-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
CBT repackaged or a novel treatment? The Lightning Process compared with UK specialist medical care for paediatric [CFS], 2021, Anderson et al
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
They are utterly without shame, concern, or remorse.
Anybody who thinks the criticism of them is harsh has not understood the problem.
They are not only not being held to proper account, they are being actively rewarded for their wilful negligence and misconduct.
daftasabrush
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
yes two of them are LP practioners as disclosed at the bottom
daftasabrush
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is a firm of CBT but a new wave of it.
daftasabrush
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
What's the issue with the journal @davetuller - who is involved?
I think it important that this does not go unchallenged - including the fact that they studied adults and children yet are drawing a conclusion for adults, the Ethics breech of a study in children for a therapy not proven save in adults plus the ridiculous claim that a third of tens don't recover on existing treatment - implying 67% do recover on CBT and GET - even if you do accept the extremely dodgy initial PACE TRIAL results that only concluded 22% Moderately improved.
I think it important to check who paid the publication fee
Can we clarify which are LP practioners? Can a letter be written to the journal asking WHO they are - I have never seen a disclosure that did not say exactly who was making the disclosure before and I think it essential to get this on record. I saw Fiona Finch disclosed she was, is Phil Parker the other?
Disclosure statement
Two co-authors are LP practitioners and so have a financial interest in the LP. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to report.
I think it important that this does not go unchallenged - including the fact that they studied adults and children yet are drawing a conclusion for adults, the Ethics breech of a study in children for a therapy not proven save in adults plus the ridiculous claim that a third of tens don't recover on existing treatment - implying 67% do recover on CBT and GET - even if you do accept the extremely dodgy initial PACE TRIAL results that only concluded 22% Moderately improved.
I think it important to check who paid the publication fee
Can we clarify which are LP practioners? Can a letter be written to the journal asking WHO they are - I have never seen a disclosure that did not say exactly who was making the disclosure before and I think it essential to get this on record. I saw Fiona Finch disclosed she was, is Phil Parker the other?
Disclosure statement
Two co-authors are LP practitioners and so have a financial interest in the LP. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to report.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes, CBT is definitely an umbrella term and more specific terminology should be used to describe specific forms of therapies for illnesses.
Technically even Graded Exercise Therapy is a form of CBT.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
When a known mafioso sits at a table and everyone greets them warmly, it may not be a group of mafiosos, but it's definitely a group that is comfortable with mafiosos.
I'm definitely not comparing the researchers to mafiosos, but when scientists choose to work in cooperation with people who have clear financial conflicts of interest, they are OK with those conflicts influencing the outcome. The idea that people who come up or promote a wildly overhyped subjective medical treatment should have anything to do with testing it is insane. There should be a strong separation with some unbiased academics acting as independent investigators, otherwise this is basically like a prosecutor investigating themselves for corruption.
In software development, for example, quality assurance is an entirely different department and they make up their own procedures based on documentation from the development team, analysts and product design. Everything is verified independently, if this is the norm in software development it should definitely be the case in medicine.
Although of course the giant loophole here is that once you de-medicalize a disease, none of those requirements apply. Even though it still has the full coercing force of medicine. Yay for nightmarish Catch-22's.