A Challenge to Primal Therapy

 

A challenge to primal therapy is in general to open up to independent testing, using random assignment of independently clinically diagnosed patients WHO ARE NOT TRUE BELIEVERS IN PRIMAL THEORY (they are largely atheoretical on the subject, neither for or against), and who have not read Dr Janov’s primal books, who are assigned from a independent clinic or university study. 

 

In the study should be comparison groups with valid treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, and whatever is the most clinically effective treatment for the chosen diagnosis.  The results have to interpreted by an independent entity.  The independent parties must not be hand picked by primal therapists, but assigned by university scientists, who have control over the studies. 

 

The study should probably occur away from a primal therapy institution and away from social influence of the primal community.

 

As mentioned above, but it is so important it should be repeated: you would test it by using a sample group of individuals who are not strong believers or followers of primal therapy.  You would choose to focus on one of the many ailments Janov claims to cure, let’s say depression (or anxiety, tension, high blood pressure, cancer, heart disease, or any other claimed in his books.  However, each study should focus on only one of these, lets say depression because Janov has recently written a book discussing depression). 

 

Then, in coordination with a university,  you would find a group of clinically diagnosed patients with depression (say).  You then have random assignment into groups; for example, perhaps one group gets primal therapy without medication, one group gets primal therapy with medication, one group get cognitive behavioral therapy, one group medication only, one group no treatment (with crossover to best results group later for ethical reasons perhaps?).  You would measure as many measures as you can that are relevant to the condition.  You would use the self reports of patients, observed reports of double blind expert observer interviewer. 

  

Furthermore, you observe to check whether the primal therapy group is actually giving real primal therapy, rather than another form of therapy just for the study.  Vital signs may be measured, although in depression, it may be unclear if a drop in blood pressure is indicative of improvement or a drop into deep depression or inactivity.  You would include all the measures that all parties wanted included, you do a well controlled study, and you make all the data available to the public and medical professionals, so they can objectively observe the pros and cons of primal therapy. 

 

The point is you design it in order to finally see if there is any real efficacy in Primal Therapy, and as a result one you can understand how much is placebo, how much is spontaneous remission, how much is due to other social psychological factors (like justification of effort, cognitive dissonance, paid testimonials or cult effects), how much is iatrogenic, and how much is a real effectiveness.

 

Requirements of three week intensive, reading the primal books etc must be abandoned for the study.

 

Then, as a result of these results, the unfair attacks by Janov  on those therapies that are shown to be more effective, or equally effective should be withdrawn by proponents of primal therapy, and the statistical results, warts and all, should replace the miracle testimonials in the books and website.

 

Similar studies have been done in other therapies, although I admit they take some coordination and cooperation. 

 

The public deserves such studies, the outcome of which would help people make intelligent choices instead of leaps of faith. Studies in science are supposed to be designed to find out things regardless of what you want to be true.  To undertake studies that could prove this therapy relatively ineffective, or even uncover damaging effects may not what those with a financial interest in primal therapy would like.

 

According to what I observed of many people during my five years at the Primal Center, my guess would be that cleverly designed studies would undercover a mix of some efficacy from those parts of therapy common to other therapies, and a damaging effect due to those aspects peculiar to primal therapy, such as repetitive birth reliving, cult-like aspects or deep feeling expression. There may be some beneficial health effects from taking time off work and having more social contact due to the acceptance of in-group members (enhanced by the previous avoidance of non-primal people labeled “unreal” which often leads to isolation before therapy).

 

One possibility though, is that outside scrutiny may expose iatrogenic aspects, in the same way “repressed memory therapy” was exposed several years ago.

Either way, whether the results are good or bad, the consumer wins.  At the very least the consumer is better informed.

 

See Abnormal Psychology, Barlow, 2004 or later editions to get an idea of how therapies are properly tested in clinical psychology, and to see that some do have efficacy even when measured in a controlled way.