Treatments--pharmacological or
psychotherapeutic--tend to work better than no treatment. However, these
story is different when treatment is compared with placebo. For
example, between 80%-90% of the beneficial effects of antidepressants are
duplicated by placebos. This has been shown to be the case in a number of
meta-analyses (references upon request), most notably the recent analysis by
Irving Kirsch and colleagues of ALL the clinical trials performed by the drug
companies on the six most important current antidepressants. How did they
get these data? Through the U. S. Freedom of Information Act. That's
about the only way to do it.
It seems that the pharmaceutical industry has
been a little reluctant to publicize the fact that 57% of their studies show NO
benefit of antidepressants over placebos, and when all the studies are taken
together there is an approximate 10-20% advantage of antidepressants over
placebos--an effect that easily can be accounted for by the fact that these
studies almost always use inert rather than active placebos. People
usually know if they have or have not taken an active drug (references upon
request). Because drug study participants are specifically told they might
get a placebo and are often on the lookout, failure to use active placebos (that
mimic drug side-effects but have no therapeutic properties) basically destroys
the entire idea of placebo controls. You have to believe you are taking a
real drug for a placebo to work.
As far as psychotherapy goes--evidence showing
the special utility of cognitive over other therapies virtually always comes
from studies conducted by cognitive therapists, or those using methodologies
favoring cognitive therapy (e.g., using Beck Depression Inventory). There
is no evidence that cognitive therapies are superior to other therapies in
treating depression, although there are many such claims being
made (see Garske & Anderson, 2003; Klein, 1996; Wampold, 2001;
references available on request). Indeed, component studies--efficacy studies
which isolate the supposedly "active ingredients" of therapy (in the case of CT
and CBT that would be the cognitive restructuring elements and other cognitive
aspects) demonstrate that CT and CBT work equally well with or without the very
ingredients cognitive therapists claim are the cause of the success of the
therapies (e.g., Jacobson, Dobson, Truax, Addis et all, 1996; Ahn & Wampold,
2001, references available on request). "Non-cognitive" CT and CBT have
efficacy rates equal to "cognitive" CT and CBT.
Personally, I like CT, CBT, and REBT and
that's where I would go if I were going into therapy. Cognitive
therapies appeals to my Buddhist side (thoughts create the world) and my
intellectual aesthetics. However, I don't believe for a moment that it is
superior to any other therapy, and when they do work I do not believe they
do so for any of the reasons claimed. Although these, like all other
therapies "work" better than no treatment, how well they really work--clinical
significance/effectiveness--and for how many sufferers, is questionable.
In my opinion, treatment of mental
illness/psychological disorder/distress, whatever you want to call it, is
extremely primitive and does not work very well for vast numbers of suffering
individuals.
Paul Okami
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:13
PM
Subject: Re: Healing Touch for
Everyone...
>
> > While the ideas behind such as "healing touch" may be less sophisticated,
> > may appear to make less logical sense, and be less aesthetically pleasing
> > from a scientific perspective than those of the "empirically-supported
> > treatments," I don't see very powerful evidence demonstrating that such as
> > Interpersonal Therapy, Rational Emotive Behavior al Therapy, Cognitive
> > Therapy and (good lord) psychoanalysis are reliably superior in
> > effectiveness in a general sense to "healing touch" and others.
>
> Who said that any of us complaining about "healing touch" strongly
> support RET or psychoanalysis? Although I don't think it is the
> equivalent of, say, medical intervention, my underatnding is that there
> actually is pretty good empirical evidence for the effectiveness of
> cognitive therapy for depression, especially in combination with
> anti-depressants (certainly WAY better than there is for, say, "healing
> touch").
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> Canada
>
> 416-736-5115 ex. 66164
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
