==========
Several people have requested repost of info on bioluminal technology as
used in homeopathic setting. Here it is with some additional
information.
V.T. Yekkirala wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know what this bioliminal technology means and how it is
used.
Thanks in advance,
V.T.Yekkirala
Dear VT,
It is an objective confirmatory method using a relatively new
technology; undertaken by classical homeopaths in London. A reliable
objective confirmatory allows great savings of practitioners time; and
clients time, money, and suffering. Customarily administration of the
remedy to the homeopathic client is the only objective test to confirm a
remedy choice. Typically 5 weeks of the client's time is wasted between
followups when the remedy doesnt work in a chronic case. If the 2nd or
subsequent attempts fail, the client may give up or no longer be able
to afford to continue. The so-called biolumanetic device emanates a
field which interacts with the client biofield, and makes a photo taken
reflect biofield coherence, which has been shown by the inventor and
experience with this method to correspond to degree of health. When the
client holds a candidate remedy while being photographed, the blurriness
or clarity of the photo is a qualitative measure corresponding to remedy
efficacy. This has been confirmed in several years use of this method
in homeopathic as well as other clinical settings.
Biolumanetics is thus an instrumented technique which minimizes human
interaction in the measurement of remedy resonance with the person for
confirmatory purposes in adjunct to classical case analysis. It is not
foolproof, but has achieved a track record in homeopathic practice
thanks to the work of CJ Wansbrough and K Linnane. The article
below by Linnane discusses the conclusions after several years of using
the technology in a busy classical homeopathic clinic in London.
Basic Method Used:
On intake of client: The patient polaroid photo is taken while they
stand in the field of the biolumanetic device (a field "Luminator" which
resembles an audio speaker). The photo is clear or blurry relative to
their level of health as reflected in the distortion or clarity of their
biofield when bathed in the biolumanetic field, which modifies reflected
visible light accordingly. When (during or after interview) the patient
photo is re-taken while they are holding a candidate remedy, the degree
of photo clarity indicates the degree of remedy resonance with the
patient field. When the photo is clear while they are holding a remedy,
this is a qualitative measure of close resonance. These folks in London
pioneering use of the technology in homeopathy use this objective
reference to weed out the would-be remedy candidates
(which would fail in the case) before administration to the client, thus
providing a benchmark with which to check the conclusion of analyses by
classical methods.
The system allows a higher level of efficiency and integrity in
homeopathic practice because each prescription is beyond a
"guesstimate" (which may fail to act according to the skill and
experience of the practitioner, the quality of client info, the limits
of our case analysis methods, the large portion of our materia medica
which is not as well provided with indicators, and other variables).
Even in cases in which the remedy indications seem ironclad, it allows
confirmation so at least the potential of finding the closest simillimum
in a chronic case is preserved with minimum time wasted for client and
practitioner. The photograph is a relatively objective measure (no
dowsing here, just eyesight (judgement of photo blurriness) along with
customary case analysis and materia medica study. The London folks
limit each classical homeopathic interview session to 12 remedy
candidate photos maximum (if necessary). This puts a limit on the
session if a remedy which produces clarity cannot be found. When
necessary the client returns later for another interview until the
optimal remedy is chosen. CJ Wansbrough of the clinic says the device
is quite a severe teacher and that so-called polychrests are only a
small fraction of their practice. However, it is no panacea; they
still find the successful ("bullseye", which they can claim to confirm
because of the measurement method being available) in about 65% of
cases, undoubtedly far more than the average practice (which has no
means to measure between supposed potential simillimi) but still limited
to 2/3 of chronic cases at present. The unit which creates the field
costs $15,000 and is sold via inquiry to New Jersey, USA
(PRicha4212@aol.com) or the London clinic
(Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk). Perhaps a greater number of
practitioners utilizing this technology will allow the price to come
down so it can be used more widely in clinics and schools.
Best to All,
Andy Hendrickson
California
(this information is made available for the interest of homeopaths, not
for any commercial purpose)
+++++++++++
Here is the blurb on the main biolumanetics site:
For Interested Parties in the United States they may contact the
SERA CENTER CLINIC Suite #202, 560 Fellowship Rd, Mount Laurel, NJ
08054
Clinic Phone: 856-787-0200 for information and appointments.
Patrick Richards & Dr. Carolyn Szutarski are CO-Directors. Dr Carolyn
Szutarski has collaborated with Patrick Richards for the past 10 years
to develop the methods used to provide client services.
Dr. Szutarski's email address is: szutarski@aol.com
Practitioners who wish more information and pricing may contact Patrick
Richards at PRicha4212@aol.com
+++++++++++
For Interested Parties in Europe, Great Britain they may contact
Center for Bioliminal Homeopathy,25A Amerland Road London SW18 1PX
Clinic Phone: 0208 870 1808 for information and appointments.
Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane work together using homeopathy
with the technology.
