Its been ages since I wrote about the Linden Method, and in many ways I am pleased with what has happened to their advertising pitch. Sure, much of what was wrong about the advertising is still there. The oddest twist of all was the way in which referral to Trading Standards for non-compliance with the ASA ruling has been turned into an endorsement rather than what it really is; according to the ASA “The ASA can and will refer cases to Trading Standards when a marketer is unwilling or unable to follow our rules and our self-regulatory sanctions have not brought them into line.”
Anyway, other things have happened. Most of the Logos which should not have been used have been removed and thats very good, well done. Oddly given the ASA ruling and the involvement of Trading Standards most of the inappropriate claims remain. However, having had some contact with Trading Standards in Worcester and nationally I am afraid to say that I am not too surprised by this.
And now there is what looks like a relaunch! Congratulations to his web design team for a really slick new look. First thing you notice is that the headline contains a startling new claim. Linden has “helped over 22 million people to truly understand their mental health and to use simple, scientific, common sense methods to regain control and stability in every aspect of their lives… to recover: and it’s so simple.”
This is indeed an extraordinary claim, and as I have noted elsewhere, someone very sensible said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I first applied that to the Linden method about ten years ago. As yet, no such evidence has been provided.
So, does the new look website improve on the problems I have pointed out elsewhere in this blog? Has Martin Jensen, the person who was “independently” (!) evaluating the Linden Method, finally finished his MSc and published his work, or done new work? No, I’m afraid not.
What you will find in the website is extraordinary in other ways; its what looks like an attack on Mental Health Services and self help websites. You will find this on the page titled “Bad Advice and the things that will make you worse”. If it was he who wrote this, the self styled “World’s leading Anxiety Disorder, Panic Attacks and Stress Recovery Expert” may have misunderstood the most basic of basics: high quality research into the effectiveness of treatment.
The website says: “Psychology talks of ‘evidence based treatments’, of which, CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) is just one; but what is the evidence for its and other therapies’ curative effectiveness?”
Very strangely, it then asserts that research in this area has “found (or not looked for) no evidence of failure” which he attributes to the field “asking only one question” viz: ‘After receiving treatment X, how many people came back for more?'”
It then goes on to say that all treatments other than their own are “based on this type of statistic”; that is, “if you don’t come to the sessions it means you are cured”.
In the words used in that website: “What utter nonsense.”! Here I am applying that judgement to the claims made by the website itself.
The website says that their approach is so respected because they “don’t provide manipulated statistics”. I have, in a previous blog post pointed out that there may be problems with what was described as an “independently conducted trial“, not least because of, ahem, what looks like manipulation of both measures and statistics. I always found it amusing that we were invited to believe this stuff because they used the computer programme, SPSS.
Please read these previous posts and draw your own conclusions.
Then, much more importantly, look at the extensive actual evidence base for treatment of anxiety. This is extensive; for example, that for panic You will see that this is all about treatment effectiveness. You will also see, if you look more closely, that “people not coming back” is described as a problem, not an outcome, and a range of ways have been developed to deal with this. You can find details if you look at the analysis called “intention to treat”, which is the norm in these studies, and was a quality indicator for the NICE guidelines. Helpfully, NICE provides both the full evidence base, which is long and technical, shorter versions for practitioners as guidelines for decision making, and accessible service user/suffer versions to help with shared decision making, which in my view is what is required. We have called this elsewhere “evidence based patient choice”, and I regard that as the gold standard.
The next bit of this Linden website is the strangest; there have however been previous hints of this. It seems to be suggested that Mental Health Services don’t help people to keep the services “in business”; in the words of this website, to keep the mental health businesses “sustainable” by not getting people better. What is said specifically is:
“Sustainable = don’t cure everyone/anyone. This works well for healthcare providers though because incompetence=low results and as long as they can get patients to trust their word… they can, pretty much, perpetuate the business model ad infinitum.”
Now I know what the NHS values are, and am passionately committed to them. The statement above makes you wonder about the values of Linden Method/Tree and Charles Griffiths and his team. I personally find the claims that Mental Health Services operate a business model of not getting people better to be offensive to the many committed mental health professionals who do their utmost to help service users to recovery and cure. That is what we do.
Finally, this website goes on to “quote” what is says is another website which is described as disgusting.
It says: “Today I read something on one ‘official’ website that provides servcies for OCD – I won’t say which one because they don’t respond well to people correcting them…It stated… ‘OCD causes anxiety. Often, OCD causes the patient to feel anxious.'”.
I’d be happy to deal with the critique which follows, but when you put that quote into Google either as a whole or as two separate sentences, the only website that comes up is Linden Tree “Bad Advice”. It would be odd, wouldn’t it, if they were attacking their own website? Anyway, if anyone can identify the website concerned, I might try to unpack the critique offered, but as it stands I’m left with a conclusion previous conclusion.
My new, up to date conclusion? It seems that, although the web format has changed, the Leopard has not in fact changed its shorts.
psychonoclast's Blog 
“….Mental Health Services don’t help people to keep the services “in business”; in the words of this website”
Some years ago, Beth Linden told a group of people of which I was a member that (and I’m putting this in my own words) the reason TLM was not available on the NHS was because those in charge of recommending it knew that it would put many professional people out of a job!
