This is completely unsurprising. Like all other disciplines, behavioral health is subject to trends and the glitter of the "new things". We've seen this regar

This is completely unsurprising. Like all other disciplines, behavioral health is subject to trends and the glitter of the "new things". We've seen this regarding initial enthusiasm for new medical procedures or medications, after practitioners gain experience with new tools the limitations prompt more sober reanalysis, and the enthusiasm becomes more restrained. Recent studies have called into question the initial reports of effectiveness of psychotherapies, CBT included, or perhaps in particular. I won't go into detail here, but in a phrase all kinds of established therapies tend to eventually be observed to follow the classic "rule of thirds". More or less about a third of the treatment cohort will get better, a third remain the same and a third are worse. Proportions vary of course, but that's the idea. What it comes down to is that CBT, interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy and a thousand variants can be helpful for certain problems, but quite often a combination of approaches is needed for optimum outcome. It's not unlike software development, a "team" of tools is necessary to actually get from initial concept to production release. It's a complex non-linear process, at least as much art as technology must be applied to get there. I can attest after decades in the trenches that treatment for behavioral conditions runs in a parallel form, the art and science of applying relational and medical tools is distinctly complex, as it's necessary to tailor the approach to each individual. The salient point is no two people ever have the same illness. CBT can be no more effective than the skill and talent possessed by the therapist and patient working as a team .