Okay, as far as I can see the first 1/3 of this post is you describing very abstractly and poorly what NLP is. Then you use the rest of the article to just keep hammering in your point that NLP is anti-science and more like a cult then a true therapy that can help people. But I don't think you give any concrete examples of ways that NLP is such a scam that you say it is. All you do is point to references of what you call "solid science" but you never even care to share the very "solid" arguments against NLP. You mostly just share that there is a conflict, period. This feels very much like a straw-man argument, and someone like I that only know loosely what NLP is would have liked a debunking article to have more substance then this.