The evolution of RPT – a report card

In today’s article I share a brief history of RPT and how it has changed so much in 4 short years. I gave my own self-assessment of my performance (poor) and share my plans for 2012. I also answer your questions about re-certification and what has changed since you first learned RPT.

RPT has changed so much since its inception in 2008 and launch in January 2009.  In fact it has changed SO much that its name is meaningless. In 2008 I thought healing was all about finding the earliest “reference point.” Now I can teach all 3 levels of RPT without using that phrase.

My last group email confused a few students about what version of RPT they learned, or were about to learn. I want to clear up any confusion by sharing a short history of RPT and its evolution through 4 versions. At the end I’ll be asking your opinion about whether to change the name.

I’m going to do something a bit radical and I’m going to give myself a scorecard for each of the 4 variations of the technique I developed.  I’ll tell you honestly how I think I rate as a teacher/developer and get your feedback on this. (Hint: the results are pretty poor, leaving much room for improvement.)

RPT version 1 (2008-2009)

Evette and I spent several years drawing together the material for RPT.  One of the key points (you could call it a “key developmental event” in RPT-speak) was discovering the Institute of Peak States in 2008. I’m indebted to my friend and former promoter Signe Fjord for this information.

Although I decided not to study Peak States, the information I got from my Peak States healing sessions and the books was enough to change my path. I found answers to many difficult questions like “why changing beliefs or downloading new feelings can’t give more than a short term healing,” “why healing past lives never really changes anything,” “why there are some enlightened masters but you never see their students becoming enlightened,” and so on. Suddenly I had scientific answers to many deep answers. The answers were quite simple, basically “it’s all in your biology.” I had been looking in the wrong direction and I needed to start afresh.

The Peak States body of knowledge motivated me to immediately quit what I was teaching (based on belief work) and develop what I first called “Healing That Works.”  Like Peak States, it was loosely a regression based technique.  It was quite slow because it was necessary to take the client back through many generations of ancestral memories to find the original trauma.

The technique was initially marketed (controversially) to other teachers of the TH modality. I already knew that TH didn’t work as advertised and that most people give up on the method after about 2 years (there are very few “old” practitioners, they either make enough money teaching to stop asking questions, or they move on).  So I knew there was a dedicated audience searching for something that works. Hence the somewhat silly first name, Healing That Works. (Silly modality name, but a marketing success.)

The initial success I had with the technique was based on the simple fact that I was successful at healing many problems that TH could not heal. Many TH teachers said that they had tried self-healing with TH for many years, without success – but were healed by one session of RPT.  This was great, but was not enough to change the fact that the method was slow and complicated for many.

My personal scorecard:

Factor Percentage
Effectiveness of the technique when Simon was the practitioner about 70% of people who could not heal with other techniques, and about 80% overall
Effectiveness of the technique when practiced by Simon’s students Perhaps 40-50%, not good enough
Simplicity of the technique 10%
Speed of the technique 20%
Correctly or appropriately marketed 5%

There you have my personal scorecard on my first year of RPT.  I got some good results, my clients did fantastic (and several are still RPT teachers).  But my students didn’t really get it – it was too hard or too slow.  It looked too much like Time Line Therapy (regression based).  People were confused and so they did not get results with their clients.  Plus, my marketing (anti-TH) was foolishly short-sighted, creating enemies of my old friends and many former students.

Overall, I give myself about a 3/10 for my first year in RPT.

RPT version 2 – December 2009 to April 2010 (Introducing “tones”)

Evette and I taught RPT v1 across Australia, USA and Europe in 2009. We had some amazing classes with memorable instant healings. We also had at least one shocker – a class that simply did not work (Level 3 in Antwerp). Clearly something had to give.

The turning point came in December 2009 when someone suggested implementing the triune brain (head/heart/gut) idea into RPT.  I used the word “tones” to describe the feelings felt  by the gut or body mind.  It was messy, but I do know that our course in Slovenia in December 2009 was phenomenally better than in Antwerp just a month earlier. We were on the right track.

The very best thing about RPT v2 was the introduction of the “Power of Acknowledgment” technique.  In the initial RPT the approach was to “just Be with the trauma.” This evolved into the idea of acknowledgment as a healing tool.  Although it wasn’t really perfected till later (2011), this technique is central to the success of RPT, especially when combined with the survival instinct model (Scaer) and the Key Developmental Events model (McFetridge).

Unfortunately, the technique was now slower and MORE complicated. That’s because I’m merged the triune method with the ancestral method (going back through generations) so the students now had two things to do instead of one.  If you learned about healing “tones” in RPT, you probably did v2, or a mix of v2 and 3.

RPT v2 was not great (pretty bad really), but it laid the foundations for greatness.

Factor Percentage
Effectiveness of the technique when Simon was the practitioner about 80%
Effectiveness of the technique when practiced by Simon’s students Perhaps 50%, not good enough
Simplicity of the technique 5%
Speed of the technique 5%
Correctly or appropriately marketed 0%

Overall, I give myself about a 2/10 for my second period in RPT.  Fortunately, it was very short-lived.

