THE MYTH OF C.B.

Commencing this paper with the initial emphasis on psychological therapy applications,
particularly C.B.T. or cognitive behaviour therapy - the therapy established by the work of Aaron
T. Beck - and of Albert Ellis's R.E.T., Rational Emotive Therapy - at first sight one might assume
it an effective therapy. Also, that it is plausible to control thoughts and distinguish those that are
unwanted or troublesome. So convincing has been the argument for CBT it has become the
psychological therapy of choice in mainstream medical fraternities. It has research to back up
the unusually good curative rates and in short treatment durations. (The time element is a clear
attraction to funding agencies such as the NHS and GP fundholders).

Now, I propose all is not well with CBT and that it's very scientific foundations are levelled on
quicksand. It is fundamentally flawed.

Generally speaking, an average person has between 80,000 to 200,000 thoughts per day.
Would it be naive to suggest we are going to spend every minute of every day controlling each
and everyone of these thoughts? If those thought blocks were to be achieved the individual
would die of stress and total exhaustion during the process! Aaron T.Beck, the founder of CBT,
showed most problematic thoughts to be automatic. I suggest that if true, these automatic
thoughts are by default unconscious processes therefore not in our individual consciousnesses
to access, let alone to locate and alter 'on-the-spot' within our hectic day-to-day schedules and
increased stress in daily living.

CBT works on the premise of altering misconceptions and false beliefs through thoughts . It's
fundamental principle is in the belief of being able to correct our own false perceptions, beliefs
and values. This is done by identifying a thought and correcting the weight assigned to it. In
other words changing the thought through giving contradictory evidence to it's existence - that it
has no substance and shouldn't be in our mind. Using conventional yet simple scientific
explanations it can be seen to be a convincing formula to its success.

What is not considered in the simple CBT formula is 'cause & effect' - the quantum phenomena
that paints a true picture. And how the CBT formula brushes under the carpet some facts that
dispute it's therapeutic claims. The truth is that CBT fails to deliver on its promises.

I emphasise here that a 'cure' means not a temporary removal (or weakening) of impact of a
thought or series of linked thoughts, but should mean the removal or weakening related to the
original thought over a significant time-frame, without symptoms re-introducing themselves in
'another form' through the expression of substitution. Somewhat worryingly - and shortsightedly,
substitution is not considered a factor when compiling the success scores of CBT. Statisticians
in favour of CBT would claim the original condition 'cured' presenting those statistics alone to
the authorities.

CBT! The Biggest Hoax of the Last Half-Century?

The fortunate subject who is regarded as cured by the medical establishment (NHS and
Psychiatry) can be left stunned and confused later on - through a new ailment that seemingly
bears no relation to the 'old cured condition'. As the new condition may not bear any
resemblance to the 'cured' one, they are not linked, and the cure statistic is afforded to CBT .

This article demonstrates how quantum physics can provide firm scientific evidence that claims
about the effectiveness of CBT as a therapy are manufactured and fantasy. To start the ball
rolling let's propose that if a person was aware and knew what their key behaviour determinant
thoughts always were - the fundamental premise of CBT and positive thinking - then it would
demolish the predominant structure of the great Freudian theory, in other words the Freudian
terms and structures of regression, repression and substitution rocks the very foundation of CBT
theories. One of the two factual basis's is wrong or fundamentally flawed.

In this paper I will now add scientific weight to this hypothesis employing simple elementsof
classical and quantum physics. As said, if 80% of the mind is subconscious then it is not
accessible by CBT - which purports to work on conscious thoughts of misconceptions - such as
the human inclination towards catastrophising - thoughts or expressions of the subconscious,
the other 80%, always win in a battle against the will of the conscious mind. This means that the
20% that CBT could influence is still unachievable - without altering the hidden persuasions of
the subconscious that effect the linked conscious key thoughts under analysis in therapy. As
CBT has no narrative to tackle any thoughts but the conscious ones it is becoming easy to see
how as a therapy it is doomed to fail from it's very conception.

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS

Many behaviours happen far too quickly to be initiated by consciousness. Max Velmans (01)
lists examples: analysis of sensory inputs and their emotional content, phonlogical and semantic
analysis of heard speech and preparation of one's own spoken words and sentences, learning
and formation of memories and choice, planning and execution of voluntary acts. Consequently,
subjective feeling of conscious control of those behaviours cited is deemed illusory.