C.J.Wansbrough email address is: Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk
For an online journal for professional homeopaths, dedicated to
interfacing this technology with Homeopathy visit the following website:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus
================
Response from the inventor to inquiry:
From: PRicha4212@aol.com
CC: Szutarski@aol.com
Subject: Re: Bioluminal technology
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:34:46 EDT
In reply to your inquiry.Bioluminal Image Photographs are a result of
the altered magnetic field effect created by a device called a
Luminator. Photographs taken in the altered magnetic field environment
show the effect of weak field radiations (subtle energy) on the cell
light of the person in the photograph. When the weak field radiations
have a positive effect of strengthening the cells the subject in the
photograph presents a clear sharp image, weak field radiations that
cause a poor cell light level indicate that the material has a weakening
effect. The photographs are Polaroid 600 with the flash retarded.
Retarding the flash allows the image capture you see in Wansbrough's
photographs. The Luminator is $15,000. US fob Muskegon, Michigan. The
charge for training is $2,000. and is given at our clinic which is
located just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thank you for your
inquiry,
Patrick Richards
================
See below article, and also other articles (including some unique
materia medica of new and obscure remedies) at:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/A ... netics.htm
Biolumanetic Technology & Homeopathy: A valid reflection of homeopathy
today?
by Kieran Linnane Published Homeopathy in Practise March 2002
A discussion of clinical findings using Biolumanetics within a
homeopathic practice
In August 1998 Charles Wansbrough and I began to use Biolumanetic
technology in our homeopathic practice to facilitate the selection of
homeopathic remedies. We had decided that we would enter this
project with an open mind and in the spirit of the unprejudiced
observer. We were aware that the world of homeopathy was rife with
rules, beliefs and myths and we wanted to inspect these thoroughly for
truth and also to be ruthless in assessing our results. Everything
was up for grabs. Three and a half years later, after amassing much
data, I felt it was time to summarise our clinical findings. Whilst
we are conscious that one can never separate the observer from the
observed, we believe that our findings may represent a valid and
authentic reflection of homeopathy today and its inherent
difficulties. This article is about homeopathy and I therefore do
not wish to present a detailed description of the technology, but for
the sake of readers who are not familiar with Biolumanetics, I feel
obliged to give a brief introduction.
An engineer called Patrick Richards is the founder of Biolumanetics
and like many inventions it was created quite accidentally. Patrick
originally designed an instrument to balance air temperatures to
enable a more efficient management of energy. However, when testing
his technology in various offices, he discovered that the machine
(which incidentally looks like a rather large stereo speaker) not only
created a more uniform temperature gradient but also that the workers
started to report improvements in their health. It appeared to alter
the magnetic field of the environment and also sensitive light meters
also indicated an increase in light emissions in the working area.
Patrick then made further explorations using photography in the
field. Photographs when taken in this altered field often produced
anomalous images of the subjects - either fuzzy or with multiple
images. After years of research, Patrick concluded that people
suffering from health challenges usually produced fuzzy or distorted
images when photographed whilst healthy individuals produced clear and
'normal' photographs. A further development revealed that when
subjects held a correct remedy or appropriate medicine for their
condition were photographed within the field totally clear images were
obtained. Patrick went on to develop his own range of subtle
medicines which he called chelates and he set up his own clinic using
the technology to treat a wide range of disorders often untreatable by
orthodox means.
Enter Charles Wansbrough onto the scene. Charles had heard about
the technology and had felt intrigued and excited by the prospect of a
tool which might objectively measure the "vital force" and which would
hopefully make the selection of a homeopathic remedy more efficient.
Charles eventually met Patrick in person at a conference and Patrick
agreed to sell Charles a machine so that he might research the
possibilities in the homeopathic arena. Shortly afterwards I joined
Charles in order to assist him in this endeavour. I had been
practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.
Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.
Below I will discuss our findings.
1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.
Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients. We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies. We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.
2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy
I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting. The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
3. There is a wide variation of response to homeopathic remedies
due to the differing energetic sensitivity.
This is where I am going to appear to contradict myself somewhat.
In my description of the technology I mentioned that Patrick Richards
discovered that people suffering from health challenges would produce
fuzzy pictures while those in good health produced clear images.
Actually, we discovered that the story is a little more complicated
than this. At first we were puzzled when patients would come into the
clinic suffering from quite serious and/or chronic conditions and
would produce almost coherent base photographs whilst others with much
milder illnesses would produce much fuzzier images. What was going on?
After much research, we concluded that the base photograph revealed
not so much the state of health of the patient but rather revealed
their 'band widths' in relation to homeopathic remedies. For example,
a patient arrived at our clinic suffering from a painful type of
arthritis. His base photograph, however, was almost completely
coherent which did not seem to reflect either the severity of his
illness nor his distress. Our task was to find a remedy which
produced either an equally clear or even clearer photograph. The
remedy we eventually found was Granite which when administered cleared
about 50 per cent of the patient's symptoms. On returning after a
month for a follow up appointment the patient's base was much
fuzzier. Based upon this case and others, we concluded that the base
photograph actually provided us with a picture of the energetic
configuration of the patient. Some patients appear to have more
tightly bound, armoured, energy systems which require a kind of
"breaking down" before other remedies act. This is reflected in the
coherence of the base photograph. We have found that these types of
patients respond well to "wall" remedies like Granite or Berlin Wall.