RPT version 3 – May 2010 to May 2011 (Introducing Triune Brain method)

In May 2010, teaching in Melbourne, I had the fortuitous insight that we didn’t need to use the ancestral technique AND the triune brain method, that it was either or.  This was the beginning of a much simpler RPT.  However there was a catch – the original triune method was not quite as effective as the ancestral method. Sometimes it felt like you had to still go back and find the ancestor’s original trauma. So basically, we were sacrificing some effectiveness in exchange for speed and simplicity. This was an OK trade-off because for most people RPT v3 was the first version easy enough to master and get great results for family and clients.

RPT v3 was also where we introduced the idea of coherence – bringing the head, heart and gut (and later the other minds) together as one.  This was an important turning point because for many coherence is the goal of RPT as much as being the “how.” (The journey IS the destination!)

Factor Percentage
Effectiveness of the technique when Simon was the practitioner about 80%
Effectiveness of the technique when practiced by Simon’s students Perhaps 70%
Simplicity of the technique 60%
Speed of the technique 50%
Correctly or appropriately marketed 10%

RPT v3 is where I start to have a certain pride in what we achieved.  The biggest failure was marketing.  I designed a new website in May 2010 and never launched it (for reasons that go way beyond this article).

Overall, I give myself about a 5/10 for my third period in RPT.

RPT version 4 – May 2011 to May 2011 (Introducing Survival instincts)

The best turning point in the short history of RPT came in May 2011 in Moscow. Promoter Dmitry and I decided against extending the course despite the translator doubling the length of everything.  Clearly something had to give, and I really had to think about simplifications.  The Level 1 manual still had elements of version 1 (ancestral method) and version 2 (tones), and was far too confusing.  So in class I gave up on the manual and created a new method. The inspiration was to focus on core survival instincts which are what drives the Reptilian mind.  The class was a huge success, our best ever.

After the class I went home to research and discovered the work of Robert Scaer (Body Bears the Burden). It was his book that helped me to really understand how survival instincts hold trauma in place.  Then a beautiful thing happened, I realized that the marriage of Scaer’s theory and our existing RPT technique (Power of Acknowledgment) created something unique – an instant healing technique.  We could do what Scaer himself was unable to – heal trauma instantly and without re-living it.  For the first time we had a technique which was fast AND simple AND effective.

With RPT v4 there was no compromise, no need to worry about ancestral trauma or tones. There’s also not much need to search for survival instincts since we understand them. Four instincts account for more than 90% of human trauma and dysfunction – and we know how to clear them.

I am truly proud of what we created with RPT v4.  However you probably didn’t hear all that much about it. I didn’t market it (still no website) for a range of reasons. I think I sent about 2 group emails for all of 2011.

But you might have learned v4 with your local RPT teacher. I re-wrote the Level 1 manual in August 2011 and all our RPT teachers were using it from that point onwards.  So if you learned RPT after this time (and your Level 1 manual says “version 2.8” or later, then you already know RPT v4.

The new RPT is fast, simple and effective. It’s also been a total marketing failure for reasons that are beyond the scope of this article (but I’m getting to them). So here’s my report card.

Factor Percentage
Effectiveness of the technique when Simon was the practitioner about 90%
Effectiveness of the technique when practiced by Simon’s students Perhaps 80%
Simplicity of the technique 70%
Speed of the technique 70%
Correctly or appropriately marketed 10%

I only make as much as 10% on marketing because I wrote some good material for the blog.  Apart from that, I’d say the website is out of date and rubbish and our magazine advertising was a dismal failure.  My overall personal rating is a 5.5.  I’m very hard on myself. I do think that we had success (many people healed), but it’s the marketing that helps more people to know about it so that they can be healed.

RPT version 5 – May 2012 and beyond

A few people who learned RPT in the last year contacted me this week to see if they were already out of date. I think mostly they were concerned that they would have to spend a whole lot of money re-certifying. Relax, that’s not the case.

The “bad” news is that I keep learning and RPT keeps improving! I’m a better man than I was a year ago. Wiser. I keep learning and growing and as I do, I keep improving the technique.  I can’t do it alone, and I must thank my wife Evette, promoter Dmitry, manager Valeria and others for their fantastic contributions to this work.

Version 4 is still current, though it is gradually changing into what might be called version 5 later this year.  There have been a lot of small changes over the last 12 months which include:

  • creation of the new “Level 3” method (the Identity technique) in Kiev, November 2011. This really changes Level 3 and will filter down to influence Levels 1 and 2;
  • Dmitry’s contribution of the “New Resources” technique to Level 1 (soon to be added to manuals); and
  • an understanding of “conflict of instincts,” that it is not just instincts that hold trauma in place but the conflict between them (do I run or do I hide?).

So what’s next?

This year we will launch RPT version 5.  For the first time we’ll do it properly with a respectable website (not an 8 year old spiritual healing website with the old modality name rubbed out and  quickly replaced with RPT).  The biggest change will therefore be in the marketing. That may sound superficial to you, but consider that the marketing is how you reach out to people in order to help them. Marketing is awareness. (And note that marketing is not advertising or sales – concepts that people often confuse.  I don’t need more sales ($) but I think we need a lot more awareness of our key messages.

