Thank you for your point of view about ART and related techniques and the
sharing of your personal experiences with this 'instrument'.
I agree that if this 'instrument' indeed does what all of you tell me it
does than indeed it would be a handy help in the case finalizing process.
Now since all of you have all those positive results with it, I'll just have
to try and see more for myself, I guess.
This said, I want to share with you that on the base of the information
found at David Little site, I've already conducted a test some month's ago.
It was in a case where, on the base of the symptoms, I couldn't choose
between some remedies like Nat M and Ars....
So I tried the pupil reaction, together with an assistant who brought in the
vials each time, at the same time when I was watching the pupils with a
light beam.
It was odd doing, I've to confess, but I tried it anyway, for experimental
sake
I've done the test three times, double blind with about 10 ad random
remedies, included the Ars and Nat M. vials.
There were indeed different pupil reaction, but when I analysed them later,
I noticed that these reactions didn't occur consistent at the same remedy.
I also noticed that without 'presenting' a remedy, the pupil reaction (or
the rate of the heartbeat) varied in the same scale, as such, without
apparent reason.
Of course, I realise, that when there was no obvious reaction, it also could
mean that nor Ars nor Nat M were the simillimum or that the potencies at
hand were not the right ones.
Yes, I see that.
Anyhow, I'll pursue my personnel investigation in these matters, like I've
always done.
And when I find out results which back up your experiences, I'll let you
know, in case of course it would interest you
Kind regards,
Jan