David Tuller: Trial By Error: Three Years On...

[Sly Saint]

a potential new ally? wonder what he would make of PACE?


see also:
http://jonathanshedler.com/wp-conte...s-the-evidence-for-evidence-based-therapy.pdf
https://ipa.informz.net/IPA/data/images/.Shedler BPC interview-update.pdf
http://jonathanshedler.com/

But the term evidence based has come to mean something very different for psy-
chotherapy. It has been appropriated to promote a specific ideology and agenda. It
is now used as a code word for manualized therapy—most often brief, one-size-
fits-all forms of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)

Here is a small sample of what proponents of “evidence-based” therapy say in public:
“The empirically supported psychotherapies are still not widely practiced. As a result,
many patients do not have access to adequate treatment” (emphasis added).2 Note
the linguistic sleight-of-hand: If the therapy is not “evidence based” (read, manualized),
it is inadequate.

Empirical research actually shows that “evidence-based” therapies are ineffective for
most patients most of the time.

Another finding was that the benefits of manualized “evidence-based” therapies are
temporary. Treatment outcome is typically measured the day treatment ends. But
when patients are followed over time, treatment benefits evaporate.

Second point: The control group is usually a sham. What do I mean? I mean that
“evidence-based” therapies are almost never compared to legitimate alternative therapies.
The control group is usually a foil invented by researchers committed to demonstrating
the benefits of CBT. In other words, the control group is a fake treatment that
is intended to fail.

he covers a lot of the issues @Brian Hughes does in his book 'Psychology in Crisis'.

 

[Barry]

Note how the language leads to a form of McCarthyism. Because proponents of brief, manualized therapies have appropriated the term “evidence-based,” it has become nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about what constitutes good therapy. Anyone who questions “evidence-based” therapy risks being branded anti-evidence and anti-science.

As in GET, CBT-a-la-PACE, LP, etc, all making supposedly "evidence based" claims .

 

[Barry]

See also https://www.s4me.info/threads/selling-bad-therapy-to-trauma-victims.1438/.

 

[rvallee]

a potential new ally? wonder what he would make of PACE?


see also:
http://jonathanshedler.com/wp-conte...s-the-evidence-for-evidence-based-therapy.pdf
https://ipa.informz.net/IPA/data/images/.Shedler BPC interview-update.pdf
http://jonathanshedler.com/










he covers a lot of the issues @Brian Hughes does in his book 'Psychology in Crisis'.

Interesting statistic from Keith Geraghty: 95%+ of large psychological studies reported statistically significant results:


This is statistically... stinky. Literally impossible. There seems to be no internal criticism within the field, everything is significant and beneficial. It seems no one criticizes each other so they won't get criticized themselves, because flaws are far too often a matter of interpretation and opinion.

When every result is significant, none are.

(kinda LOL that it comes from Goldacre, who is a huge fan of the mindfulness new age junk for which evidence exists only within the mindfulness new age mutual admiration society)