The technique will continued to be refined and perfected.  It still doesn’t feel quite ready for a truly public launch (think published book, media exposure), but we’re getting there. By the end of this year I feel I’ll be ready.

What are the key messages of RPT?

I know I’ve been a little hard on my accomplishments to date, so let me take a moment to reflect on the key contributions that we’ve made:

  • you don’t need to relive trauma in order to heal it. In fact you shouldn’t even have to talk about;
  • you don’t need invisible energies (god, chi, prayer, symbols, etc.) to do an instant healing. That stuff is lovely if you believe in it, but you shouldn’t HAVE to believe in anything to be healed and the healing works just as well (probably better) without that stuff;
  • healing is and must always be based on science. It’s OK if science cannot explain it yet, but if science can disprove it (as it has disproved prayer healing, theta brainwave state healing and many other things) then you must dump it;
  • science based healing works, is simple and fun!

Do you need to re-certify?

Several readers were concerned that they are out of date.  The answer is simple, look at your Level 1 manual.  The version number is below the table of contents.

  • If your version is before 2.8 then yes, you are quite out of date. The survival instinct approach is very different than what you learned. It’s so different that I could say either (a) what you learned is not RPT or (b) what I teach now is no longer RPT. It’s a different technique. It should be called “Beyond Survival Therapy” or something new. Despite it being a totally different technique in everything except name, we offer 50% off for  upgrading students. This is a small price to pay for all new content.
  • If your manual is version 2.8 then there have been some key improvements since then, you can learn a simpler approach, but you do not need to start again. Contact your teacher about running a low-cost one-day upgrade or perhaps assisting on a new course.
  • If your manual is version 2.9 (soon to be 3.0), congratulations. You are using a very recent version of RPT.  You should always check with your teacher whether there have been any significant changes.

The Level 2 and Level 3 courses have also been significantly updated and you would gain an enormous amount from updating your training here too.

Your comments and feedback needed

There’s so much here that I need your input on.

  1. What’s your assessment of RPT?  Am I fair in my self-assessment of our performance so far?
  2. If you have learned RPT v 4, what do you think we need to focus on apart from marketing?
  3. What are your thoughts on how to upgrade past students to RPT v4? Do you think it should be free, even for students way back from 2009?  (It would never be more than 50% but the question is how much to charge and at what point have we fulfilled our contract – delivered what you already paid for?).
  4. Finally – a tough question: the name. We’ve been debating the name change for almost 2 years. Given what we teach has nothing at all to do with reference points, is there any point in keeping the name?  My main argument in favor of changing it is this: what we do in 2012 is so fast, simple and effective compared to 2009, that I think we are hurting ourselves by using the same name. On the other hand, most RPT students are much happier with the method than I am (I am very harsh) so perhaps there’s no need to change it? I’d love to hear from you.

I look forward to your comments and feedback.


April 11, 2012 in Thoughts For the Day

32 Responses

  1. Hi Simon,

    Since I am so new to RPT my views will be probably be quite different from veteran RPTers. I do appreciate your honesty and open criticism of your work. Frequently developers of techniques over hype the effectiveness of what they have created in my opinion.

    Question 1 on assessment. I have been doing RPT for 12 weeks and find it to be very effective and fairly easy. At times it feels like I am not really doing anything, yet changes happen. I have received good comments from people liking the approach and understanding it. I am still trying to wrap my brain around telling someone why they are pretending to be a sperm.

    Question 2. One of the things I would like to see is videos for people to watch after they have taken the class. This would be a powerful way to re enforce the class learning and allow people to be in “the energy”. I understand why this has been a problem(consent issues and things changing quickly.) I have had to call Val more then once to pick her brain and she has been gracious helping me. Even though the videos that are on the website are old I still learn something watching them.

    Question 3. Every technique or therapy changes or improves over time. Offering a 50% discount seems fair since it sounds like RPT has changed dramatically. A online upgrade may be an option by recording a class and making it available in some format since travelling is difficult for some.

    Question 4. Reference Point Therapy sounds nice compared to confusing or hard names people give their techniques. Since RPT is not widely known yet to the general public, changing the name should not cause much confusion. I guess in the end a name is just a name, it’s the substance that counts.

    Be well,



  2. Hi Simon

    thank you for the summery and all the insights.

    Until now I just know Level 1 (from DVD) so I can’t tell you anything about question 1 and 2.

    3) I think a webinar or recorded class could be a good way to learn the new stuff. So nobody has to travel and can save a lot of time and money.
    I’m just thinking about how I’d feel if I work with RPT, like it but also would like to know the latest approach..
    Because in RPT there are many changes (until now) I wouldn’t be happy to pay 50% of the regular price but I would feel comfortable with 20%.

    4) I totally agree with Jim.
    I like the name but if YOU don’t like it or feel that it is not longer RPT than you have to change it. You couldn’t promote something you’re not coherent. :-)

    I like “healing that works”, too.
    So what’s about HTW instead of RPT?
    Or fast, simple and effective -> FSE-Healing

    Because the name is so important I would give a thought to work with a advertising agency.
    You have just to discribe what “it” is and they’ll offer you a perfect name (what they think it might be)



    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Michaela,
    thanks for your thoughts. Some comments:

    >Until now I just know Level 1 (from DVD)

    It would be interesting to hear your comments on this. We only did one experiment with a DVD of RPT v1 right at the start. We did it exactly so people like you could learn at home without travel. But I think it was a failure.

