Evidence

The evidence includes field application data, anonymized individual case outcomes, participant reports, and practitioner uptake.

Across measured cohorts and individual cases, the documented changes are typically symptom reductions on structured trackers and functional restorations: sleep restored, work capacity returned, panic patterns no longer firing in the same way, driving range expanded, leadership function returned under unchanged external pressure.

This is not presented as a peer-reviewed clinical trial. It is presented as field evidence and anonymized practitioner case evidence. That distinction is stated clearly throughout.

Evidence at a glance

Field application — Ukraine 2022

7,000+

participants

6

cohort groups

42–60%

PTSD symptom reduction

20

clinicians trained

Pre/post measurement across multiple cohorts. Results sustained at one-month follow-up. Field data — not a controlled trial.

Evidence types on this page

The evidence on this page falls into five categories.

Field application data

Structured pre/post measurement across multiple cohorts in real-world conditions. The Ukraine 2022 program is the primary example.

Client-maintained tracker cases

Two individual cases tracked on self-reported symptom scales throughout the engagement. Scores available for inspection.

Retrospective practitioner estimates

Two cases without formal trackers. Severity ratings are retrospective practitioner estimates, not validated measurements. Labelled explicitly.

Participant reports

First-person accounts from people who completed the work. Supporting evidence — not the primary proof.

Practitioner uptake

Twenty Ukrainian clinicians joined the delivery team after experiencing the method themselves under active hostilities. Professional behaviour, not self-report.

Field Application: Ukraine 2022

The Off-Switch Method was deployed under active war conditions, at scale, with measured outcomes.

In March 2022, two weeks after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine, a free online program was launched for Ukrainians experiencing war trauma. It ran for six months across six cohort groups — entirely online, in Russian, at no cost. Total enrollment: approximately 7,000 participants. Around 80% were inside Ukraine during active hostilities. Around 20% were refugees abroad.

PTSD symptoms were measured using a structured 21-item scale (maximum score 105) before, at the end of, and four weeks after the program. The measured population was participants who completed all six sessions — approximately 30% of each cohort’s enrollment, representing roughly 300–500 individuals across the measured groups.

Cohort

Group 3

Reduction

60%

Pre-course 53.1 → End 21.5

Follow-up:

Cohort

Group 4

Reduction

42%

Pre-course 62.7 → End 36.4

Follow-up: 34.9 (44%)

Cohort

Group 5

Reduction

43%

Pre-course 69.2 → End 39.6

Follow-up: 37.2 (46%)

This is field data, not a controlled trial. There was no control group. The study population was self-selected completers. The method did not treat the war, bombardment, displacement, or external events. It worked on the trauma and stress activation produced by those events. External conditions remained what they were.

As the program progressed, twenty Ukrainian therapists, psychologists, and medical doctors who were participating in the sessions requested training in the Off-Switch Method and joined the delivery team.

Full project documentation → Ukraine Project

Individual case outcomes

Anonymized practitioner records showing what the work addressed and what changed across different presenting situations.

What participants report

From people who came here after other approaches had not produced lasting results, or who came in conditions where standard approaches could not reach them. Participant reports are supporting evidence, not the primary proof.

Panic attacks I had suffered from for more than 40 years disappeared. Not a single doctor had been able to help me with this.
Participant report, anonymized
Not only did I get rid of the phantom siren in my head — in just three weeks I also resolved issues I had been working on for years in psychotherapy.
Participant report, Ukraine program
My sleep has normalized. I am in a stable calm state despite war and daily bomb threats. Once again I have the desire to live and create.
Participant report, Ukraine program
For four years they could not find the right antidepressants for my anxiety-phobic disorder. Thanks to this method I began to feel better.
Participant report, anonymized
I almost didn't try this. The method sounded too simple to do anything real. I expected placebo. What changed my mind wasn't the explanation — it was that situations which normally triggered a strong reaction just stopped hitting with the same intensity. I believed it because something shifted, not because it sounded impressive.
Participant report, anonymized

Practitioner uptake

The most significant professional signal from the Ukraine program was not the number of participants. It was what happened with the clinicians.

Twenty Ukrainian therapists, psychologists, and medical doctors joined the delivery team — not through recruitment, but after experiencing the program themselves during active hostilities and concluding they needed to learn it for their own patients.

I have been working with trauma for many years and currently have a large number of refugee clients with whom many standard methods do not produce results. This approach works and brings real benefit.
Trauma professional working with refugees, Ukraine program

What this evidence is and is not

Field evidence, not a peer-reviewed trial. The Ukraine data is structured measurement across multiple cohorts with follow-up where available. There was no control group.

Case evidence, not a controlled study. Individual case records are anonymized practitioner records. They represent range across different presenting situations, not a selected set of the most dramatic available.

Tracker data where available. Two of the four individual cases include client-maintained symptom trackers. These are self-reported, not clinically administered instruments.

Practitioner-estimated ratings where explicitly labelled. The remaining two cases use retrospective practitioner severity estimates. These are directional indicators, not validated measurements.

Not a substitute for medical or psychiatric care. No claim is made that this method guarantees similar outcomes. Results vary. Where clinical or psychiatric care is needed, it takes precedence.

If the evidence is sufficient and you want to understand whether the work fits your situation: