CI/muscle testing
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:57 am
I was interested to read this. I use a vegatest for dietary stuff much as Carol uses muscle testing and with a similar rate of effectiveness. After some initial experimentation I gave up on remedy testing as, although I got very clear readings, I didn't feel they were necessarily the 'right' remedies, probably for the reasons Carol has stated and expressed so well
. I only ever once went to a practitioner who used muscle testing for the lot. I knew exactly what the results and prescriptions would be because I had heard him lecture recently and knew what he was 'into'. I also knew when he tested me for vitamin deficiency and relative efficacy of a shop product vs one he sold, what the results would be in advance. This is not to say that my muscles didn't strengthen and weaken on cue.
On the other hand i have a colleague who muscle tests everything and gets excellent results. She is, however, a perceptive person with good underestanding of materia medica. I can't help feeling that she would do as well if she trusted her judgement. As it is the explanation for why one remedy was chosen over another doesn't get further than 'it tested strong'. A learning opportunity is lost for her and everyone else. It is a bit like being told 'this is the right remedy because I say so'.
I've only ever seen one set of bilumanetic pics and unfortunately the mantel piece behind the patient gained and lost definition with the patient. I am sure this is not always the case (people aren't totally daft) but it was off-putting.
bw
theresa
Carol wrote
Here are some of my thoughts on muscle testing homeopathic
remedies and comparing this to coherence imaging (which has a lot
of unknowns yet for me).
Muscle Testing
I see commonalities and differences between what I'm calling
"coherence imaging" and muscle testing.
I've used muscle testing for about 20 years to test
foods and supplements, namely physical substances in roughly
present time, which is what I feel muscle testing does best.
Put the substance into the person's local field and test for
strength or weakness of that substance for that person.
Some practitioners put the substance
over the thymus (which is also close to the heart), or over
the solar plexus. I don't feel it matters - just put the
substance into their local field/aura fairly close to the body.
The system registers the substance anywhere in the local field.
When self-testing supplements at a health
food store, holding the substance over your solar plexus and
doing finger testing allows you to test unobtrusively. Even
just touching the substance on the shelf and finger testing can
work, and allow you to test several substances very quickly.
I think when muscle testing for foods and supplements is
done well, it's possible to get about 80+% accuracy,
which is a lot better most of the time than
the usual trial and error or buying supplements based on hyped
marketing literature or other sources we've read that don't
apply to us, or don't apply to us at that time in life.
Various factors can interfere with muscle
testing accuracy, one common factor being practitioner
preconception or prejudice, another being testee preconception
or prejudice. In the case of self-testing, one is both
practitioner and testee. One has to train in being able to
put aside preconceptions, and seek the truth of the matter.
Muscle Testing Homeopathic Remedies
Muscle testing homeopathic remedies is a bit different in that
you're not testing a physical food or supplement which would be
pretty straightforward. Rather, you're testing the overall
strengthening or weakening effect of a homeopathically prepared
substance in which there is a kind of inherent
reversal built into it (homeopathically prepared/potentized, even
poisons). You can somewhat get around that by asking, How is
this remedy for the person? (gestalt effect), or How is this remedy
for the person with regard to x, y, and/or z symptoms you want to
address with the remedy. I'm not necessarily advocating this,
just describing how one might think or proceed.
I have heard of homeopaths narrowing
down their candidate remedies to, say, three and muscle testing
the candidates as a tie-breaker. Which is not unreasonable
in a way, as we often learn more about a remedy AFTER
we see it act (or not), what worked and what didn't, and WHY.
If a remedy worked, what was it about the remedy that we can now
notice that worked? Maybe we begin to give more emphasis to certain
aspects of the remedy that didn't stand out to us before,
or that were not written about in so many words. Despite
all of our study, there are aspects of a remedy that may emerge
only after experience. It is as if something about the remedy is
now *revealed* to us. We've likely all had this experience
many times over. Beforehand, there were seemingly good
reasons to consider any of the three candidates, not just on
paper but in terms of past experience of the remedies for different
patients. So we could arbitrarily choose, flip a coin, or
muscle test. Some choose to muscle test. With varying accuracy.
But probably no worse than arbitrarily choosing or flipping a coin.
If you could get the same 80+% accuracy on homeopathic remedies
as with foods and supplements, then it would be worth doing,
as the alternatives would statistically be worse. Lots of big IF's
here.
Coherence Imaging Comparisons
The brightness/clarity/coherence of "coherence imaging"
is loosely analogous to a rock solid muscle test showing
very strong (gestalt effect).
Muscle testers recognize crude degrees of strength or weakness.
There is a phenomenon I call "rock solid" that is stronger than
just strong. It's extremely robust and resilient, unshakable,
like strong x2. That might be loosely analogous to brilliance
in coherence imaging. The system says "YES!" and "it all comes
together". Like Sasha Cohen doing a perfect skate in competition,
Andre Agassi playing tennis at his personal best and winning,
or a brilliant piano recital. It all comes together and shines,
and all who stands witness know it and feel it.