    I say that because people came to Level 2 after purchasing the Level 1 DVD and they did not know RPT. Perhaps because RPT changes so fast that it was already out of date, but anyway most could not do Level 2 without help. So within about 2 months of the DVD we had a rule that it does not count as a substitute for doing the course, it is for informational purposes only.

    So, my honest experience with this work is that I have not found a method of teaching (DVD/website) that is a substitute for going to a class.

    I think I understand this. A couple of years ago I purchased an expensive online courses with hundreds of hours of online videos. I never watched a single one. But if I had booked into a physical class, it would have cost me more for travel, but I would have attended and done every exercise. I think when you get a DVD you have to make time for it, and actually find people to practice on, and very few really do it. Plus, if you make a mistake, there is no teacher to correct you.

    This is why we currently do not offer the new work in DVD or online.

    > Because in RPT there are many changes (until now) I wouldn’t be happy to pay 50% of the regular price but I would feel comfortable with 20%.

    Can you clarify that? I mean you have only bought the DVD… OK I assume you mean for people who have paid once to do the full course.

    I think that if the repeat is done with the same teacher as the first course then 20% might be possible, but with a different teacher it wont work because they would be losing money on it.

    The key point, which perhaps you are missing, is that the frequency of updates is irrelevant.

    The only thing that matters is are the updates really new and valuable?

    Say the course costs $500 for Level 1. I know it is worth 10 times that (compare what basic NLP costs and you will learn techniques that are 100 times faster with RPT). Now suppose there is an upgrade once a year with new material, 50% off.

    The only thing that matters is this: is the update WORTH $250? The answer is for sure yes. Our updates are huge – we totally re-wrote the course. Who cares if it’s every year, the information is that valuable.

    > I like “healing that works”, too.

    Me too! In fact it is the title of my book about RPT.

    Also I did take your idea and hire the advertising agency (actually my friend is a senior advertising executive). He was the one who said that “Healing That Works” is a silly name for a modality. And I agreed with his logic.

    He recently gave me a list of 10 names, most of which were clever combinations of words to make original names (like how consulting firm Accenture is “accent on the future”). I didn’t like any of them. But he also suggested “Rose Method.” I kind of like it. I don’t want this to be about me, but it also doesn’t hurt to have recognition. so I’m thinking about it.

    Thanks as always for your contributions.


    Michaela Reply:

    Hi Simon,

    I really wanted to learn RPT and there was no course available – so I had to use the DVD.
    I watched it several times and worked with it. The people liked it but for me the process was too complicated and I knew other stuff that was easier to use with the same or better results. So I quit doing RPT.

    It’s not about the DVD itself – for me it was about the technique.

    And I heard that there was a later and better version and I wasn’t able to learn this in Germany.

    So I learned and used other methods.

    Over the last years I took a lot of webinars, home study courses and online courses and really like that way to learn.

    For me it’s important to be able to ask questions if I’m not getting something.

    And it’s great to have a special forum where all participants of the course can interact and work together.

    There are so many ways to find “your” way of giving online courses, webinars etc. and there are lots of ways how to do the certification.

    So I really like Cheryls post! :-)

    I hope you give it a thought.

    And I’ve got a question about the updating.
    You’re right – I’m not expecting to pay a lower price because I watched the DVD. (but it’s a nice idea…)

    Sadly you don’t have a long practitioner list online.
    But do you still advice practitioners who were not taking the update?

    I know some practitioners that HAVE to take the update if they wanted be listed on the website from that method.
    And that’s not fair to me.
    They’ve taken the course and paid for and perhaps they do great work.

    Even though they might miss something.

    I know some people who use f.e. EFT at the same way they learned it years ago. No update, no new stuff and they are happy with it.
    That’s not who I am – I’m too curious and want to have it as easy and effective as possible but I respect the others.



  3. What about “the healing” or “true healing”?


    Simon Rose Reply:

    We have a list of words that cannot be included in the name and “healing” is one of them. As you probably know living in Germany, you cannot use the word “healing” there. Some countries like Norway also have a problem with “therapy.” We are trying for other words. I tried to get “the transformation” but the owner of the .com won’t sell it (isn’t using it).

    I welcome your ideas for names that don’t have those words in it. But the .com must be available.



    Michaela Reply:


    So what about
    life-transformation (not free but option to buy)

    At the moment you can get any with .com :-)

    But if you change the name will you change the picture, colours etc., too?



    Michaela Reply:

    I want to add that I don’t like “Rose Method”.

    For me I’m just thinking about flowers..

    I more prefer Simons Transformation (and that website is available, too ;-) ) or things like that.


  4. Hi Simon,

    It is very nice to see a fair self-appraisal like this.

    I have not learnt RPT and I even doubt whether an RPT teacher exists in my country. I will not comment on first 2 questions.

    I would suggest you release some DVD or online resource so that people all across the world know about RPT.