The latter remedies seem to break down the armour of the patient and
allow other remedies to be given with much better response. In the
case above, the patient was eventually given Strychnine which proved
to finish off the case but I doubt whether we would have got anywhere
with giving Strychnine as the first prescription. Other patients
whose base photographs are much fuzzier present a much wider band
width, being more sensitive to a number of remedies. As the treatment
progresses their base photographs become clearer whereas with the
former patients it is the reverse. At the far end of the wider band
width group are those who will prove any remedy you give them, what we
might call the sensitives. This type of patient is well known in
proving circles as they sometimes produce symptoms which are the
essence of the proven remedy.
There is a group of patients who will produce clear photographs when
tested with well-selected remedies but who return a month later with
no improvement or change whatsoever. Some of these patients are
suffering from incurable illnesses and this is understandable but
there are others whose illnesses are not severe and yet do not respond
at all to homeopathic remedies, no matter how well selected.
Thankfully, this has proved to be only a small minority of our cases
but it has nonetheless proved highly challenging to us. These days if
we encounter a patient like this we do not waste much time in giving
remedy after remedy as our brief is to be as efficient as possible.
We either turn to Patrick Richard's modified homeopathic remedies
which he calls Chelates and which can be given in various combinations
or else in the more intransigent of cases we turn to sound therapy; we
find a particular sound signature for the individual and they are
given a "tone box" which plays this sound repeatedly and which they
carry around with them. We have often found that sound therapy is the
only therapy which can radically help patients suffering from
illnesses such as MS or chronic ME.
4. Potency is not a crucial issue - accuracy of prescription is.
We have found the issue of potency to be more or less irrelevant in
our practice. We tend to keep it simple.
# Patients who are suffering from functional, non-serious
illnesses tend to receive the appropriate remedy in the
200th centesimal potency and this is given morning and
evening for three days (6 tablets).
# Patients who have chronic illness tend to be given the
remedy in a LM potency, usually starting off with LM1. We
have found that accuracy of prescription is far more
important than the potency.
In the case of (a) when the patient returns for a follow-up
appointment, usually after a month, a base photograph is taken. If
the patient is doing well and their base photograph is coherent then
we do not repeat the remedy but ask them to return in a month. If
they are doing well but their base photograph is still fuzzy we test
out the same remedy. Usually this will produce a clear photograph and
we will repeat the remedy either in the same potency or in a 1M. If
the patient is doing well and the base photograph is fuzzy but the
original remedy does not produce a clear photograph when tested, we
may consider that the remedy is close but not close enough so we hunt
for another remedy which is even better. This procedure has been
borne out from empirical observation. We perceive that homeopaths
will tend to repeat a remedy going up the potency scale for the
patient to eventually stall or even relapse. Then the homeopath is
forced to find a better remedy. In our view this is because the
original remedy was similar but not similar enough. We believe that
our technology fully reflects this truth.
In the case of (b) as long as the patient is doing well and the
remedy produces a clear photograph we maintain them on that particular
remedy taking them up the LM potency scale. If the patient ceases to
do well we will tend to search for another remedy.
Despite using a very narrow range of potencies in our clinic,
generally we do not experience many aggravations. I can recall only
three aggravations in the time we have been using the technology and
these were short and sharp. Our sense is that if the prescription is
very accurate the less likely the individual will encounter an
aggravation of symptoms.
5. The issue of the constitutional - an outdated concept?
There appears to be much confusion still in homeopathy concerning
the "constitutional remedy". At college I was taught that we all have
a constitutional remedy which is our basic remedy. The more healthy
of us will be able to respond to this remedy immediately whilst other
patients will require treatment with other remedies in order to clear
the case in order to attain the constitutional level. Some homeopaths
taught us that there were very few "constitutional remedies", namely
Sulphur, Calcarea carbonicum, Lycopodium, Silica and Phosphorus.
Other remedies were meant to cover a more fundamental layer e.g.
Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla. Other homeopaths, however, taught
that any remedy could be a constitutional remedy. Needless to say I
emerged confused from my college course and have remained baffled by
this concept ever since. In fact, when did the term "constitutional
remedy" enter into homeopathy? I cannot recall Hahnemann ever writing
about the "constitutional". Was it Kent?
Jan Scholten in his Epilogue to Homeopathy and the Elements writes
that "patients are not remedies". Hence, we cannot say about someone,
"she is a typical Calcarea." Life and human beings are far more
complex and fluid and the concept of the constitutional cannot
possibly reflect this, fixing the individual into an unchanging,
almost rigidified state. Surely the concept of the constitutional
implies that individuals cannot change. Maybe this theory did have
more relevance in bygone ages when people were less urbanised and
therefore healthier and less stressed. Do we require a more
sophisticated brand of homeopathy these days which takes into account
the rapidity of change to which we have been subjected over the past
50 years? I recall an article written by Peter Chappell where he
wrote about his experience of treating an essentially peasant
population in Bulgaria and how amazed he was to find that individuals
responded beautifully to the well-known "constitutional remedies".
6. The issue of the simillimum
The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.
