The study specifically mentions GET as part of regular treatment but not the web-based CBT. Whether GET was also part of the study treatment isn't really clear to me - perhaps I glossed over mention of that in the study & missed it. But from what I could gather it wasn't, and that's what can be the really dangerous part of those approaches. I doubt CBT on its own is really going to harm anyone significantly. And although some people have difficultly even getting on the computer - I've had that difficulty myself at times during crashes - I doubt that most people with CFS most of the time would find that difficult enough to impede the treatment or make them worse. Sorry you had a bad experience with the CBT you underwent. Apparently that wasn't web-based CBT, though, as in the study, and I'm therefore presuming that the frequency of your treatment wasn't the same, either. As we all know, one anecdotal report, as compelling as it may be, is not scientific evidence, and it appears that you didn't even have the same therapy as in the study. So I don't really think definitive conclusions can be made adequately about the web-based CBT either from your report or from other non-web based CBT report. It's not the same thing, as shown by the control group in the study being made up of standard CBT & not showing the improvement of the study group.