FYI, the DSM does not specify any treatments for any disorder. Its only use in treatment is as a (rather crude) assessment tool for judging the effectiveness of treatment. See https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/feedba...

The DSM is essentially the big book of what insurance will pay for, nothing more or less.

Many critics agree that the DSM-V has become unduly influenced by industry (pharmaceutical, insurance, but mainly pharmaceutical). However, keep in mind that the idea was that insurance base their payments off of the DSM, not the other way around.

Luckily, there are previous editions of the DSM that are far less influenced. Note that I'm not a mental health professional by any means, but even after the DSM-V was published they taught us medical students with DSM-IV-TR.

I can see how it was taken that way, but I wasn’t trying to say that the DSM is bought and paid for. Rather, I was just describing its modern function, without implying anything about influence one way or another. Mostly, the DSM should not be taken for a comprehensive resource for anything other tham insurance codes for accepted disorders. The ICD-10 exists, and there is an accepted, ongoing body of ongoing research.

This is absolutely true...

EMDR... has there been some new study demonstrating efficacy? Last I’d checked it was absolute crap.

Studies have shown it's effective. I have seen it's effects on someone close to me. Rather spectacular, and yet not a full "cure". I was inspired enough to try it and had limited success. It doesn't work for everyone or everything. PTSD it's definitely worth giving a shot.

From what I can find you’re right, sort of. The “sort of” is summarized here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emdr-taking-a-clo...

So, now to the bottom line: EMDR ameliorates symptoms of traumatic anxiety better than doing nothing and probably better than talking to a supportive listener. Yet not a shred of good evidence exists that EMDR is superior to exposure-based treatments that behavior and cognitive-behavior therapists have been administering routinely for decades. Paraphrasing British writer and critic Samuel Johnson, Harvard University psychologist Richard McNally nicely summed up the case for EMDR: “What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective.”

Studies have shown that the studies you reference have a reproduce-result of only 39 %.

https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/

Please name the concrete study and whether it could be reproduced.

Did a few sessions back in the 90s, utterly useless, IME. Probably depends on entirely on the subject, for some it may be a miracle therapy.

At the very least it's a profitable venture for the therapist, well north of $100 per session, IIRC.