CBT isn't a "manualized" form of therapy. "Manualized" means that everyone follows a very rigid way of treating - about the only time CBT would be used in a "manualized" way is in a research study to compare the effectiveness of two (or more) different kinds of treatments. (If you want a chapter long discussion, see
http://sites.udel.edu/delawareproject/files/2011/10/Wilson.pdf ) In a research study, you generally want to keep everything as similar as possible except for the levels of the independent variable(s) - in this case, the different kinds of treatments. Thus, in this case, an attempt would be made to get all therapists involved in the study on the same page, using a fairly similar approach, to treat a given condition (a "treatment manual" would be created of some sort). Yes, it is somewhat artificial, but it's the the best way to make a good assessment of whether one form of treatment is more effective than another, in a given situation. This approach can be criticized because external validity (the degree to which findings from this somewhat artificial situation generalize to real world situations) is somewhat compromised (therapy in the real world is generally not done in a manualized manner).
More and more clinical psychologists/counselors are being trained to use a fairly eclectic approach - to switch between therapeutic approaches depending on the patient's situation, as well as what we know to be most effective, based on well-designed and well-conducted studies. (It's actually fairly uncommon (outside of psychodynamic approaches) for training in counselling & clinical psychology to be restricted to one theoretical approach these days, although that was more often the case 20+ years ago). CBT stands for cognitive-behavioral therapy; it is a combination of approaches from cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy, and thus, is already a merging of 2 separate approaches.
CBT approaches in general have better research evidence supporting their effectiveness than psychodynamic approaches do. While there is a good deal of weak research in both areas (poor design, poor controls, poor definitions of disorder, poor classification of participants, too few participants, poor statistical analysis, and so on; clinical psychologists, who often have conducted these studies, generally are not well trained in research, although there are some who are), there is far more fairly strong research for CBT compared to psychodynamic approaches.
(See
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/looking-for-evidence-that-therapy-works/ for more information to the paragraphs above.)
http://condor.depaul.edu/ljason/ Scroll way down and there is are links to a series of 6 webinars on ME/CFS by Leonard Jason, among other great things at his website.
http://condor.depaul.edu/ljason/cfs/ CFS specific links