{"id":481449,"date":"2021-11-11T05:09:06","date_gmt":"2021-11-11T13:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/?p=481449"},"modified":"2026-02-12T17:19:11","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T01:19:11","slug":"how-cbt-harmed-me-the-interview-that-the-new-york-times-erased","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/2021\/11\/11\/how-cbt-harmed-me-the-interview-that-the-new-york-times-erased\/","title":{"rendered":"How CBT Harmed Me: The Interview That the New York Times Erased"},"content":{"rendered":"

How CBT Harmed Me: The Interview That the New York Times<\/em> Erased<\/b><\/h4>\n
Alana Saltz<\/strong><\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

In August, I was contacted by a reporter writing an article for the <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as a treatment for chronic pain. They had seen a <\/span>Twitter thread<\/span><\/a> I wrote that criticized CBT, calling out the harm it can do to chronically ill and disabled people like me, especially when it\u2019s used to treat chronic pain and trauma.<\/span><\/p>\n

I told the reporter that I would only participate if the article wasn\u2019t going to perpetuate any ableist ideas or attitudes. I was aware that the <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> has a history of publishing problematic content<\/span><\/a> around chronic illness and disability. The reporter assured me that they would be respectful of the patient perspectives the article was including and that they wanted to get it right. So I agreed to do the interview, hoping my story might bring awareness to how harmful CBT can be as a treatment for chronic pain.<\/span><\/p>\n

The day before the article was scheduled to be published, the reporter emailed me. They said the piece had been rewritten by their editors with all of the patient perspectives removed. It was released as a pro-CBT article called \u201c<\/span>How Psychologists Can Help Treat Chronic Pain<\/span><\/a>,\u201d featuring interviews with mental health professionals who profit off of CBT and pain psychology. Even after the reporter went out of their way to include and advocate for disabled patients to be part of the conversation, the opportunity was thrown away, along with our experiences and perspectives. The article reads as self-congratulatory, biased, and anti-opioid, going so far as to say that therapists are providing a \u201cpowerful salve for suffering\u201d despite later admitting that most research only shows one-third of participants experience significant improvement. They removed the quotes they had from actual patients who received CBT and found it unhelpful or harmful.<\/span><\/p>\n

Coverage that erases lived experience does a disservice to the public\u2019s understanding of chronic pain. When discussing treatment options, patient perspectives should be centered in the conversation. I don\u2019t know what exactly motivated them to remove the interviews they did with patients. It would have brought important nuance and awareness to what it\u2019s actually like to receive treatments like CBT. More and more organizations <\/span>are realizing the harm that modalities like CBT and graded exercise are doing<\/span><\/a>, removing them from recommendations and guidelines. After reading the entire chronic pain series released on November 9th, it\u2019s apparent to me that their goal was to perpetuate outdated, victim-blaming treatment models like CBT, graded exercise, and toxic positivity to discourage the use of pain medication, once again intentionally neglecting to include relevant research, activism, and disabled people\u2019s lived experiences.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is the full interview I did with the reporter via email, the interview that the <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> didn\u2019t want people to see.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Not here for the NYT\u2019s series on chronic pain but I *am* here for CPPs roasting the absolute fuck out of it \ud83d\udd25<\/p>\n

— Anna Hamilton (@annaham360) November 10, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n