Coherence imaging may more finely differentiate degrees
of brightness/clarity/coherence/strenth than muscle testing.
My sense of coherence imaging is it detects a state of organization
in the energy field of the person-with-remedy, and exaggerates
it into a display that shows writ large what is happening in
the energy field. As such, coherence imaging may be more
refined and distinct than muscle testing. I don't know enough
about CI yet to say.
Coherence imaging may give more objectivity and distance
literally and visually than muscle testing, allowing us to
stand back more neutrally and get better perspective.
This could possibly obviate some or most of the practitioner
interference that can happen in muscle testing.
Many people are more visual than kinesthetic, and the visual
display of brightness/clarity/coherence vs. dullness/fogginess
will make a vast and deep impression on them.
There is an aesthetic component to the brightness/clarity/
coherence that is just stunning. The aesthetics add to the
richness of experience of patient and practitioner alike,
as well as intrigue prospective patients. Of course, the
cures must follow most of the time.
In addition to the physical aspects of the image, some
dimension of the brightness/clarity/coherence is as if
one were witnessing the vital force directly, shining out
from the image. It is as if the vitality shines and radiates
like the sun, harking back to an ancient symbol and the ideals
of integration, wholeness, life, vitality, beauty, truth,
creativity, intelligence, englightenment, even spirit itself.
There is a visual record of the test in coherence imaging,
analogous to storing an X-ray film. Muscle testing is very
transient, no objective records except notes of result.
--> So I'd ask any homeopath who uses muscle testing on their
well-indicated remedy candidates, what their cure rate has been with
remedies that test strong? Break this out by acutes and
chronics. If it was 80% or more on both, one might not
benefit from coherence imaging, assuming that coherence imaging
could give as good or better results. These are my own numbers,
your standards may vary. So how good is good enough? is a question
each homeopath will have to answer for himself. Patients may
have other ideas.
Unanswered questions for me
- What is the cure rate of the London clinic with
remedies that show great brightness/clarity/coherence?
- How would results differ: 3 muscle testing experts testing
the same candidate remedies, then remedies are photographed
using CI. Compare all results. And compare all results later
to how well a chosen remedy worked.
- If I often had 3 candidate remedies and used muscle testing as
a tiebreaker, and my accuracy with muscle testing remedies
was 60% as shown by cure rate, would coherence imaging
improve that accuracy and cure rate?
- It would be interesting to see if different people (e.g.
practitioner vs. office assistant who does not know the case)
taking the picture yields the same results. Does coherence imaging
have better objectivity than muscle testing, where the mind of
the practitioner can interfere with accuracy?
- An additional variable would be whether the patient knows
the remedy being tested in CI and in muscle testing,
which deals with the mind of the testee possibly interfering.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
. I only ever once went to a practitioner who used muscle testing for the lot. I knew exactly what the results and prescriptions would be because I had heard him lecture recently and knew what he was 'into'. I also knew when he tested me for vitamin deficiency and relative efficacy of a shop product vs one he sold, what the results would be in advance. This is not to say that my muscles didn't strengthen and weaken on cue.
On the other hand i have a colleague who muscle tests everything and gets excellent results. She is, however, a perceptive person with good underestanding of materia medica. I can't help feeling that she would do as well if she trusted her judgement. As it is the explanation for why one remedy was chosen over another doesn't get further than 'it tested strong'. A learning opportunity is lost for her and everyone else. It is a bit like being told 'this is the right remedy because I say so'.
I've only ever seen one set of bilumanetic pics and unfortunately the mantel piece behind the patient gained and lost definition with the patient. I am sure this is not always the case (people aren't totally daft) but it was off-putting.
bw
theresa
Carol wrote
Here are some of my thoughts on muscle testing homeopathic
remedies and comparing this to coherence imaging (which has a lot
of unknowns yet for me).
Muscle Testing
I see commonalities and differences between what I'm calling
"coherence imaging" and muscle testing.
I've used muscle testing for about 20 years to test
foods and supplements, namely physical substances in roughly
present time, which is what I feel muscle testing does best.
Put the substance into the person's local field and test for
strength or weakness of that substance for that person.
Some practitioners put the substance
over the thymus (which is also close to the heart), or over
the solar plexus. I don't feel it matters - just put the
substance into their local field/aura fairly close to the body.
The system registers the substance anywhere in the local field.
When self-testing supplements at a health
food store, holding the substance over your solar plexus and
doing finger testing allows you to test unobtrusively. Even
just touching the substance on the shelf and finger testing can
work, and allow you to test several substances very quickly.
I think when muscle testing for foods and supplements is
done well, it's possible to get about 80+% accuracy,
which is a lot better most of the time than
the usual trial and error or buying supplements based on hyped
marketing literature or other sources we've read that don't
apply to us, or don't apply to us at that time in life.
Various factors can interfere with muscle
testing accuracy, one common factor being practitioner
preconception or prejudice, another being testee preconception
or prejudice. In the case of self-testing, one is both
practitioner and testee. One has to train in being able to
put aside preconceptions, and seek the truth of the matter.