To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.
7. Miasms - a myth?
We have more or less thrown out the concept of miasmatic treatment
as we have found it to be a not particularly useful concept in
practice. We give nosodes based only upon the symptomatology of our
patients, i.e. only when the particular nosode is the simillimum at
that particular time. We have never found the nosodes to produce
coherent pictures when based upon a theoretical reading of the case
e.g. there is a lot of sycosis in the case therefore we should give
Medorrhinum, or there is a lot of cancer in the background therefore
we should give Carcinosin. Nosodes are therefore not considered any
differently than any other remedy. Similitude is the only basis upon
which we prescribe a nosode. Perhaps the miasmatic theory was only
developed in the first place because Hahnemann lacked enough
potencised remedies to fit his cases. We consider that Sankaran's
more elaborate miasmatic theories are purely symbolic in nature i.e.
he has identified patterns of energy which he corresponds to miasms.
These theories help him to find appropriate remedies but in no way do
they reflect an actual "reality" of miasms.
Conclusion
My experience over the past 3 1/2 years has been that I have been on a
very sharp learning curve. The technology is rather akin to being in
the presence of a master teacher who tells you more often than not
that you are wrong and the ego finds it sometimes very difficult in
the face of such severity However, I can honestly report that I have
learnt more about remedies and prescribing whilst using the technology
than in the ten years prior. Hence, the potential of Biolumanetics to
make a massive contribution to homeopathic knowledge.
We have, however, been somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest
in the technology by the homeopathic community in general. We have
encountered very few homeopaths who perceive the potential of this
technology, as if the community were frightened to look outside of
their own preconceived notions and rigid mind-sets. Using the
technology has been a completely heuristic process, forcing me to
abandon my own rigidity of thinking and innate conservatism. It has
made me a much more creative and inspired homeopath. The technology
appears to call forth the highest level of practice from the homeopath
and we feel it reflects the difficulties of present-day homeopathic
practice rather than producing them. It is not an easy option, but
the results so far have been worth it.
================
Other objective confirmatory methods extant at the present time include
pupillary response, chinese pulse response, Points of Weihe, Applied
Kinesiology and others. A gifted dowser may find their method
reliable; but for most it is less objective than data received via a
systematic or instrumented method from the patient's body or aura.
For more info on objective confirmatory methods see:
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... s/ART.html
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... amics.html
There is an (expensive) book by De Groote which goes into depth about
using the Points of Weihe and other meridianal confirmatory points.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BIOLUMANETICS
-
Irene Phillips
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: BIOLUMANETICS
Hi, I am a osteopath and patient of Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane. The tehnology they use is remarkable, coupled with their skills and knowledge as homeopaths, which means exactly what it says"Precision Homeopathy". Their results are amazing and as a patient, once you have been treated this way, one would not want to go to anyone else without the technology, as you can not only feel the changes of their treatment, but see the improvements visually. The bottom line is that they are very skilled practitioners and they have to test their skills each time with this technology as there is no room for failure. Irene Phillips
"andyh@mcn.org" wrote:
==========
Several people have requested repost of info on bioluminal technology as
used in homeopathic setting. Here it is with some additional
information.
V.T. Yekkirala wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know what this bioliminal technology means and how it is
used.
Thanks in advance,
V.T.Yekkirala
Dear VT,
It is an objective confirmatory method using a relatively new
technology; undertaken by classical homeopaths in London. A reliable
objective confirmatory allows great savings of practitioners time; and
clients time, money, and suffering. Customarily administration of the
remedy to the homeopathic client is the only objective test to confirm a
remedy choice. Typically 5 weeks of the client's time is wasted between
followups when the remedy doesnt work in a chronic case. If the 2nd or
subsequent attempts fail, the client may give up or no longer be able
to afford to continue. The so-called biolumanetic device emanates a
field which interacts with the client biofield, and makes a photo taken
reflect biofield coherence, which has been shown by the inventor and
experience with this method to correspond to degree of health. When the
client holds a candidate remedy while being photographed, the blurriness
or clarity of the photo is a qualitative measure corresponding to remedy
efficacy. This has been confirmed in several years use of this method
in homeopathic as well as other clinical settings.
Biolumanetics is thus an instrumented technique which minimizes human
interaction in the measurement of remedy resonance with the person for
confirmatory purposes in adjunct to classical case analysis. It is not
foolproof, but has achieved a track record in homeopathic practice
thanks to the work of CJ Wansbrough and K Linnane. The article
below by Linnane discusses the conclusions after several years of using
the technology in a busy classical homeopathic clinic in London.
Basic Method Used:
On intake of client: The patient polaroid photo is taken while they
stand in the field of the biolumanetic device (a field "Luminator" which
resembles an audio speaker). The photo is clear or blurry relative to
their level of health as reflected in the distortion or clarity of their
biofield when bathed in the biolumanetic field, which modifies reflected
visible light accordingly. When (during or after interview) the patient
photo is re-taken while they are holding a candidate remedy, the degree
of photo clarity indicates the degree of remedy resonance with the
patient field. When the photo is clear while they are holding a remedy,
this is a qualitative measure of close resonance. These folks in London
pioneering use of the technology in homeopathy use this objective
reference to weed out the would-be remedy candidates
(which would fail in the case) before administration to the client, thus
providing a benchmark with which to check the conclusion of analyses by
classical methods.
