Martin Jensen, claimed by Linden Method to be an independent researcher but who is in fact the Danish Linden Method Manager, took the time and trouble to respond, after a fashion, to my critique of his “research”.

Worth a response, I thought, so here goes:

To Martin Jensen, in response to his comment:

Thank you for taking the trouble to get in touch

The reasons for my recent re-activation of interest in the Linden Method is identified in detail in the blog; if you want to understand why I have recently made time to follow up my ancient review, please read it there.

You are right about the need for hard evidence. Your piece in the Linden Method website is not such evidence, not even close.

I made 14 points regarding your “research”; it took ten minutes. Literally, before breakfast this morning. Can I suggest that you deal with these? As you appear to be short of time, I have reproduced them at the end of this reply. I of course missed out the really really big one, because it is altogether too obvious: that this bears no resenblance to a randomised controlled trial, the only evidence of efficacy that is acceptable.

For some reason, you only comment is on something I did not remark on in detail, which is the statistics. Can I remind you of what Mark Twain said:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
By this he meant that statistics can be used to lend authority to spurious assertions, which is what you have done with statistics. Although I commend you on your use of SPSS (something every undergraduate can do), your shortcomings in the understanding of statistics are indicated by your assertion that the GAD-7 is an ordinal scale. This is only true of the individual items, not the scale as a whole.

You assert that the statistical analysis somehow deflects criticism. This is like saying “it must be right because I used a computer”. There is another relevant phrase here: “Garbage in, Garbage out”. Statistical analysis is a tool in order which is part of a process of establishing validity of an appropriately conducted study. The statistical analysis would be sort of OK (but only sort of) if the study were well conducted; however, see the problems identified below.

You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear….so I will not waste my time on your fatally flawed “data” embedded as it is in a fatally flawed study, but thanks for the disingenuous offer.

Regarding the Copenhagen CTU: you may not have said you were associated with it, but the Linden organisation did. A webpage in the Linden network (link in my blog section with the title “Tripe”) indicated that this (your) study was coming and that it had been approved by the University of Copenhagen CTU, a group I have worked with on a clinical trial in recent years. I contacted them (and you can see their reply in the same post about Tripe) about this . Shortly afterwards the webpage removed reference to the CTU, I’m guessing because they didn’t like their organisation being associated with your study. I have, of course, kept a screenshot of the original. You may want to think about your own work carrying the logos of the University of Copenhagen and Kingston Universities, and your misrepresentation of the Linden “therapists” as BPS and BACP registered.

I have spent too much time on this again; I hope you understand the brevity of my response, and thank you for clarifying your position.


So, to remind you: the critiques I made were

1. This is not a peer reviewed article. It is on Linden Webpages.
2. It is not independent. The author, Martin Jensen, is Manager of Linden Method Denmark
3. It is not an efficacy study
4. Kingston University and University of Copenhagen are unlikely to have authorised the use of their logos.
5. The introduction contains no references to published authorities
6. Those who completed questionnaires were chosen and contacted by “specialists” (alleged therapists) working for TLM. Massive source of bias
7. The specialists are falsely described as registered with “British Association of Chartered Psychotherapists” (sic) and The BPS. Clearly false claims.
8. Adherence is specified as a selection criterion!
9. Even given the extraordinary method of sampling, 39% refused to participate! Only the 61 who complied were included
10. The GAD-7 was used. Only it wasn’t! in the “measure” section it specifies that it was phrased “Prior to doing the Linden Method, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?”. I’m pretty sure that the copyright holders did not permit this change, and the change means that it is not the standardised measure it is supposed to be.
11. Two measures…but not. They completed both “before” and “after” measures at the same time After. Hah! Do I need to spell out how inappropriate that is?
12. Analysis: the data were said to be ordinal. Wrong.
13. The discussion reads as a faux cautious advert for the linden method.
14. There is a limitations section. Heck, the whole paper is a limitations section.

Although I realise how busy you are, I would be happy to look at your responses to these important issues.

Update: So far no response From Martin. However, I notice that on facebook Charles Linden has removed his puff-piece on the so called clinical tripal sorry trial. This may or may not be connected with my contacting University of Copenhagen about his use of their logo? Or possible adverse comment from people referring to my actually independent review of the efficacy study which wasn’t? Or both? Or something else? Good to see Charles Linden maintaining a dignified silence too. Now I did the same despite his critiques of my review from 2006-20014, so if it follows the same pattern then all will remain silent until 2022? Means i can go back to my day job!