• 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 (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Science Media Centre - "CBT - does it really work?"

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
This was a briefing given by the SMC for journalists the other day.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/cbt-does-it-really-work/
Many people are concerned about over-medicalisation and the use of pharmaceutical therapies such as antidepressants. This concern has coincided with a rise in the use of psychological therapies, particularly Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). However, do we know how strong the evidence for CBT actually is? Is it really just talking, or would that even matter as long as it works? Is the evidence only strong for certain disorders and can it cause harm, even when used correctly?

The SMC invited in three top experts to give an honest appraisal of the evidence, to discuss how CBT fits into the wider picture and to explain the pros and cons of this therapy.
Well, I know just what impartial, let's look at this from both angles, kinda guys and gals I'd expect to see at an SMC event on this and I wasn't disappointed.
Prof. Rona Moss-Morris, Professor of Psychology as Applied to Medicine, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

Prof. Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine Research, University of Oxford

Prof. Dame Til Wykes, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience
Well, that's all right then. I'm sure everyone was fully appraised.
 
Last edited:

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
This looks like an effort to disinform journalists in anticipation of PACE trial criticisms.

- What exactly is CBT and how does it work? Is it just talking?
- Where do we have robust evidence of CBT working really well?
- What about issues like placebos and double-blind RCTs – does it matter if we don’t have the same level of rigour as for drugs?
- Are there concerns about CBT being overused or misused? Can it cause harm? How do we ensure practitioners have sufficient training in its use?
- How cost-effective is CBT? Are we using it enough?
- Can we see a future where psychological therapies replace pharmacological ones for many mental illnesses?

One can easily predict what the message will be:

- The evidence for use of CBT in CFS is robust.
- Lack of blinding and emphasis on subjective outcomes in a clinical trial is no problem.
- CBT is appropriate for CFS, changing "false illness beliefs" is not misuse, and there's no evidence of harm.
- CBT is cost effective, and we are not using it enough (those poor patients).

This mirrors the PACE trial criticism. I doubt that they will actually tell journalists that there are people who disagree with these points and can back their opinion up with good arguments.

PS: CBT for psychosis is also under attack, so it's likely the briefing will reflect that.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
This was a briefing given by the SMC for journalists the other day.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/cbt-does-it-really-work/

Well, I know just what impartial, let's look at this from both angles, kinda guys and gals I'd expect to see at an SMC event on this and I wasn't disappointed.

Well, that's all right then. I'm sure everyone was fully appraised.

There was a guy called Orwell who did some rather good send ups of this sort of thing years ago - four legs good and two legs bad, oops, two legs good four legs bad, and all that.

But Big Brother had some style and manipulative skills. What seems so extraordinary about this is its transparent incompetence - like some teenagers pretending to be the ministry of information when all they are doing is what some psychiatrist chap tells them. Now that the emperor is seen to be naked it all seems ridiculous. But maybe things are changing - maybe in this internet age you can walk around in your birthday suit for ever and nobody will notice. No, I think chickens come home to roost in the end - to mix metaphors.
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
But Big Brother had some style and manipulative skills. What seems so extraordinary about this is its transparent incompetence - like some teenagers pretending to be the ministry of information when all they are doing is what some psychiatrist chap tells them. Now that the emperor is seen to be naked it all seems ridiculous. But maybe things are changing - maybe in this internet age you can walk around in your birthday suit for ever and nobody will notice. No, I think chickens come home to roost in the end - to mix metaphors.
Oh, we're post-truth now Jonathan, no-one needs your "facts" or your "evidence" anymore. In fact, I've no doubt if the SMC conducted one of their analyses on you they could "prove" that you were a lizard. And we all know it's the Lizards who rule the world these days, backed by Hilary and Prince Philip and...:alien:
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Our Independence
The independence of the Science Media Centre is critical to the work we carry out. We do not have any specific agenda other than to promote the reporting of evidence-based science, and are completely independent in both our governance and funding.

How they are allowed to continue to exist when they are so obviously biased and corrupt is beyond me. To give a platform to a PACE author and his colleagues following the developments of the last couple of weeks without inviting any scientists with a different viewpoint is so brazenly biased, and demonstrates once again that this "charity" is just a front for a bunch of cronies promoting the BPS view.

Every time they speak on ME they show how completely out of step they are with international researchers, scientists and clinicians who are doing their best for patients and following the evidence.

