This response to McNally challenges the notion that scientific controversy
should be waged with smear tactics. McNally's anti-EMDR conclusions are con
tested as premature and based on red herrings, selective neglect of the lit
erature, and erroneous application of scientific principles. The importance
of treatment fidelity is highlighted as a way of distinguishing between EM
DR studies of widely varying quality. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All ri
ghts reserved.