Muscle testing

[Jeremy Crowley]

Muscle testing is pretty much a yes/no thing, and that isn't ideal for a
question that encompasses degrees of "yes"! I have found that (unless you
put an effective "filter" in place) you'll get "yes" for anything from,
"Yeah kinda good, but you might not actually notice any difference", to
"yeah good, tho it won't hold for very long", to "Wow, YEAH! simillimum
response!"
I was taught (and iy seems to work for me) that if either the subject or the
tester puts thefinger nail of the middle finger into the crease of the
nuckle of the thumb(nickle nearest the end of thumb, the results become more
progressive rather than yes know, yes it's weird but it seems to work. Also. it
seems that a remedy that tests very strong will then test less strong when yo
return to it after testing a better remedy.

I've had good results (tho still not flawless) from adding a
"filter" by using a 1 - 4 scale, where one is "yeah kinda good but..."; 2
stands for helpful but not very; 3 stands for good solid help (probably good
enough for an acute or for palliation), but not simillimum; and 4 stands for
simillimum response (or something tantalizingly close to it). I don't know
if this is a generally reliable approach and no doubt there are better ones,
but I did find that this has made my "yesses" a *LOT* more useful!

Not sure I understand this, howdo you add a filter?
Another thing I've learned is that if the results contradict common sense,
you're (usually) better off going with common sense, because there are (at
least as I do it) pitfalls and subjectivity issues with muscle testing--tho
I also think it's fabulously better than nothing, in a pinch! (Actually
it's helped me out a great deal on several occasions.)
If a persons body tells me it is what it needs, I usualy go with that rather
than my unreliable inelect, unless the results are a bit unsure and wishy
washy. Unless I thought the remedy was good I generaly would not be testing it
anyway.
Perhaps the remedy the Homeopath gave is Nat mur 30?
On the subject of both remedies being needed, I would agree with Toni,
probably, aternating, at diferent times of the day, or 1/week and 1, 3 times per
day as this homeopath has.
As I have said in a previous post I often find that two remedies that test
well individualy are shown to be no good at all when tested together or in
combination (I do this test if the patient asks if they can take both remedies
at the same time. on other ocaisions the combinations work better than the
individual remed, indicating to me that a combination is a new remedy in it's
own right Remedies that do not test well together seem to me to work
well given atlternately or sequentialy or whatever I have not tried giving
them in combination unless they test strong together..
Another point I have thought about, I know some homeopaths combine several
potencies of the same remedy in the same pill. I have tried muscle testing this
a few times and found that it does not seem to show a good result,
although some homeopaths find it effective and in theory remedies made on the single
vial method (K potencies)contain all potencies, Single Vila muscle test OK
.
Ok maybe muscle testing does not prove whether a remedy is good or not for
certain, but my experience seems to show that it does.
I may be slow to answer any replies as I will be away for a few days.
Jeremy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Jeremy,

on 1/26/05 9:53 AM, jeremycrowley@aol.com at jeremycrowley@aol.com wrote:
Jeremy said:

Shannon:
Ah yes, I'll have to try that! By "more progressive", do you just mean that
it's pickier about what it says "yes" to?

Jeremy:

Shannon:
Mm, interesting. Okay, I'll try it!
Jeremy:

Shannon:
By "filter" I just meant the stipulation, that I only want "yes" if the
remedy would fulfill the stated criterion (e.g. "a 4", according to my
defined meaning... Sounds flakey, but it's helped me.).
Jeremy:

Shannon:
Yup, can go either way (in my experience). I sometimes throw in "decoy"
remedies and/or "ideas from left field", and if one of *those* tests
good/best, I will check and re-check before (maybe) going with it.
I also find that my results can be unreliable if either I or the testee
is or becomes too tired or distracted, and this isn't always obvious right
away. And sometimes I suspect myself of getting the result I expect, rather
than the result that ought to be gotten. That too is more likely if I'm
tired, distracted, rushed, over-invested, etc.
Just my experience so far--I always appreciate hearing what others have
found!
Best,
Shannon

[Julian Winston]

At 10:53 AM -0500 1/26/05, jeremycrowley@aol.com wrote:

[snip]
[snip]

Nope!
The problem arises in the ability of glass to adsorb (NOT ABsorb)
molecules. IF the process is started using a single vial from the 1c
then, certainly, a bit of the original is left in the vial after each
step. This is why, except in cases of expediency, that pharmacies use
the multiple vial (Hahnemannian method) to produce potencies up to
the 30th centessimal.
AFTER the 30th centessimal, where there is no chance of a molecule of
the original being left behind, the single vial (Korsokovian) process
works well. ALL liquid in the glass vial used is raised to the next
potency.
Thus, the only Korsokovian potencies that might "contain all
potencies" are the ones that are started from lower potencies. The
ones that are begun at the 30th have no chance of this happening.

JW