Once PACE has been completely dismantled it needs to be the SMC next. A couple of years ago it seemed like nobody gave a toss about PACE outside the ME patient community, now we have found allies who, once they realised what was going on, were as appalled as we have been and gave us their support. Who would be horrified at what the SMC is doing if they knew? Anyone?
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
There was a guy called Orwell who did some rather good send ups of this sort of thing years ago - four legs good and two legs bad, oops, two legs good four legs bad, and all that.

. Now that the emperor is seen to be naked it all seems ridiculous. But maybe things are changing - maybe in this internet age you can walk around in your birthday suit for ever and nobody will notice. No, I think chickens come home to roost in the end - to mix metaphors.

I suspect there are websites on the internet that specialize in people walking around in their birthday suit (although not metaphorically).

Also the chickens have wings which count as legs so four legs good two legs better

More seriously there is an industry of people employed to do CBT and it is a different conflict of interest model than one designed for drugs. People earn a living and hospitals make profit on selling CBT services. I suspect that CBT is quite profitable for them.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Wessely sits on the board of trustees of the SMC. If there's anything related to psychiatry or ME/CFS, he will be the leading voice.

Retired from ME/CFS, yea right. He probably played a large role in the smear campaign against patients and is the one responsible for the extreme bias in the SMC's coverage of ME/CFS.
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
The SMC invited in three top experts to give an honest appraisal of the evidence

You've got to be shitting me. So inviting three CBT shills who have built their careers promoting this useless treatment constitutes "honest appraisal of the evidence". They could have at least invited one biological psychiatrist to weigh in, preferably someone specialising in actual major depression.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
SMC was (is) necessary so the journalists have access to the right (corrupt) information. Journos's job is easier because they have easy access to (biased) 'experts' who will provide an explanation of what the science said.

This arrangement is (was) convenient for the psych lobby because they have access to instant press releases, with very little notice, like when Wessely announced he had death threaths in 2011, days after the ME ICC published.
 
Last edited:

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
But maybe things are changing - maybe in this internet age you can walk around in your birthday suit for ever and nobody will notice. .

Some people only use the internet to observe such activity.... (so I hear).... and the word is out that such activity exists so maybe the second part of this statement disproves itself.

:whistle:
 

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
England
James Coyne has done a blog on this too.

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...g-on-cognitive-behaviour-therapy-trustworthy/

[QUOTE = Quick Thoughts - One of James C. Coyne's Blogs]
Is the Science Media Centre briefing on cognitive behaviour therapy trustworthy?

The UK Science Media Centre (SMC) offered to journalists (and any citizen scientists too busy or too lacking in confidence to make their own critical appraisals) a briefing on cognitive behavior therapy .

I offer a quick critical appraisal of the “three top experts” advertised as giving an honest appraisal.

I conclude that what would be offered is highly biased. Any organization making claims that such an evaluation is trustworthy is itself untrustworthy. Please read on and decide if you agree with me.

Meta-lesson: When you encounter a source that screams to you that it is trustworthy, maybe you should be particularly skeptical and simply move on to alternative sources[/QUOTE]
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
SMC was (is) necessary so the journalists have access to the right (corrupt) information. Journos's job is easier because they have easy access to (bias) 'experts' who will provide an explanation of what the science said.

This arrangement is (was) convenient for the psych lobby because they have access to instant press releases, with very little notice, like when Wessely announced he had death threath in 2011, days after the ME ICC published.


Wessely is one of the directors of the SMC https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07560997/officers
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
Also the chickens have wings which count as legs so four legs good two legs better

More seriously there is an industry of people employed to do CBT and it is a different conflict of interest model than one designed for drugs. People earn a living and hospitals make profit on selling CBT services. I suspect that CBT is quite profitable for them.

Funny, I thought I had discovered that in fact it is buffaloes that have wings, but then I haven't seen a chicken in a while.

More seriously, I think you have the nub here. It has all been about jobs for the 'therapists'.
 

daisybell

Senior Member
Messages
1,613
Location
New Zealand
Funny, I thought I had discovered that in fact it is buffaloes that have wings, but then I haven't seen a chicken in a while.

More seriously, I think you have the nub here. It has all been about jobs for the 'therapists'.

You can buy the t-shirt for this too.....!
image.jpeg