at the contribution of eye movement to treatment effectiveness in EMDR concluded that eye movement is not necessary to the treatment effect.[47][48] Salkovskis (2002) reported that the eye movement is irrelevant and that the effectiveness of the procedure is solely due to its having properties similar to cognitive behavioral therapies, such as desensitization and exposure.[49]

A 2009 review of EMDR suggests further research with different populations is needed.[50]