These conclusions should be read in conjunction with the sections set out in my blog. Please note that I am happy for non commercial organisations and charities to quote this in full or in part, on the understanding that they include a link to the blog to allow the context to be considered.

I consider my 2005 review of the Linden Method to have been impartial. I see no reason to change it in any detail unless I am provided with new information
Charles Linden has made a number of attempts to rebut the review; none have, in my opinion, come anywhere near the mark.

Let me remind you of “the nine pillars”, apparently central to the Linden Method.

Stop visiting your doctor (and other doctors too)
Talk to your doctor about stopping the medication (confusingly as you are not supposed to visit them)
Stop looking for answers to your problems elsewhere
Only use the Linden method
Stop talking to other people about how you feel (except the [clinically unqualified] linden support staff)
Stop relying on other people for help with your feelings (which follows from not talking to them presumably)
Get rid of memories about your problem
Keep busy as a diversion (distraction)
Don’t allow anxiety to change what you do.

Apart from the last one, these are plain silly.

Since that review was published, there has been a massive increase in the Linden Method’s web presence, utilising a wide range of web sales techniques. These include the citation of “experts” and the recruitment of “science”, and making claims about research; none of these withstand scrutiny, as detailed in my blog.

The marketing has drawn heavily on the authority of a range of organisations, including the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, the British Psychological Society, the National Health Service and the National Institute of Health. Again these claims do not withstand scrutiny, and in some cases appear to be misrepresentations of these organisations, for example the accreditation procedures of the BACP and BPS. In addition to Linden himself, the people who are being misrepresented with such accreditation have a personal ethical and professional responsibility to prevent this; I am surprised at their tacit acceptance of this unethical practice.

There is also the matter of “The Linden Foundation”, which given its appearance as something like a charity, has the potential to mislead.
The marketing on the web also draws very heavily indeed on the Persona of Charles Linden portraying him as a compassionate family man. I was surprised to see his use of photographs of his family including children as part of his marketing efforts. His persona when dealing with reviews such as those appearing on amazon and on a range of web boards run by people with personal experience of anxiety is much less benign. He seems to enjoy using the reflected glory of celebrities a great deal.

Then there is the Money; apparently a lot of it, if the numbers are to be believed. In the original review I suggested that too much was being asked for too little. That’s before we consider the “retreats”, something for the rich; prices are not given, but one source suggests £2700 in 2009! Perhaps better to have some reasonably priced advances than expensive retreats?

As for being original and effective, as far as I can judge it is still true that what is original in the Linden Method is not effective and what is effective is not original.

My recommendation? Don’t waste your money. To quote Charles Linden/Lyndon Charles Griffiths himself says something interesting on,d.d2k

“It is so easy to set up in business, knock together a ‘product’, join Clickbank and be selling snake oil in minutes using bold claims and fabricated credentials.”

Well said Charles, well said.