Jeffrey Gray (02) observed that in tennis "The speed of the ball after a serve is so great, and the
distance over which it has to travel so short, that the player who recieves the ball must strike it
back before he has had time consciously to see the ball leave the server's racket. Conscious
awareness comes too late to affect his stroke". Similarly, John McRone (03) writes, "[for] tennis
players....facing a fast serve..........even if awareness were actually instant, it would still not be
fast enough...."

Touch also involves temporal binding. If you touch your foot with your finger, then each foot and
finger sensation feeling happens simultaneously. Yet the sensory signal from your foot requires
significantly longer to reach the sensory cortex than does the finger. How does the brain provide
synchrony? Henry Stapp views the universe as a single quantum wave function. Reduction of a
portion of it within the brain is a conscious moment. The multiple-worlds view suggests each
superposition is amplified, leading to a new universe. There is no collapse, but an infinity of
realities (and conscious minds) is required.
Like Stenger's, John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation relies on the fundamental time-
symmetry of the universe. Here the particles are believed to perform a kind of handshake
intermingling in the course of interacting. One sends out a w ave forward in time, and another
sends out one backward in time. In TIME REVERSIBILITY, the genius Richard Feynman (1918-
1988) developed quantum electrodynamics, his crowning achievement. An electron, travelling
from one location to another, can hit a photon and be sent not only backwards in space but also
in time. It can then hit another photn that projects it forward in time again, but in a different
direction in space. This means that it can be in two places at once, ie. Conscious and
Subconscious. The phenomenon of multiple co-existing possibilities is known as quantum
superposition. Multiple objects, and that may include a person or thoughts, can be unified acting
as a single coherent object. If a component is perturbed, others feel it and react. This is called
nonlocality. If unified objects are spatially seperated they remain unified - therefore we cannot
seperate the conscious from the unconscious to recieve the desired therapeutic outcome in it's
entirety. This nonlocality is also known as quantum entanglement.

Are we living in the past but remembering, falsely, living in the here and now? Libet (04) came to
these conclusions: conscious perception requires brain activity for 500 ms to achieve neuronal
adequacy and information is referred up to 500 ms backward in time to the primary evoked
potential, 10 to 30 ms after peripheral stimulation, for near immediate conscious perception.
Hence we may now consider taking 'backward time referral' more seriously.

Through this presentation paper, my aim has been for the reader to begin seeing that smooth,
real-time conscious experience is an edited construction - an illusion. How quantum concepts
can trigger us to probe the secrets of consciousness, free will and the paranormal. Quantum
theory is non-intuitive and defies common-sense? And how, hypnotherapy - discarded by the
medical profession - has the most proof of potential as a psychological therapy. Hypnotherapy
addresses the 80% subconscious controlling a person's thoughts and internal programmes, the
architects of most mind and body disturbance.

Areas of psychic investigation can be seriously applied to "cutting-edge" quantum concepts and
a scientific foundation given to phenomena such as clairvoyancy, telepathy, precognition,
psychokinesis, and dermo-optics (the sensing of visual information through tactile skin
receptors). Quantum physics can add scientific founations to acupuncture, bioenergetics and
Kirlian effects.

Quantum physics is 'mainstream' subject of importance in U.K. and International universities -

and there is little resistance to it. The emergence of Professor Hawkings has added a stamp
and seal to quantum's public acceptance.Yet paranormal, psychic, & clairvoyancy are
essentially a by-product of applied quantum theory. This poses the serious question of how one
(e.g. clairvoyancy) can be dismissed whilst the other (quantum physics) is readily accepted, and
even celebrated - being 'cool' to study at university, knowing both are identical?

Does the application of quantum as a mainstream science raise the therapy question? Yes! For
knowing, as we most certainly do, the factual basis for success in psychological treatments, you
may ask why quantum theories and its evidence are ignored by decision makers, as they
dismiss the most effective therapies such as hypnotherapy, and promote the least effective such
as CBT (CBT least effective in terms of all known science & knowledge), rolling it out en masse
to the U.K. unsuspecting public. If this paper gives the reader concerns about how policy
directors are selected and appointed in order to deceive the masses, intentionally or otherwise,
then this paper has delivered it's promise.

THE END

REFERENCES

(01) Velmans, M. (1991), Behaviour and Brain Sciences

(02) Gray, J.A. (2004), Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem

(03) McRone, J. (1999), Going Inside: A Tour Round a Single Moment of Consciousness

(04) Libet, B. (2003), Consciousness and Cognition