Scott, You write: "May I ask others in this forum if the classical phobia cure is applicable to anxieties as well?  If not then, in my opinion, they are using the wrong solution for a such a problem." It seems to me that your question suffers from the kind of difficulty that arises when attempting to quantify a new-paradigm discipline such as NLP, in language of the dominant paradigm. For example in another thread there was some discussion about the treatment of Susan: the woman suffering from cancer who experienced a remission after being looped-the-looped by the charming David Gaster in a stunt aircraft. The question arises in the old paradigm: "Is stunting an aircraft with a cancer suffering passenger an effective treatment for cancer?" And the answer is probably not statistically ~ but it seems to have been a good treatment for Susan. When I took my Master Track years ago part of the testing was to elicit from the subject, (a member of the public previously unfamiliar with NLP), a desired state and select a technique with which to intervene. The examiners then would stipulate that an entirely different technique be used to the one chosen by the NLP practitioner, not because the practitioner's choice was the wrong one, or inappropriate in any way ~ but because the resource is the calibration between the subject and the practitioner ~ not the technique! So to return to your assertion: ". . . in my opinion, they are using the wrong solution for a such a problem." I would have to add, only if their training and calibration skills were deficient, and indeed they were applying 'NLP' behaviors whilst transducing these through a non-NLP, or a weakly contrived model of NLP. As for statistics please connect your speakers for the full benefit of this delight http://www.astonishedhead.com/images/OVOID.swf ;-)) Stephen