Minutus

Thanks for your observation on the variability of ART testing, Quist. This
is one thing I've also observed in my attempts to test with this means -- it
works differently on different people, which means that it's not terribly
reliable, unless I already know that it does work for the person in
question.

So, although I've found it very powerful and helpful where it works, I've
not tried to use it as a standard tool, because I just don't know if it will
work accurately for the person in front of me. (Inaccurate results mean that
there's no consistent positive or negative response if I retest the same
substance in a double blind situation.) People also aren't really happy if
you do a test and then it doesn't tell you anything -- although it happens
all the time in medicine, I suppose.

The interesting thing would be to find a way to pretest someone and see if
they're a reliable subject for ART testing in general.

Reading David Little's exposition of it is what has made me start thinking
about it again -- he's so positive that it works!

BTW, I'm not considering this as "homeopathy" in any sense -- just a
potential tool, like observation of anything else about the patient.

Rosemary