#1 An Overview
Recent research in consciousness and information field theory has offered some important insights concerning the virtues and limitations of bio-resonance testing.
These confirm the long-term observations of mine that, paradoxically, while the testing itself carries infinite capability yet it is being constrained unknowingly by the tester himself. Being more precise, the unlimited potential of the testing as the source of invaluable medical information is often limited by the scope of knowledge of the tester that he unconsciously projects as mental field onto patient forcing him to respond accordingly and within the conceptual framework of the testing designated by the practitioner.
On the whole, Bio-resonance testing represents the single most powerful diagnostic modality available in the world today. There are many techniques of Bio-resonance testing that are in use:
AK – Applied Kinesiology
EAV – Electroacupuncture According to Voll
CRA – Contact Reflex Analysis
Autonomic Response Testing
Omura O-Ring Test
TBM
NAET
VEGA
Many others
Barely a day goes by without someone offering a new technique or equipment, claiming and, usually naively, its superiority over others.
Q: Which technique is the best?
A: None per se. Think of a technique-equipment factor as of a mere microphone to ask the body questions through.
Q. Which microphone is the best?
A. The one through which the most poignant questions are being asked in relation to the fundamental vs. superficial causes of state of illness.
Q. Who is doing the asking?
A. Ultimately, the practitioner.
Some practitioners have a tendency to become overly impressed with the use of computerized electronic devices because in our culture, computers are equated with advancement and precision which is true. Therefore, it seems logical, on the surface, at least, to delegate diagnostic interrogation to computers.
However, many confuse the capacity of this technology to process numerous operations over a unit of time, on one hand, and value and meaning of decision making issues, on the other. The former entity is related to the hardware technology while the latter is a product of the programmer’s scope of knowledge.
From hence, if the programmers are not aware what to base their main diagnostic or therapeutic decisions on, neither will a computer. As a result, computers pass on both virtues and “viruses” of the concepts laid down by the people who program them.
As an example, in 1996 a super chess-playing computer capable of processing 200,000,000 chess moves per second took on the then reigning World Champion Russian Chess Master Gary Kasparov. The outcome — the advanced machine lost the match.
Yes, the majority of the Bio-resonance techniques can identify correctly numerous toxic agents and various health infirmities:
Environmental pollutants
Toxic dental fillings and foci
Foods or environmental allergies
Viruses: EBV, CMV, Herpes, others.
Candidiasis
Parasitosis
Nutritional Deficiencies
Spinal Dyslexations
Malfunctioning ileo-cecal valves
Unbalanced acupuncture points or meridians
Weak muscles-organs, and many others
Yet the most important issue — how to dispense with these findings, their diagnostic hierarchy, clinical priority and therapeutic means to address them — is what makes the crucial difference. The facts are that both, the testing and therapy encounter several major flaws.
What are these flaws?
DIAGNOSTIC
1. Most of the above-mentioned techniques apply force in one way or another and, therefore, have the potential of involuntary transfer of some of the tester’s subjectivity, e.g. strong beliefs or doubts, onto a patient resulting in falsely-positive or negative results.
2. Performed on one-dimensional energetic level only which is the most superficial one. As a result, deeper energetic and, correspondingly, anatomical layers that harbor a plethora of pathogenic agents remain overlooked. This dooms therapy to failure.
3. Off target as to what constitutes the crucial findings: key toxins — pathogenic factors of high clinical priority.
4. Overlooks energetically stealth organs and tissues due to their low conducting properties. Some of these organs and tissues play a pivotal role in assuring homeostatic integrity and, once impaired and missed, will preclude any chance for recovery.
5.Unawareness of multiple factors which often block and distort the readings.
THERAPEUTIC
1. Fails to account for mind field phenomenon. Regardless of the Bio-resonance method that is being utilized, both the tester and testee become automatically a part of one energetic circuit.
The clinical implications of this are very important. Unbeknownst to a practitioner, he subjects himself to being tested just as much by a patient regarding the scope of the therapeutic options that he has to offer. During this subtle subconscious testing a practitioner conveys to a patient, also, his, practitioner’s, diagnostic and therapeutic limitations and then receives from a patient the “yes” or “no” answers, but which are based, exclusively, on these options and limitations.
For lack of a better choice, a patient is forced to accept even very mediocre or outright iatrogenic treatment options . The often used “confirmatory” parameters: a muscle, acupuncture meridian or its point(s) become “strengthened” or “balanced,” some therapeutic product tests “effective,” nutritional deficiencies read as “restored,” Ph imbalance “resolved” and organs “detoxed” and “recooped.” Likewise, allergy to wheat, corn molds or formaldehyde will “disappear”, as well according to the testing protocol. The end result, however, is a short-term band aid and, in the long run a busy go-around circle, where per each malady suppressed or shifted, several more emerge.
2. Pursues findings: energetic, structural, laboratory, emotional, etc. of secondary importance because these, in the majority, are just the by-products of the underlying primary causes.
3. The therapy ignores some vital principles of the important clinical interrelationships and interplay between the toxicological, immune, infectious and endocrine factors, as well as salient environmental and life style ones.
4. Lack of understanding of clinical weight and corresponding therapeutic priority, among the findings. The therapy ends up addressing either unessential findings or, even if, the essential ones, but in the wrong sequence. The end result, none or only marginal gains and, just as often, therapeutic aggravations.
5. Fails to utilize the correct therapeutic means which are also capable of addressing the findings in a multi-layered fashion in relation to afflicted organs and tissues.
6. Unawareness of the limitations of the therapeutic products utilized: pharmaceutical, conventional, natural or energetic. Their wrong choice, improper application and timing, collision course and potential for iatrogenicity.
7. Carried out with wrong means. As an example, in cases of addressing heavy metals various chelators are being used: DMPS, DMSA, Cilantro, EDTA, nutritional formulas, complex homeopathics, etc. In spite of the fact that they all do what they purport to – chelate – the meaning of the objective is often mistaken automatically for its actual accomplishment.
Also, not disputing the fact that these agents are indeed capable of diminishing total metal loads, bio-resonance testing and clinical experience, however, have confirmed a disturbing tendency of the lack of necessary therapeutic penetration into organs with finding the residues of metals there even following numerous chelations.
And, even worse, iatrogenicity through a wider spread, or redistribution, of metals where they become dumped into other organs and tissues. This takes place due to the fact that these, as well as excretory and detoxifying organs, become overloaded and “drowned” in the process. It holds particularly true in relation to constitutionally, genetically weak organs and tissues. Likewise, other similar interventions: nutritional supplements, herbs, bio-energetic machinery, etc. all end up turning in the same flaws.
For comparison, think of how many precautions are being undertaken to protect the rest of the environment in cases of removal of toxic, be it chemical, biological or nuclear spillage. Any reasons why this wouldn’t hold true within the body?
8. Provides inadequate organ support in the course of detoxification – release of pathogenic, morbid agents.
9. Unable to anticipate and properly address therapeutic responses because of lack of awareness concerning complex and dynamic nature of illness, as well as of the underlying pathogenic layers.
10. Fails to account for and address individual constitutional infirmities leading to disease.
11. Most importantly, utilizes wrong or superficial models of disease which are based on the narrow conceptual models of the corresponding paradigms. The latter limits view of disease to some isolated facts that are usually of marginal importance.