The claims made for the linden method have kept on coming. The latest has just (May 2014) been put up with a fanfare that it is an independent piece of research.
http://www.thelindenmethod.co.uk/clinical/
On his facebook page, Charles Linden claims, in response to question about whether the study was peer reviewed…..
“it has been peer reviewed by psychologists and psychotherapists. No one else uses The Linden Method in practice Jess so the trial process chosen makes allowances for this. It was very strictly controlled and monitored.”
I thought it worth a brief shove to demolish it, not least to show how extraordinarily distant from anything resembling science it is. So here are a few points which any undergraduate could identify. This is not a complete list, just the “smack you in the eye” obvious ones
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.
There is more that could be said, but it is not worth the reader or writers time here. Individually, each of the items above would rule out regarding this as “research”. This is not just a useless paper: it is actively misleading, and in my view shows signs that it was intended to be so, as does its representation in the Linden publicity machine. A shameless piece.
In my original review, I pointed out that extraordinary claims, such as those made for the Linden Method, require extraordinary evidence. Well, I got the extraordinary evidence in this “research”. However, this was definitely not what I meant!
psychonoclast's Blog 
Note from Paul: in response to one of my recent posts, this popped up as a comment. I have not edited it. What I have done is post an answer on the blog here:
In response to the criticism of the study carried out in collaboration with The Linden Method, I, as the responsible author would like to make a few comments.
First of all, Mr. Salkovskis, I am impressed by your prolific activities discrediting The Linden Method. It must be hard to have a full-time job and in addition, be able to follow every step Charles Linden and his staff are taking. Well, actually a little scary.
I was approached by Charles Linden, after not having any contact for a few years to help him conduct a study into the efficacy of The Linden Method, as hard evidence seemed to be what was needed by the scientific community. It is also true, that I myself is a former anxiety sufferer, who used The Linden Method to make myself better – in fact so much, that I decided to assist other anxiety sufferers in Denmark ridding themselves of their anxiety.
Unlike you, I do not have all the time in the world to read through and comment on everything, and so I will not comment on each and every bullet point in your impressive debunking work. I would suggest however, that as far as the study goes, we have used sound statistical procedures to analyze the data. Regardless of my former association with The Linden Method, you cannot criticize using a statistical method to arrive at some results and conclusions. In other words, I cannot manipulate SPSS and the Wilcoxon test.
In fact, I would welcome you to review the data. Even the raw ones from the questionnaires. In fact, why do you not become the independent reviewer? We can send you the data?
One final thing. I was not aware of the Copenhagen CTU before you brought that up. Where did that come from? You actually wrote to the Clinical Trials Unit at the Rigshospitalet (a University hospital). Now I am glad to know they exist, after you took your time to contact them. I have never stated anywhere, that I am associated with the Copenhagen CTU.
Yours sincerely
Martin Jensen
Hej Martin! Jeg lider af angst og har nogle problemer med at følge the linden method. Jeg har nogle spørgsmål, jeg godt kunne tænke mig at få besvaret. Mit engelsk er ikke så godt lige for tiden og har derfor lidt besværligheder med at ringe til England for at få hjælp.
Er der nogen som helst mulighed for at komme i kontakt med dig?
Det ville virkelig være en stor hjælp!
På forhånd tak 🙂
Mvh. Frederik Peter Jakobsen
Hi Martin! I suffer from anxiety and have some trouble following the linden method. I have some questions I would really like to get answered. My English is not so good at the moment and therefore have little difficulty in calling to England for help.
Is there any possibility to get in touch with you?
It really would be a great help!
Thanks in advance 🙂
Sincerely. Frederick Peter Jakobsen
[…] https://psychonoclast.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/more-utter-and-complete-tripe-masquerading-as-research… […]
Wow, Martin Jensen’s comment really shows how unserious he is. Any real scientist would be happy to reply to this kind of correct, factual and to-the-point criticism with similarly factual and to-the-point arguments, but Martin just uses personal attacks, by which he is in reality confirming the criticism and showing how fake his “work” really is.
My God, what a fake it is, this “Linden Method”. All that just to get a lot of money, exploiting people that are suffering by telling them lies. The worst kind of human behaviour. Shame on Charles Linden and shame on Martin Jensen.
Thank you, Paul, for exposing this scam!
What also disturbs me more is the absolute flood of Internet sites claiming to be put up by cured anxiety sufferers but which are in fact fakes created by TLM marketing team or a third party company employed to do the same. This is simply dishonest, no matter how it is dressed up. In addition, on the Amazon web sight where the books are sold there are clearly some fake reviews of the books put up by the company to counter the many critical ones. Taking such a dishonest approach seems to me to be a very poor starting point in any sort of theraputic journey. This ‘method’ and its marketing prey on the vulnerable without conscience, stifiling debate with legal threats and obfuscating with half truths and fake science.
It would be disrespectful to my legal team for me to do anything more than acknowledge your comment. I might also note that, since September 2014, my lawyers have heard nothing further from Charles Griffiths/Linden/Lamplitt, following our letter to them. However, I understand that Mr Griffiths sought to have the police to take up the issue of harassment by me, which as I understand it, they declined to do. So I remain silent on issues like this, but unwillingly.
[…] of this independent trials were selected as Professor Paul Salkovskis mentions in his blog here and here. So, has the Linden Method been the subject of independently led university trials? Not […]