    My take on upgrade – please upgrade earlier students for free – it is OK if you collect nominal charges towards actual expenses incurred for seminar. I have seen other healing systems lose the plot and left practitioners confused and even rebellious when this whole scenario of re-certification has happened. I believe that a teacher also learns a lot from students. So, it is fair if upgrades are given for free or very nominal charges.

    Regarding name, I would suggest not to use the word therapy as part of the name. A very short name with one word or two words (non-dictionary word which can be trademarked) may be used.




    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Raghu
    We would love to teach in India. We’re looking for a promoter.



  5. I’ve read all of the above comments, and I completely understand your position on webinars/DVDs, but I hope you will at least consider it as it would be a great resource for people like me who can’t necessarily travel to train for various reasons. There are all kinds of learning styles, some are not great with distance learning, but for others it works better (I have always tended to learn better at my own pace, and having all materials accessible when I want them, for example). So, for people like me, distance certification would be invaluable. What about putting together an exam of sorts, or some other verification process, whereby aspiring practitioners learning by distance would have to pass an exam (or whatever you decided on) in order to verify that they have learned all key RPT components before advancing further? That way the trainer can verify that a student genuinely knows RPT before they go out in the world representing it.

    I know of one organization that employs webinar courses for certification, and students have a trainer/mentor assigned to them throughout the process. Students have to complete a total of around 50 case studies, whilst continually checking in with their trainer, before they’re allowed to progress. They also have to have sessions themselves, and often being on the client end of a session gives practitioners much more in-depth learning as they experience and observe the process from an experienced practitioner. With Skype etc., I don’t see any reason why distance learning should be an issue. Just some thoughts.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Cheryl, that’s a good idea. I would be really interested in some more info about the organization you mentioned, or rather how they structure their certification program. If you are able to share some more info, please contact me using the Contact Us form on our website or our email, enquiries [at] rptemail [dot] com. [Spelled like that for anti-SPAM reasons]

    Warm regards


  6. I think your assessment of RPT is very fair.

    I am definitely in favor of changing the name, and I’m speaking from strictly a marketing standpoint. If you look at a lot of the healing techniques out there, they have catchy names. Matrix Energetics – I’m intrigued because I’m thinking of Neo bending reality in The Matrix. Quantum Touch – I’m intrigued because Quantum sounds a bit mysterious and cool. Reference Point Therapy – what’s a reference point? Is this like couch therapy? Or physical therapy? Just always seemed a little flat to me. Plus if the new version doesn’t involve reference points, then the name doesn’t make sense. I’m not even saying the name has to be necessarily catchy, but I’d prefer something simple if it’s not going to be catchy.

    As for what to charge for upgrade classes, I do think teachers deserve to be compensated for their time and effort. On the other hand, if the technique keeps changing, there might be many more versions of the technique, and you have to ask how much extra money the students are going to be willing to shell out. It’s a tricky situation for all involved. Even 50% can start to add up. And I know people who have ended up leaving particular healing techniques because they started to see the “upgrades” as nothing more than a way to get more money out of the students. (Not saying that’s what you’re doing with RPT at all, just that people can get that perception).

    Personally, I wish there were an option to get an upgraded manual and then maybe watch some videos for those who have taken the classes previously. Not that going to a class is a bad thing, but having a manual/video option might cut down on the number of times one would have to actually do another class. (The videos could be password protected so the general public couldn’t access them). I definitely think someone needs to take a class in person the first time, but maybe not always afterwards. One way around the issue of people not watching the videos would be to offer a certificate upon proof of completion … maybe have people do a writeup of a session with someone using the new technique? Just an idea.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Kevin, thanks for your great feedback. I agree with your comments about the name and update cost etc.

    Just a small clarification – with the update video, the problem is not so much people watching it (which is a motivation issue – I mean if they want it they’ll watch it), really the issue is people “getting” it. I will take full responsibility – perhaps I’m not yet a good enough teacher to “reach” the DVD audience. Perhaps one day I will be? We have been doing the video update with new manuals for a few years, and it was OK for the minor updates but not for the huge updates like the current one.

    Still – we will keep trying and experimenting. It is important o do the right thing by our past students.



    Kevin Korody Reply:

    One thing I’d be curious to know, which you didn’t ask in the survey: I’m wondering how many people who have taken RPT are using it exclusively. I took version 2.7, and of the few people I’ve kept in contact with from those classes, it seems like just about everyone uses other techniques in addition to RPT, or even more popularly, uses another technique and incorporates bits and pieces of RPT into it. I know one of my classmates, who already had a healing practice, said that some of the clients didn’t seem to be able to go deep enough to make RPT work. I’m kind of wondering whether that’s because of the limitations of the older technique. I’m also wondering whether some people are doing other techniques out of force of habit, and I’m also wondering whether some of this might be client expectation (it seems at least in my area, if you say you’re a healer, just about everyone expects you to be doing some kind of energy work, whether it’s Reiki, EFT, etc.). I debated whether to post this for fear of throwing this whole thread off topic, but I do think it relates to an honest evaluation of RPT.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    I think it’s a valid observation but I’m not really sure how or why it matters.

