[_game_of_life]

I mean... I don't agree with "harmed," the author's tone, or the title alleging some sort of coverup, but otherwise, Yeah, of course.

If you look at a longitudinal, high-quality trial (or meta-analysis, since you'd be very lucky to find any of these) of ANY psychotherapy for a specific problem, they are all pretty underwhelming in terms of efficacy.

Even CBT for conditions like anxiety in youth is poorly supported. This one, for example, shows that it is no more effective than a self-help book:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD004690/DEPRESSN_cognitive-behavio...

You can also see the similar conclusions in these meta-analysis:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD008712/SCHIZ_cognitive-behavioura...

https://www.cochrane.org/CD012614/ENT_cognitive-behavioural-...

I think it is important to realize that medications and therapies for most psychological illnesses are not particularly effective.

We try them because they are still better than doing nothing at all.

There also seems to be decent evidence that receiving empathy and compassion from therapists is more effective than their mode of therapy (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_factors_theory).

I have often seen in the mental health industry, people overstating the efficacy of treatments. CBT and anti-depressants are particularly bad offenders.

[treis]

Your misrepresenting the data. Your first link says:

>CBT is significantly more effective than no therapy in reducing symptoms of anxiety in children and young people.

>No clear evidence indicates that one way of providing CBT is more effective than another (e.g. in a group, individually, with parents).

>CBT is no more effective than other 'active therapies' such as self-help books.

[_game_of_life]

How have I misrepresented it by saying it is as effective as a self-help book?

The thing about therapy, is that you usually want benefits to last for a duration that makes the effort put in worthwhile.

>Only four studies looked at longer-term outcomes after CBT.

>No clear evidence showed maintained improvement in symptoms of anxiety among children and young people.

If you take a look at the results further they conclude:

>The few controlled follow-up studies (n = 4) indicate that treatment gains in the remission of anxiety diagnosis are not statistically significant.

I'd like to remind you that "significant" in the context of a meta-analysis means "statistically significant." If something performs at the level of a self-help book, most lay people would agree that is not a very effective treatment, even if it has a statistically significant impact.