Changes

: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]

: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]

The antecedent of the pronoun "this finding", which apparently refers to the findings of Heap and Druckman, does not agree well with the views of [[Michael Heap]], who is very much a sceptic about NLP.

This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Micheal Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."