Posted by mattdds on November 2, 2003, at 19:03:25
In reply to David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by ace on October 30, 2003, at 17:04:25
Hey Ace,
I agree that his website update is pretty hokey, and I don't really like this "Tony Robbins" feel to his self-help stuff. The only (enormous) difference, is that the stuff he's writing about (gimmicky as it may be) has been proven to really work.
I strongly disagree about him being a quack.
He won a very prestigious award on serotonin metabolism in the early 80's back when that stuff was all the hype. He has done some very scholarly research at University of Pennsylvania, and is currently doing great work at Stanford University. These are not "Tony Robbins" institutions - they are Ivy League universities.
I believe you misquoted him in saying that he claims to "cure people of depression in 40 minutes". I've read all his stuff and have never come across this claim. Better yet, he encourages patience, because it usually takes him a long time to figure out which methods work. His claim is that when he does find a method that works, things tend to progress quite rapidly. This parallels my own experience.
He does tend to be very optimistic about treating depression with CBT, but I believe that optimism well substantiated with good scientific literature.
CBT is not "positive thinking" as you put it. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. It actually tends to attack the negative streams of consciousness and rumination that are common to most mental illnesses.
Burns just tries to bring it down to an accessible level to anybody from any background. I'm all for this! Not everybody can dig this stuff out of scholarly journals, from whence it came. There are people out there that really need this type of a vehicle for learning to use CBT. I'm not bothered by this - even though I prefer to read the CBT journals that were intended for therapists. I'm not a book snob though, and I don't feel my intelligence is insulted just because someone is speaking in plain language.
Ace, I remember you saying that CBT did not work for you. But let's try to remember that different things work for different people. I was a bit put off by your implication that CBT cannot treat serious depression or OCD. This is simply not true.
Mine certainly was serious, and CBT got me 80% better, and every month gets better for me. I was intensely ill, by every psychiatric index used in research (Ham-D, Beck Depression Inventory, etc.). So, I get frustrated when people say that I wasn't "really" sick just because I responded to CBT (even though all the antidepressants of every class failed).
I'm happy for your success with Nardil - I'm thrilled! I know CBT didn't work for you, just like AD's failed miserably for me (while CBT worked miraculously). CBT is indisputibly an evidence-based therapy. And it sounds like you are trying to belittle people who might be helped by this. I know when something works for you (e.g. Nardil), it's easy to say that everything else is crap. I had this inclination at first when CBT worked for me. Let's remember - "different strokes for different folks".
Take care,
Matt
poster:mattdds
thread:275048
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031030/msgs/275886.html