You didn't read the article and it shows.
They compared treatment-as-usual to treatment-as-usual and the online intervention. An my guess is that treatment-as-usual does include meds.
They compared treatment-as-usual to treatment-as-usual and the online intervention. An my guess is that treatment-as-usual does include meds.
Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online.
Do you have the required electron micrograph? How about a cell culture? How about anything about which different, similarly equipped observers can come to a consensus? In other words, how about some science?
> Because current best treatment for phobia is a talkin therapy, which could be applied online.
If you were a scientist, you would realize that anecdotes aren't evidence.
How about anorexia nervosa? Is that real or is it "virtual"?
No, science rejects phobia as a real illness. Haven't you been keeping up with current events? The NIMH recently ruled that psychiatry (the treatment branch of psychology) is pseudoscience, and they will no longer accept research proposals based on the DSM, psychology's "bible", for the simple reason that it has no scientific content.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h
And you already know this -- or you should. This means you're directing your questions to the wrong person. I didn't reject the scientific status of psychology, the NIMH did.