    I openly tell my students that they should integrate RPT into their practice. It’s part of our marketing to make RPT “safe” to practitioners – no you don’t need to dump years of training. Integrate this into what you do.

    I don’t need purists, nor do I need robots playing Simon Says. (pun intended)

    So what do you think is the downside?

    I think that if they use RPT for even 10% of their work then they get value from it and they should get the update for the latest, which might become 20% of their work.

    I also agree with your comment about the healers needing to hold on to the energy healing stuff. It’s sad in a way, but “healing” has that expectation. It’s so boringly 20th century…

    In all earnest, there is a potential for RPT to educate the community about magical thinking – that there is nothing you can achieve with a crystal or wave of the hand and invisible energies that cannot be achieved through greater body awareness and consciousness. That energy healing is just a proxy for something great. It’s not that it’s a lie or even a placebo, just that 100 years ago (even 10 years ago) we didn’t have the technology or the terminology to understand healing so we invented things like chakras, meridians, qi, etc. These things are approximations of truth, the best guess that our ancestors could make with the technology they had.

    These are big ideas, radical ideas, and since I have no intention of going to “war” with the New Age movement, I expect it will take a generation for the old way to give way to the new consciousness.

    Good news – it’s happening much faster in the east than the west. For instance RPT is growing 100 times faster in Russia than in the USA. Why? I suspect it’s a funny side effect of 80 years of atheist communist government, the people had the magical thinking slapped out of them. Maybe…

    Just some thoughts. Thanks so much for your contributions to the discussion.


  7. 1. Do not feel I can comment.

    2. The thing to focus on is vastly increased professionalism in the way practitioners are trained. The weekend courses are fine, for gaining a ‘taste’ of Survival Instinct Release technique ;) , or what it will be called. However for truly becoming proficient practitioners, people need way better training. A modality like Rosen Method demands 3 years part time study, and 100′s of treatments on the therapist herself, before they are allowed to practice on clients.

    I think that might be too much, but at least a year, is in my opinion minimum.. that training should include information on taxation, insurance, ethical considerations, and before all else, dozens if not hundreds of hours of RPT v5 on the practictioner herself.

    THIS would make (RPT) a truly beneficial therapy in the world, and let it enter into the common area of professional therapy.
    2 weekend courses = a professional practitioner? that is woo woo and we all know it. Hope you do not find this harsh, but I truly believe any method that needs less time than learning basic tango steps does not have a place in professional counseling, therapy or healing.

    3. No opinion.

    4. Change is natural. Change is good.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Geir, thanks for your input

    Re 2), yes I totally agree and we have been working on this for a while. Agreed that it’s a joke that 2 courses makes you a “practitioner.”

    The problem is that it’s a sort of industry standard, at least in New Age courses. In TH (which I used to teach) it’s just the ONE course and you are a practitioner. With Reiki it’s 2 courses I think before you can do distant Reiki on anyone and charge for it. Mind you Reiki is a LOT simpler than TH or RPT so that’s probably OK.

    In the future though it RPT will require be 3 courses plus 25 case studies plus mentoring from an experienced practitioner.

    You mentioned the Rosen Method. I had not heard of it. That rules out me using the name Rose Method – too similar.



    Jim Reply:

    I agree with Geir and Simon’s comments about being a practitioner in such a short time. This does tend to be the standard in classes so I think care needs to be taken and good judgement needs to be taken.

    For example I have used RPT for issues around sleeping, fear of flying, pain and simple emotional pains. Recently a long term client came in for some bodywork and confided that she tried(serious attempt) to kill herself over the weekend. Knowing her history of trauma and other issues I knew level 2 would benefit her a lot, however I felt her issue was beyond my ability to comprehend the scope of her problem and did not want to cause her more harm and referred her to Val and just supported her.

    I guess what I am saying is we need to be safe and work within our abilities even though RPT appears to be safe and effective to use.

    A certification program not only gives credit to the program but makes sure competent people are representing the process in the best way possible.



  8. I agree to some extent with your assessment although I wouldn’t have been as harsh. Even though the technique has changed, I still feel I got value from the 1.0 and 2.0 courses. Having said that, I was a bit annoyed that, no sooner had I done the first 2.0 course it was out of date almost immediately but I guess that’s the price for being an early adopter.

    I’d do another course for half price to learn the new technique (I don’t think it would be fair to you to offer free live upgrade courses when you’d have the cost of venues, travel etc to deal with) but I’d like the technique to be relatively stable before doing another course. Personally I think you’ve nailed it with the survival instincts approach as it’s consistent and complimentary with the best of other techniques/approaches I’ve come across that centre around survival instincts (sometimes they also talk about pleasure/pain but when you analyse that it’s really just another way of talking about survival instincts). Therefore I think you’ve probably finally worked out what the core of RPT is so, in that sense, it’s probably now going to be a lot more settled and further changes will be more about tweaks rather than complete changes. I think you could certainly go a lot further into exploring the relationship between the physical mind and the higher mind (and I mean that in the metaphysical sense) but that’s not compatible with your belief system so I don’t expect you to go there any time soon :) RPT is actually very compatible and easy to integrate with higher mind / subjective reality models. Rather than disproving or detracting from a subjective reality perspective of the world, RPT actually enhances and grounds it – the best of both worlds!