The system allows a higher level of efficiency and integrity in
homeopathic practice because each prescription is beyond a
"guesstimate" (which may fail to act according to the skill and
experience of the practitioner, the quality of client info, the limits
of our case analysis methods, the large portion of our materia medica
which is not as well provided with indicators, and other variables).
Even in cases in which the remedy indications seem ironclad, it allows
confirmation so at least the potential of finding the closest simillimum
in a chronic case is preserved with minimum time wasted for client and
practitioner. The photograph is a relatively objective measure (no
dowsing here, just eyesight (judgement of photo blurriness) along with
customary case analysis and materia medica study. The London folks
limit each classical homeopathic interview session to 12 remedy
candidate photos maximum (if necessary). This puts a limit on the
session if a remedy which produces clarity cannot be found. When
necessary the client returns later for another interview until the
optimal remedy is chosen. CJ Wansbrough of the clinic says the device
is quite a severe teacher and that so-called polychrests are only a
small fraction of their practice. However, it is no panacea; they
still find the successful ("bullseye", which they can claim to confirm
because of the measurement method being available) in about 65% of
cases, undoubtedly far more than the average practice (which has no
means to measure between supposed potential simillimi) but still limited
to 2/3 of chronic cases at present. The unit which creates the field
costs $15,000 and is sold via inquiry to New Jersey, USA
(PRicha4212@aol.com) or the London clinic
(Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk). Perhaps a greater number of
practitioners utilizing this technology will allow the price to come
down so it can be used more widely in clinics and schools.
Best to All,
Andy Hendrickson
California
(this information is made available for the interest of homeopaths, not
for any commercial purpose)
+++++++++++
Here is the blurb on the main biolumanetics site:
For Interested Parties in the United States they may contact the
SERA CENTER CLINIC Suite #202, 560 Fellowship Rd, Mount Laurel, NJ
08054
Clinic Phone: 856-787-0200 for information and appointments.
Patrick Richards & Dr. Carolyn Szutarski are CO-Directors. Dr Carolyn
Szutarski has collaborated with Patrick Richards for the past 10 years
to develop the methods used to provide client services.
Dr. Szutarski's email address is: szutarski@aol.com
Practitioners who wish more information and pricing may contact Patrick
Richards at PRicha4212@aol.com
+++++++++++
For Interested Parties in Europe, Great Britain they may contact
Center for Bioliminal Homeopathy,25A Amerland Road London SW18 1PX
Clinic Phone: 0208 870 1808 for information and appointments.
Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane work together using homeopathy
with the technology.
C.J.Wansbrough email address is: Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk
For an online journal for professional homeopaths, dedicated to
interfacing this technology with Homeopathy visit the following website:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus
================
Response from the inventor to inquiry:
From: PRicha4212@aol.com
CC: Szutarski@aol.com
Subject: Re: Bioluminal technology
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:34:46 EDT
In reply to your inquiry.Bioluminal Image Photographs are a result of
the altered magnetic field effect created by a device called a
Luminator. Photographs taken in the altered magnetic field environment
show the effect of weak field radiations (subtle energy) on the cell
light of the person in the photograph. When the weak field radiations
have a positive effect of strengthening the cells the subject in the
photograph presents a clear sharp image, weak field radiations that
cause a poor cell light level indicate that the material has a weakening
effect. The photographs are Polaroid 600 with the flash retarded.
Retarding the flash allows the image capture you see in Wansbrough's
photographs. The Luminator is $15,000. US fob Muskegon, Michigan. The
charge for training is $2,000. and is given at our clinic which is
located just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thank you for your
inquiry,
Patrick Richards
================
See below article, and also other articles (including some unique
materia medica of new and obscure remedies) at:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/A ... netics.htm
Biolumanetic Technology & Homeopathy: A valid reflection of homeopathy
today?
by Kieran Linnane Published Homeopathy in Practise March 2002
A discussion of clinical findings using Biolumanetics within a
homeopathic practice
In August 1998 Charles Wansbrough and I began to use Biolumanetic
technology in our homeopathic practice to facilitate the selection of
homeopathic remedies. We had decided that we would enter this
project with an open mind and in the spirit of the unprejudiced
observer. We were aware that the world of homeopathy was rife with
rules, beliefs and myths and we wanted to inspect these thoroughly for
truth and also to be ruthless in assessing our results. Everything
was up for grabs. Three and a half years later, after amassing much
data, I felt it was time to summarise our clinical findings. Whilst
we are conscious that one can never separate the observer from the
observed, we believe that our findings may represent a valid and
authentic reflection of homeopathy today and its inherent
difficulties. This article is about homeopathy and I therefore do
not wish to present a detailed description of the technology, but for
the sake of readers who are not familiar with Biolumanetics, I feel
obliged to give a brief introduction.
