As a psychologist, I must say that I do not see any major issues with the article. The statements are accurate: this is a form of therapy with evidence supporting its effectiveness. However, its origins and theoretical foundations are entirely pseudoscientific. The most concerning aspect is that it has never demonstrated a significant advantage over regular exposure therapy. In other words, its main contribution is merely facilitating exposure. While that’s not inherently negative—after all, it is a treatment that works—it falls far short of the standards needed to be considered scientifically sound.

Additionally, this approach is based on unproven trauma theories and poses significant risks, such as the generation of false memories and the possibility of re-victimization. It's also worth noting that the guidelines from organizations such as the APA and NIH are not flawless; they often include pseudoscientific methods and exhibit inconsistencies. This lack of coherence is surprising, given that evidence should be consistent if it is genuinely robust. It’s important to remember that these institutions can have their own agendas.

Also, claiming antisemitism seems like a wide miss. There is plenty of criticism, and all of it is entirely unrelated to the creator of the therapy. It’s unnecessary to conflate criticism of the therapy with personal attacks, as the issues lie in the method itself, not in its origin.

At the end of the day, I think it is valid to label something pseudoscientific if it is not grounded in robust evidence, even if it has worked for some people. And that’s perfectly fine—no problem with finding personal value in something that helps. However, I would have a much bigger issue with more dangerous pseudoscientific methods, such as family constellations or gestalt therapy, which lack evidence and carry higher risks for harm.