As is probably clear, I have sought legal advice in the light of threatened proceedings by Lyndon Charles Griffiths (also known as Charles Linden) regarding what I have written on this blog regarding “The Linden Method”. A very brief update and a short reflections. I continue to wait for things to unfold in the legal sense, having been advised that it is best to simply keep the status quo on the blog with factual updates (such as this rather boring one) until things are further along. As soon as I can I will update in substance on this topic and reflect more on what I have learned.
As I have previously commented, it is extraordinary that discussion can be de facto blocked in this way. One of the really important things in the world of science is that issues such as efficacy are open to full discussion without recourse to threats. This can lead to very lively debate which at times can be acrimonious. However, you can be certain that the protagonists are all keen to get as close to the truth of the matter as possible, but differ in their assumptions about what that means. As a result, a set of conventions have evolved with some shared assumptions regarding things like what constitutes evidence and so on. Sometimes there are disagreements on the assumptions which underpin these conventions, as for example the tension between empiricists and social constructivists, but nevertheless there is scope for identifying common ground.
Here I find myself in entirely different territory. I am very grateful for the various messages of support that I have received in this matter. Quite happy to have more!
psychonoclast's Blog 
Please add my name to your list of supporters. People should be free to comment truthfully on any subject without having to worry about legal action. Those who try to deny us this right should be exposed as publicly as possible!
Just started CBT on the NHS. Keep up the good research work.
Please also consider me a supporter – I am looking forward to you being able to continue your blog, especially in light of the fact that Charles has recently made reference to his ‘independent’ trials yet again on his Facebook page.
Thank you for that. I can’t possibly say any more at the moment over and above what is already here! But hopefully that covers it.
I’ve seen the Linden Method pages on the web for a while and assumed it was a scam give that there were so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the ‘theory’ plus no evidence base whatsoever shared with the public.
Fascinating to stumble upon your thorough examination of the approach and my concerns were fully justified. This is the last thing that we would want for people suffering from anxiety – being encouraged to purchase an expensive package with no evidence of benefit. Let’s hope that this level of detailed examination gets out there to the people who need to see it…
Thanks Richard. As I am sure you understand its best that I don’t comment at the moment.
It is so concerning that you have clearly been silenced on this. What happened to free speech! I hope you will be able to continue your worthwhile and fair analysis soon.
Thanks. My lawyers were contacted end of August and told that they were taking advice on the issuing of proceedings within the next month. Since then nothing apart from an amusing suggestion that I might be anonymously posting on Amazon on this topic, which my lawyer responded to by indicating that this was not so. This enforced silence is what has been referred to as the “chilling effect” of this law. So I’m still waiting.
I suspect if they were going to do anything they would have done it by now! I would be fascinated to hear the rest If your thoughts on this.