An engineer called Patrick Richards is the founder of Biolumanetics
and like many inventions it was created quite accidentally. Patrick
originally designed an instrument to balance air temperatures to
enable a more efficient management of energy. However, when testing
his technology in various offices, he discovered that the machine
(which incidentally looks like a rather large stereo speaker) not only
created a more uniform temperature gradient but also that the workers
started to report improvements in their health. It appeared to alter
the magnetic field of the environment and also sensitive light meters
also indicated an increase in light emissions in the working area.
Patrick then made further explorations using photography in the
field. Photographs when taken in this altered field often produced
anomalous images of the subjects - either fuzzy or with multiple
images. After years of research, Patrick concluded that people
suffering from health challenges usually produced fuzzy or distorted
images when photographed whilst healthy individuals produced clear and
'normal' photographs. A further development revealed that when
subjects held a correct remedy or appropriate medicine for their
condition were photographed within the field totally clear images were
obtained. Patrick went on to develop his own range of subtle
medicines which he called chelates and he set up his own clinic using
the technology to treat a wide range of disorders often untreatable by
orthodox means.
Enter Charles Wansbrough onto the scene. Charles had heard about
the technology and had felt intrigued and excited by the prospect of a
tool which might objectively measure the "vital force" and which would
hopefully make the selection of a homeopathic remedy more efficient.
Charles eventually met Patrick in person at a conference and Patrick
agreed to sell Charles a machine so that he might research the
possibilities in the homeopathic arena. Shortly afterwards I joined
Charles in order to assist him in this endeavour. I had been
practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.
Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.
Below I will discuss our findings.
1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.
Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients. We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies. We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.
2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy
I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting. The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
3. There is a wide variation of response to homeopathic remedies
due to the differing energetic sensitivity.
This is where I am going to appear to contradict myself somewhat.
In my description of the technology I mentioned that Patrick Richards
discovered that people suffering from health challenges would produce
fuzzy pictures while those in good health produced clear images.
Actually, we discovered that the story is a little more complicated
than this. At first we were puzzled when patients would come into the
clinic suffering from quite serious and/or chronic conditions and
would produce almost coherent base photographs whilst others with much
milder illnesses would produce much fuzzier images. What was going on?
After much research, we concluded that the base photograph revealed
not so much the state of health of the patient but rather revealed
their 'band widths' in relation to homeopathic remedies. For example,
a patient arrived at our clinic suffering from a painful type of
arthritis. His base photograph, however, was almost completely
coherent which did not seem to reflect either the severity of his
illness nor his distress. Our task was to find a remedy which
produced either an equally clear or even clearer photograph. The
remedy we eventually found was Granite which when administered cleared
about 50 per cent of the patient's symptoms. On returning after a
month for a follow up appointment the patient's base was much
fuzzier. Based upon this case and others, we concluded that the base
photograph actually provided us with a picture of the energetic
configuration of the patient. Some patients appear to have more
tightly bound, armoured, energy systems which require a kind of
"breaking down" before other remedies act. This is reflected in the
coherence of the base photograph. We have found that these types of
patients respond well to "wall" remedies like Granite or Berlin Wall.
The latter remedies seem to break down the armour of the patient and
allow other remedies to be given with much better response. In the
case above, the patient was eventually given Strychnine which proved
to finish off the case but I doubt whether we would have got anywhere
with giving Strychnine as the first prescription. Other patients
whose base photographs are much fuzzier present a much wider band
width, being more sensitive to a number of remedies. As the treatment
progresses their base photographs become clearer whereas with the
former patients it is the reverse. At the far end of the wider band
width group are those who will prove any remedy you give them, what we
might call the sensitives. This type of patient is well known in
proving circles as they sometimes produce symptoms which are the
essence of the proven remedy.
There is a group of patients who will produce clear photographs when
tested with well-selected remedies but who return a month later with
no improvement or change whatsoever. Some of these patients are
suffering from incurable illnesses and this is understandable but
there are others whose illnesses are not severe and yet do not respond
at all to homeopathic remedies, no matter how well selected.
Thankfully, this has proved to be only a small minority of our cases
but it has nonetheless proved highly challenging to us. These days if
we encounter a patient like this we do not waste much time in giving
remedy after remedy as our brief is to be as efficient as possible.
We either turn to Patrick Richard's modified homeopathic remedies
which he calls Chelates and which can be given in various combinations
or else in the more intransigent of cases we turn to sound therapy; we
find a particular sound signature for the individual and they are
given a "tone box" which plays this sound repeatedly and which they
carry around with them. We have often found that sound therapy is the
only therapy which can radically help patients suffering from
illnesses such as MS or chronic ME.
4. Potency is not a crucial issue - accuracy of prescription is.
We have found the issue of potency to be more or less irrelevant in
our practice. We tend to keep it simple.
# Patients who are suffering from functional, non-serious
illnesses tend to receive the appropriate remedy in the
200th centesimal potency and this is given morning and
evening for three days (6 tablets).
# Patients who have chronic illness tend to be given the
remedy in a LM potency, usually starting off with LM1. We
have found that accuracy of prescription is far more
important than the potency.
