Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Yeah, that was my initial reaction. And then I read a bit and thought, well it could be worse.Sigh.
The Lightning Process has ... also attracted criticism because it is a psychological intervention for a medical problem, which some sufferers perceive as undermining the severity of their symptoms.
The study had three notable weaknesses in its methods. These weaknesses limit how much can be made of the findings.
First, both the therapists and the clients knew which treatment they received. Hence, the zeal of the therapists or the desire of participants to please the researchers could have helped produce results in favour of the Process. Placebo effects may also have occurred: when participants think they’re getting a new, experimental treatment, placebo effects can lead to real or imagined improvements.
Second, the school attendance reports came from the young people themselves. It would have been more valuable to gather this information from official records.
Third, the Process participants received 12 extra hours of treatment. Hence, it’s not clear whether they improved more due to the content of that extra treatment or due to receiving more treatment.
Everybody seems to have gotten so clever lately at noticing that participants weren't blind to treatment and that this might affect the outcome..First, both the therapists and the clients knew which treatment they received. Hence, the zeal of the therapists or the desire of participants to please the researchers could have helped produce results in favour of the Process. Placebo effects may also have occurred: when participants think they’re getting a new, experimental treatment, placebo effects can lead to real or imagined improvements.
Funnily enough no-one asks for the mechanism by which these ‘treatments’ operate, not even the BPS mechanisms that are supposed to be addressed by them.This is why we need a disease mechanism, then it becomes akin to will counseling cure cancer. They would be laughed out of the medical ethics board hearing never mind funding the ridiculous study
Of course not, when you can shame people by claiming illness in in their head explanation is not required. Bullies have more apologists and enablers then enemies.Funnily enough no-one asks for the mechanism by which these ‘treatments’ operate, not even the BPS mechanisms that are supposed to be addressed by them.
Yes, but what are the mechanisms ‘in the head’ and where is the research/evidence to show the mechanism by which they can trigger/heal illnesses? ie any theory and evidence for causation. None offered either in theory or backed by evidence.Of course not, when you can shame people by claiming illness in in their head explanation is not required. Bullies have more apologists and enablers then enemies.
Thats my point, they don't care, they just want to make themselves feel important and believe their lies.Yes, but what are the mechanisms ‘in the head’ and where is the research/evidence to show the mechanism by which they can trigger/heal illnesses? ie any theory and evidence for causation. None offered either in theory or backed by evidence.
Is see your point. I would characterise them as basing their work with vulnerable people uncritically on unsubstantiated & deeply flawed assertions.Thats my point, they don't care, they just want to make themselves feel important and believe their lies.
basicallyIs see your point. I would characterise them as basing their work with vulnerable people uncritically on unsubstantiated & deeply flawed assertions.
As someone else said in relation to David Colqhuhoun on another thread: a lot of these science critics can only hit the mark if its an easy target.
Everybody seems to have gotten so clever lately at noticing that participants weren't blind to treatment and that this might affect the outcome.
But no-one was saying this about CBT and GET. Didn't get a mention by anyone other than patients and a tiny group of sympathetic researchers. Neuroskeptic, who's quite perceptive in other areas, didn't notice this problem at all.
Its like some sort of blind spot that everyone seems to have. As if their belief that CBT and GET are plausible is enough to blind them to the problem. Yet they can see the problem so clearly when critiquing obvious 'woo'.
As someone else said in relation to David Colqhuhoun on another thread: a lot of these science critics can only hit the mark if its an easy target.
The B does stand for behaviourism. The CBT treatments that are probably effective are the ones based on the B. Like systematic desensitisation for spider phobias (based on the idea of decoupling the classically conditioned association of spiders with fear). The B also stands for any approach that builds in some sort of reward for good behaviour or a withdrawal of reward for bad (that's the other one, operant conditioning). For example, interventions for bedwetting use a lot of rewards, and those for really troublesome kids involve identifying the rewards they get from bad behaviour, withdrawing them, and rewarding better behaviours.did make me wonder what the scientific basis for CBT actually is
There is another huge underlying and very problematic assumption in the 'C' part: that the therapist can reliably classify thoughts into good and bad, that they have some grand sweeping insight and understanding of the human condition that grants them the power to safely judge the meaning and value of thoughts.There is also a huge assumption underlying the 'C' part - that thoughts and cognitions 'drive' the problems we see in anxiety, depression, etc., so intervening on them will change the situation. But what if these thoughts, cognitions are a by-product of the problem, they don't play a major causal role? Then the whole idea collapses. I think that's a very real possibility.
Yea, CBT is inherently 'corrective'. If a therapist tells you they don't attempt to 'correct' the client's thoughts/cognitions, they just help support the client to find their own way through their problems, then they are not doing actual CBT.that the therapist can reliably classify thoughts into good and bad, that they have some grand sweeping insight and understanding of the human condition that grants them the power to safely judge the meaning and value of thoughts.
A big part of the original model of CBT was based on the idea that unhappy people had a distorted reality,
"The Lightning Process has ... also attracted criticism because it is a psychological intervention for a medical problem, which some sufferers perceive as undermining the severity of their symptoms."