Muscle Testing Homeopathic Remedies
Muscle testing homeopathic remedies is a bit different in that
you're not testing a physical food or supplement which would be
pretty straightforward. Rather, you're testing the overall
strengthening or weakening effect of a homeopathically prepared
substance in which there is a kind of inherent
reversal built into it (homeopathically prepared/potentized, even
poisons). You can somewhat get around that by asking, How is
this remedy for the person? (gestalt effect), or How is this remedy
for the person with regard to x, y, and/or z symptoms you want to
address with the remedy. I'm not necessarily advocating this,
just describing how one might think or proceed.
I have heard of homeopaths narrowing
down their candidate remedies to, say, three and muscle testing
the candidates as a tie-breaker. Which is not unreasonable
in a way, as we often learn more about a remedy AFTER
we see it act (or not), what worked and what didn't, and WHY.
If a remedy worked, what was it about the remedy that we can now
notice that worked? Maybe we begin to give more emphasis to certain
aspects of the remedy that didn't stand out to us before,
or that were not written about in so many words. Despite
all of our study, there are aspects of a remedy that may emerge
only after experience. It is as if something about the remedy is
now *revealed* to us. We've likely all had this experience
many times over. Beforehand, there were seemingly good
reasons to consider any of the three candidates, not just on
paper but in terms of past experience of the remedies for different
patients. So we could arbitrarily choose, flip a coin, or
muscle test. Some choose to muscle test. With varying accuracy.
But probably no worse than arbitrarily choosing or flipping a coin.
If you could get the same 80+% accuracy on homeopathic remedies
as with foods and supplements, then it would be worth doing,
as the alternatives would statistically be worse. Lots of big IF's
here.
Coherence Imaging Comparisons
The brightness/clarity/coherence of "coherence imaging"
is loosely analogous to a rock solid muscle test showing
very strong (gestalt effect).
Muscle testers recognize crude degrees of strength or weakness.
There is a phenomenon I call "rock solid" that is stronger than
just strong. It's extremely robust and resilient, unshakable,
like strong x2. That might be loosely analogous to brilliance
in coherence imaging. The system says "YES!" and "it all comes
together". Like Sasha Cohen doing a perfect skate in competition,
Andre Agassi playing tennis at his personal best and winning,
or a brilliant piano recital. It all comes together and shines,
and all who stands witness know it and feel it.
Coherence imaging may more finely differentiate degrees
of brightness/clarity/coherence/strenth than muscle testing.
My sense of coherence imaging is it detects a state of organization
in the energy field of the person-with-remedy, and exaggerates
it into a display that shows writ large what is happening in
the energy field. As such, coherence imaging may be more
refined and distinct than muscle testing. I don't know enough
about CI yet to say.
Coherence imaging may give more objectivity and distance
literally and visually than muscle testing, allowing us to
stand back more neutrally and get better perspective.
This could possibly obviate some or most of the practitioner
interference that can happen in muscle testing.
Many people are more visual than kinesthetic, and the visual
display of brightness/clarity/coherence vs. dullness/fogginess
will make a vast and deep impression on them.
There is an aesthetic component to the brightness/clarity/
coherence that is just stunning. The aesthetics add to the
richness of experience of patient and practitioner alike,
as well as intrigue prospective patients. Of course, the
cures must follow most of the time.
In addition to the physical aspects of the image, some
dimension of the brightness/clarity/coherence is as if
one were witnessing the vital force directly, shining out
from the image. It is as if the vitality shines and radiates
like the sun, harking back to an ancient symbol and the ideals
of integration, wholeness, life, vitality, beauty, truth,
creativity, intelligence, englightenment, even spirit itself.
There is a visual record of the test in coherence imaging,
analogous to storing an X-ray film. Muscle testing is very
transient, no objective records except notes of result.
--> So I'd ask any homeopath who uses muscle testing on their
well-indicated remedy candidates, what their cure rate has been with
remedies that test strong? Break this out by acutes and
chronics. If it was 80% or more on both, one might not
benefit from coherence imaging, assuming that coherence imaging
could give as good or better results. These are my own numbers,
your standards may vary. So how good is good enough? is a question
each homeopath will have to answer for himself. Patients may
have other ideas.
Unanswered questions for me
- What is the cure rate of the London clinic with
remedies that show great brightness/clarity/coherence?
- How would results differ: 3 muscle testing experts testing
the same candidate remedies, then remedies are photographed
using CI. Compare all results. And compare all results later
to how well a chosen remedy worked.
- If I often had 3 candidate remedies and used muscle testing as
a tiebreaker, and my accuracy with muscle testing remedies
was 60% as shown by cure rate, would coherence imaging
improve that accuracy and cure rate?
- It would be interesting to see if different people (e.g.
practitioner vs. office assistant who does not know the case)
taking the picture yields the same results. Does coherence imaging
have better objectivity than muscle testing, where the mind of
the practitioner can interfere with accuracy?
- An additional variable would be whether the patient knows
the remedy being tested in CI and in muscle testing,
which deals with the mind of the testee possibly interfering.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]