3 ms·
Nowhere did it say only 20% are helped. It says 20% more effective with other treatments. Either you're not reading or you're not comprehending. I'm sorry ther
by mattmanser 11y ago
Nowhere did it say only 20% are helped. It says 20% more effective with other treatments. Either you're not reading or you're not comprehending.
I'm sorry therapy didn't work for you or you didn't want to try it, but I'm not sure what your agenda is.
You seem to have some weird axe to grind about people making money. I'm not sure what else I can say as you seem to want to believe the whole thing's a big rip-off. Like where does the claim that untrained listeners are as good as trained ones come from?
- brookside 11y agoMaking money is fantastic. Making money from desperate people with pseudoscience is bad. 20% more effective with other treatments. Not what the article says. (It is most unclearly worded.) You have a 20% greater chance of improvement with therapy above talking to a doctor (Note there no pharmaceutical course of action mentioned) not "with other treatment". My comparison of therapy to untrained listeners is not drawn from the article. There have been several studies done on this. Link to the one of first on google: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.4634&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469...
- mattmanser 11y agoParaprofessionals are still trained. If that were about medicine that paper would be saying 'can we use a nurse instead of a doctor', not 'can we use anyone instead of a doctor'. Is that what you're angry about?