In the case of (a) when the patient returns for a follow-up
appointment, usually after a month, a base photograph is taken. If
the patient is doing well and their base photograph is coherent then
we do not repeat the remedy but ask them to return in a month. If
they are doing well but their base photograph is still fuzzy we test
out the same remedy. Usually this will produce a clear photograph and
we will repeat the remedy either in the same potency or in a 1M. If
the patient is doing well and the base photograph is fuzzy but the
original remedy does not produce a clear photograph when tested, we
may consider that the remedy is close but not close enough so we hunt
for another remedy which is even better. This procedure has been
borne out from empirical observation. We perceive that homeopaths
will tend to repeat a remedy going up the potency scale for the
patient to eventually stall or even relapse. Then the homeopath is
forced to find a better remedy. In our view this is because the
original remedy was similar but not similar enough. We believe that
our technology fully reflects this truth.
In the case of (b) as long as the patient is doing well and the
remedy produces a clear photograph we maintain them on that particular
remedy taking them up the LM potency scale. If the patient ceases to
do well we will tend to search for another remedy.
Despite using a very narrow range of potencies in our clinic,
generally we do not experience many aggravations. I can recall only
three aggravations in the time we have been using the technology and
these were short and sharp. Our sense is that if the prescription is
very accurate the less likely the individual will encounter an
aggravation of symptoms.
5. The issue of the constitutional - an outdated concept?
There appears to be much confusion still in homeopathy concerning
the "constitutional remedy". At college I was taught that we all have
a constitutional remedy which is our basic remedy. The more healthy
of us will be able to respond to this remedy immediately whilst other
patients will require treatment with other remedies in order to clear
the case in order to attain the constitutional level. Some homeopaths
taught us that there were very few "constitutional remedies", namely
Sulphur, Calcarea carbonicum, Lycopodium, Silica and Phosphorus.
Other remedies were meant to cover a more fundamental layer e.g.
Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla. Other homeopaths, however, taught
that any remedy could be a constitutional remedy. Needless to say I
emerged confused from my college course and have remained baffled by
this concept ever since. In fact, when did the term "constitutional
remedy" enter into homeopathy? I cannot recall Hahnemann ever writing
about the "constitutional". Was it Kent?
Jan Scholten in his Epilogue to Homeopathy and the Elements writes
that "patients are not remedies". Hence, we cannot say about someone,
"she is a typical Calcarea." Life and human beings are far more
complex and fluid and the concept of the constitutional cannot
possibly reflect this, fixing the individual into an unchanging,
almost rigidified state. Surely the concept of the constitutional
implies that individuals cannot change. Maybe this theory did have
more relevance in bygone ages when people were less urbanised and
therefore healthier and less stressed. Do we require a more
sophisticated brand of homeopathy these days which takes into account
the rapidity of change to which we have been subjected over the past
50 years? I recall an article written by Peter Chappell where he
wrote about his experience of treating an essentially peasant
population in Bulgaria and how amazed he was to find that individuals
responded beautifully to the well-known "constitutional remedies".
6. The issue of the simillimum
The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.
To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.
7. Miasms - a myth?
We have more or less thrown out the concept of miasmatic treatment
as we have found it to be a not particularly useful concept in
practice. We give nosodes based only upon the symptomatology of our
patients, i.e. only when the particular nosode is the simillimum at
that particular time. We have never found the nosodes to produce
coherent pictures when based upon a theoretical reading of the case
e.g. there is a lot of sycosis in the case therefore we should give
Medorrhinum, or there is a lot of cancer in the background therefore
we should give Carcinosin. Nosodes are therefore not considered any
differently than any other remedy. Similitude is the only basis upon
which we prescribe a nosode. Perhaps the miasmatic theory was only
developed in the first place because Hahnemann lacked enough
potencised remedies to fit his cases. We consider that Sankaran's
more elaborate miasmatic theories are purely symbolic in nature i.e.
he has identified patterns of energy which he corresponds to miasms.
These theories help him to find appropriate remedies but in no way do
they reflect an actual "reality" of miasms.
Conclusion
My experience over the past 3 1/2 years has been that I have been on a
very sharp learning curve. The technology is rather akin to being in
the presence of a master teacher who tells you more often than not
that you are wrong and the ego finds it sometimes very difficult in
the face of such severity However, I can honestly report that I have
learnt more about remedies and prescribing whilst using the technology
than in the ten years prior. Hence, the potential of Biolumanetics to
make a massive contribution to homeopathic knowledge.
We have, however, been somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest
in the technology by the homeopathic community in general. We have
encountered very few homeopaths who perceive the potential of this
technology, as if the community were frightened to look outside of
their own preconceived notions and rigid mind-sets. Using the
technology has been a completely heuristic process, forcing me to
abandon my own rigidity of thinking and innate conservatism. It has
made me a much more creative and inspired homeopath. The technology
appears to call forth the highest level of practice from the homeopath
and we feel it reflects the difficulties of present-day homeopathic
practice rather than producing them. It is not an easy option, but
the results so far have been worth it.