I cannot believe such methods as the linden are allowed to exist. I find your article very interesting to read. These people prey on the vulnerability of patients who are desperate for a cure, and pay money for this nonsense treatment, if it can even be called that, which has NO independent peer reviewed published research. It beggars belief that the founder Charles linden and his wife Beth poses NO mental health qualifications. Trying to exploit the vulnerable to make money, it disgusts me. There needs to be more government regulation of everyone who provides any sort of mental health intervention, and it should only be provided by those qualified in psychopathology. Panorama pls investigate these people. There’s another person just like him Mark Tyrrell who has done human givens, sells his courses online, no qualifications in mental health or psychopathology, but has the cure for everything. Human givens 26 days training, £6k later you are a therapist, with grandiose claims, but hardly any (maybe 3) pieces of independent research, most of their other research is, guess what, published by them and their own therapists. Again with founded who have no qualifications in psychopathology or mental health. Panorama where are you??
Ah. This all explains their emails to me over the last couple of days. When I complained something wasn’t quite as described I’ve received after message from them regarding the ASA, how that complaint was wrong, malicious, made up by jealous competitors. The last email I have is accusing me of having a level of hatred that they recognise. Wow quite the emails. All very odd.
Normal practice for Mr Griffiths (aka Charles Linden) and his business associates. Like many others, I’ve also been the recipient of malicious emails such as you describe – and worse!
I was sucked into this method through one of their ‘trwined therapists’ who rang me after I’d signed up to a site looking for a therapist…..he told me how great this method was etc etc and would cure me so be being desperate signed up. My god did it make me 1000x worse. I talked through some of my anxieties with him although that went against one of the pillars (seems odd) I took everything this man said as truth as I thought he must be trained and know what he’s doing. It made me obsess so much about the method that my days became completely full of anxiety and I thought I must be doing something wrong as he said I’ll be cured if I just stick to it !! I reached crisis point and messaged the therapist (or councilor person) saying I’m susuicidal and don’t know what to do….no reply! At this point I was upset that I must be beyond repair or unfixable!!! It was an all round horrible experience
Yup I had the same experience. I can’t believe the United Kingdom actually allows guys like this to peddle a pseudo-scientific marketing gimmicks with such grandiose claims. Literally this was the worst money I have ever paid for a “product”. With that being said Linden is a grade A schmuck in my books. I couldn’t fall asleep at night knowing I take advantage of people like that.
Oh and when I realized I couldn’t use his program in any way and I requested a refund. I had threats that he was contacting his legal department and going to sue me from the UK. Literally an embarrassment for the moral integrity English people.
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-linden-centre-a11-153052.html
The above link takes you straight to ASA complaint against The Linden Method – They were being investigated. The link above shows this. The Linden Method isn’t being honest when they state on the business website they were not investigated – They were and I believe the publishing company they also own or have closed down was under investigation. See this links as well:
https://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/73e70-asa-ruled-against-company-even-though-ruling.html
I tried this method about 10 years ago , it seems to me that it is purely borrowed snippets of information from different methods of treatment . The 9 pillars are supposed to be based upon the so called hundred or so people he had interviewed that had supposedly recovered from their anxiety condition. Do we or the ASA or trading standards have access to these so called findings, or are we just taking his or their word for this . Have they been pronounced cured by fully qualified NHS psychiatrists or psychologists or cbt practitioners?
I used there telephone services and was told just keep doing the 9 pillars . Then the 10th pillar came out , when I enquired about this I was told it is just compliance. Alot of the pillars are pure common sense to be honest , the danger is coming off prescribed medication after seeing a doctor . A very good friend of mind is a fully qualified NHS psychologist and CBT practitioner who refuses to go private even though she could make alot more money that she currently does ,when I showed her the pillars she said there is not a one size fits all approach that cures all people or puts them into remission some of the pillars are in fact similar to CBT . If this has helped people then good luck to them and I really do wish them continued wellness , it has not helped everyone though and sometimes intervention by a fully qualified NHS professional is needed. Don’t stop going to the doctor or you qualified NHS counsellor if are still unwell. Best Wishes.
The most bizarre claim I saw that can instantly be categorised as simply ‘illogical’ is the rationale given for him changing his name! To which he supplies his old and new names openly. What did that achieve? 😳 why would anyone follow anyone so illogical?
Secondly, the spiel of ‘recovery’ is impossible to define, as each individual will also have their own definition of that, client view is the only view that really counts. Yet pressure is present pre-contact with this man and his company, on not the offered treatment, but the client! The arrogance and ego of any treatment provider when exposing ones internal world MUST not tread arrogantly upon the individuals.
Not only unethical, dangerous!
I purchased this 9 years ago. At first I thought this helped me and in some cases it did however I don’t agree with this ‘fill out your day with anxiety’. Fill every second of everyday with activity. You cannot do that. You need time to relax.