    I agree that a DVD / online course is probably inappropriate for your method because of the dangers involved in unsupervised practice but DVDs as a compliment to doing a course would be very valuable. In other words, have a DVD/DVDs available for continuing education/reinforcement purposes but only for those who’ve done a live course. Sure there’s the chance of piracy but I wouldn’t be worried about that. You wouldn’t be responsible for adverse effects if your position is clear that it’s necessary to do a live course to learn the technique safely and piracy can actually be quite effective viral marketing when trying to get something off the ground (companies have been known to leak their own material to generate piracy and brand recognition!). Piracy is only an issue if it significantly eats into sales and I can’t see that being an issue wit RPT. In terms of the safety issue, you’re going to have that problem if you intend to write a book (unless it’s a useless book like the Matrix Energetics books that have little substance and are more just promotional material for the courses).

    The name:
    I hated “Healing That Really Works” from day 1. It may be okay as a book title but as a name for the modality, it’s too cheezy.

    I still like RPT although with a twist (see below). You seem to think that RPT no longer represents the modality because you used to focus on traumatic reference points and no longer do. However the phrase “reference point” is generic enough to encompass survival instincts. To me “reference point” simply denotes something that lies at the bottom that holds everything else above it together. So if you can identify and clear that “reference point”, the issue being worked on will resolve. Regardless of whether the reference point is a trauma, a belief, a “tone” or a survival instinct, it’s still a reference point within the generic meaning of that phrase. So I think “Reference Point Therapy” is still a valid name.

    If anything, I’d drop the word “therapy” as that word has legal issues (as you noted). I also personally don’t like the word “therapy” within the name of any modality. I’m not quite sure why but, to me, “XX Therapy” conjures up images of “being in therapy” for years and years. The word therapy makes me think of slow healing, not quick healing. Maybe I’ve been watching too many crappy American TV shows where every second character is off to see their “therapist” for the 4000th time :)

    “Reference Point Method”? “Reference Point Technique”? Reference Point Technique would be okay as it keeps the same RPT acronym. RPM would be bad from a search engine perspective (just do a Google search for RPM and you’ll see what I mean).

    I think I suggested the Rose Method to you before but if there’s a Rosen Method out there, forget it! Forget about the Rose Technique as well as there’s a movie by that name.

    Any name you come up with needs to not sound cheesy and have a relatively unique acronym or you’ll run into search engine, legal or other issues (definitely don’t call your technique “Survival Healing Instinct Technique”!)

    Whilst catchy, I think “Matrix Energetics” and “Quantum Touch” are also a bit cheesy and automatically scream NEW AGE!!! They may appeal to the new age community but names like that are instant death for any hopes you may have of gaining respectability amongst the scientific / traditional medicine community. Those sort of people like scientific sounding names like “neuro-linguistics programming” or “eye movement desensitization and reprogramming”. However those names can also sound a bit intimidating so go I’d go with a name that’s halfway between the two – respectable without being intimidating.




  9. Hi Simon,

    1. As you mentioned in one of your posts ( about incorporating RPT to the current practice) – this is the case for me. There was a lot of very valuebale information during the course and I gained a new perspective on what determines our behavioral patterns. Level 2 is a beatifully working methaphor helping to address issues people are sometimes not aware of. After some time of practicing the technique ( it was a bit vague after the seminar I took (Dubai), but got a lot more clear after assisting in Moscow) it got incorporated into my coaching practice very naturally and effectively. I believe you are being a way too hard on yourself- my observation – you always gave the best you could at that moment of time . We change, everything changes.

    2. I agree with many of those who said that there should be more time given to practicing and mastering the technique. Certification process ( I believe it has to be optional) will be very helpful. And this information/healing method should be available to those who do not wish to practice it professionally, only for self use/family -what if there will be a certificate of attendance, not a certificate which states ” Certified Practitioner”. And only after a certification process there will be such certificate given. I am a Certified Professional Coach ( The Coaches Training Institute, USA) and if you are interested I can share the structure of the cerification program I took.
    3. As for the updated technique I would prefer to have a webinar with Q&A session + video + updated manual. About the price- I think 50% is fair for the updating live classes. I agree that live classes are better,but not everybody have a certified RPT trainer close by and to travel is not an option for many.
    4. The name…. I really like RPT and totally agree with Shane in previous post. As alternative may be to use a word Science? Something like Scientific Healing Method?
    Healing method that makes sense?


  10. Simon,

    I’m just going to comment on the name change. I’m not an RPT practitioner nor have I taken any courses yet, although I am scheduled to soon. So coming from a point of not knowing much about RPT, other than what I read on your website, here’s my take on it.

    I had to come up with a name for my own website. I put a lot of thought into it and came up with “” People really liked the name of it when they saw it on a business card because everybody has stress and wants to be free from it. However, one day my son said; “Dad, nobody can be free from stress. Maybe for a short while, but not for long.” He was right, so back to the drawing board. In my case, I wasn’t looking for the name of a technique, but the results people got after a session with me. Here is what I ended up with: Then I shortened it to I’ve said all that to say this: Here is a list of available website names that you might consider. Maybe I’m way off base, but yet may spark within you the name you finally end up with.

    EverEvolvingEffect (which to this point it is and I think will always be, which is good)
    LifeRenewalTechniques (or without the word techniques)
    MindRenewalTechniques (or without the word techniques)
    SelfTransformationTechniques (or without the word techniques)
    AchievableTransformationTechniques (or without the word techniques)

    Thanks for listening,


  11. Hi Simon

    I agree that it’s important to be sure that people really get it.
    It’s a learning and growing process to learn a new modality and work with it.
    And I don’t feel comfortable with joining a one day workshop and become a practitioner.

    Here are f.e. the MetaMedicine certification standards

    For me they’re okay.

    In other distance learning courses you have to answer questions and write about your own experiences after every chapter. If you got it – you’ll get the next chapter with the next exercises and so on. And you’ve got to send it case histories.

    So I think there are ways to offer online courses and be sure (as sure as you can be within a live seminar) that the participants get it.


    P.S. sadly selftransformation isn’t available. I like it


  12. It’s me again.

    Is it an option for you to make a livestream from a Level – Course?
    That might be a technical challenge but it’s interactive, I can ask questions and you can ask me, too.
    I’d have people to work with (who are live in the course or on their home watching the livestream, too) because distance doesn’t matter.
    That’s a great way for people who aren’t able to travel for what ever reasons.
    And it should work nearly the same as joining the real course.



  13. Simon, hope you and Yvette rode out the earthquake all right.



    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Jim
    How did you even hear about it!? Must have been a very slow news day where you live.

    It was 150km / 90miles from Port Vila, so we felt next to nothing. Just a gentle nudge from Mother Earth to say we should have been out of bed already… :-)



    Jim Reply:

    It was on Yahoo’s home page tonight. Glad everyone is safe.


  14. A brave approach, Simon, but you’re way too harsh. Those early versions weren’t slow or complicated, especially compared to other stuff out there. They were like a breath of simple fresh air. We’ve just got quicker and simpler. Which is great.
    We coul;d market better – I’ll give you that.
    Sue :)


  15. Paula Anderson

    I agree with Sue, Simon. Yes, the process has changed, but there was value in all phases. You were already getting good results from the beginning with the technique, otherwise you wouldn’t have called it Healing That Works. That’s why I keep coming back to the question of what is the common denominator throughout all the iterations that has consistently allowed healing to take place. Some fundamental element that allows healing hasn’t changed. Whether it is beingness, acknowledgment, a conscious loving presence, a state of allowance, truth and integrity – I think that’s what has created healing all along. Whatever that fundamental building block is, it has been consistent throughout. I think it’s gotten fine-tuned, but it was there from the start. I would definitely like to honor, and acknowledge, that!

    I still like the name Instinctive Transformation Method. It really describes what happens, doesn’t have the word healing or therapy in the title, but designates that it is a healing method. I use it often in my pretalk, and people understand right away what I’m talking about. The domain is available, and the initials don’t conflict with anything too well known. ITP, for process, is a well-know health condition. And ITT, for technique, is obvious. But ITM is okay. I really think we should get the name issue resolved so everyone can move on in their marketing. It feels like a waste to start branding and getting a name out there, only to have to redo it all over again.


  16. Hi,Simon,

    Me again:-), just read last comments of Paula and Sue and I must say that I absolutely agree with that.
    ” Some fundamental element that allows healing hasn’t changed. Whether it is beingness, acknowledgment, a conscious loving presence, a state of allowance, truth and integrity – I think that’s what has created healing all along. Whatever that fundamental building block is, it has been consistent throughout.” – very well put and it was something which resonated so much when I first came for training. Although I find that the method itself is ( or let us say was) very effective and I was happy to have learned it , I personally believe that the method itself is secondary to that fundamental element, mentioned by Paula. I don’t have doubts though that the new technique will be probably better as an instrument and it is great that you haven’t stopped developing it. As I mentioned before I believe we all learn and change and that’s ok.

    Best Regards,


  17. Hello
    Before I signed up for my Level 1 I was lookig for the science behind RPT and couldn’t find much at all.
    My gut feeling told me to go along anyway and I’m glad I did, as it it it has a very sound in science!
    So my feedback is to definitely put more articles out there with scientific research or have an RPT specific research done.
    I only recently found the blog but that is more for the already converted RPT’ers out there ;o).
    Maybe you could call it Basic Instincts, lol…
    or something with Core Issue and word it positively. Sympathetic Healing or Sympathetic Therapy.
    Survival in Alignment, Elevate your Instincts,
    Beyond Limiting Beliefs, oh I like that one!
    I agree, the Rose Therapy sounds a bit weird. Nothing against your name but in my mind’s eye I see pink silk scarves and crystals…
    Simons Technique works better for me.
    Regards, Cat


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Cat, thanks for the feedback.
    Just a few things – this blog is really meant to help people before they do the course to know about the science. It’s not just for graduates (there is a forum for that).

    Also I could never call it Simon therapy. It’s actually the other Rose (Mrs) that deserves most of the credit! :-)



Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>