================
Other objective confirmatory methods extant at the present time include
pupillary response, chinese pulse response, Points of Weihe, Applied
Kinesiology and others. A gifted dowser may find their method
reliable; but for most it is less objective than data received via a
systematic or instrumented method from the patient's body or aura.
For more info on objective confirmatory methods see:
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... s/ART.html
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... amics.html
There is an (expensive) book by De Groote which goes into depth about
using the Points of Weihe and other meridianal confirmatory points.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"andyh@mcn.org" wrote:
==========
Several people have requested repost of info on bioluminal technology as
used in homeopathic setting. Here it is with some additional
information.
V.T. Yekkirala wrote:
Hi,
I am curious to know what this bioliminal technology means and how it is
used.
Thanks in advance,
V.T.Yekkirala
Dear VT,
It is an objective confirmatory method using a relatively new
technology; undertaken by classical homeopaths in London. A reliable
objective confirmatory allows great savings of practitioners time; and
clients time, money, and suffering. Customarily administration of the
remedy to the homeopathic client is the only objective test to confirm a
remedy choice. Typically 5 weeks of the client's time is wasted between
followups when the remedy doesnt work in a chronic case. If the 2nd or
subsequent attempts fail, the client may give up or no longer be able
to afford to continue. The so-called biolumanetic device emanates a
field which interacts with the client biofield, and makes a photo taken
reflect biofield coherence, which has been shown by the inventor and
experience with this method to correspond to degree of health. When the
client holds a candidate remedy while being photographed, the blurriness
or clarity of the photo is a qualitative measure corresponding to remedy
efficacy. This has been confirmed in several years use of this method
in homeopathic as well as other clinical settings.
Biolumanetics is thus an instrumented technique which minimizes human
interaction in the measurement of remedy resonance with the person for
confirmatory purposes in adjunct to classical case analysis. It is not
foolproof, but has achieved a track record in homeopathic practice
thanks to the work of CJ Wansbrough and K Linnane. The article
below by Linnane discusses the conclusions after several years of using
the technology in a busy classical homeopathic clinic in London.
Basic Method Used:
On intake of client: The patient polaroid photo is taken while they
stand in the field of the biolumanetic device (a field "Luminator" which
resembles an audio speaker). The photo is clear or blurry relative to
their level of health as reflected in the distortion or clarity of their
biofield when bathed in the biolumanetic field, which modifies reflected
visible light accordingly. When (during or after interview) the patient
photo is re-taken while they are holding a candidate remedy, the degree
of photo clarity indicates the degree of remedy resonance with the
patient field. When the photo is clear while they are holding a remedy,
this is a qualitative measure of close resonance. These folks in London
pioneering use of the technology in homeopathy use this objective
reference to weed out the would-be remedy candidates
(which would fail in the case) before administration to the client, thus
providing a benchmark with which to check the conclusion of analyses by
classical methods.
The system allows a higher level of efficiency and integrity in
homeopathic practice because each prescription is beyond a
"guesstimate" (which may fail to act according to the skill and
experience of the practitioner, the quality of client info, the limits
of our case analysis methods, the large portion of our materia medica
which is not as well provided with indicators, and other variables).
Even in cases in which the remedy indications seem ironclad, it allows
confirmation so at least the potential of finding the closest simillimum
in a chronic case is preserved with minimum time wasted for client and
practitioner. The photograph is a relatively objective measure (no
dowsing here, just eyesight (judgement of photo blurriness) along with
customary case analysis and materia medica study. The London folks
limit each classical homeopathic interview session to 12 remedy
candidate photos maximum (if necessary). This puts a limit on the
session if a remedy which produces clarity cannot be found. When
necessary the client returns later for another interview until the
optimal remedy is chosen. CJ Wansbrough of the clinic says the device
is quite a severe teacher and that so-called polychrests are only a
small fraction of their practice. However, it is no panacea; they
still find the successful ("bullseye", which they can claim to confirm
because of the measurement method being available) in about 65% of
cases, undoubtedly far more than the average practice (which has no
means to measure between supposed potential simillimi) but still limited
to 2/3 of chronic cases at present. The unit which creates the field
costs $15,000 and is sold via inquiry to New Jersey, USA
(PRicha4212@aol.com) or the London clinic
(Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk). Perhaps a greater number of
practitioners utilizing this technology will allow the price to come
down so it can be used more widely in clinics and schools.
Best to All,
Andy Hendrickson
California
(this information is made available for the interest of homeopaths, not
for any commercial purpose)
+++++++++++
Here is the blurb on the main biolumanetics site:
For Interested Parties in the United States they may contact the
SERA CENTER CLINIC Suite #202, 560 Fellowship Rd, Mount Laurel, NJ
08054
Clinic Phone: 856-787-0200 for information and appointments.
Patrick Richards & Dr. Carolyn Szutarski are CO-Directors. Dr Carolyn
Szutarski has collaborated with Patrick Richards for the past 10 years
to develop the methods used to provide client services.
Dr. Szutarski's email address is: szutarski@aol.com
Practitioners who wish more information and pricing may contact Patrick
Richards at PRicha4212@aol.com
+++++++++++
For Interested Parties in Europe, Great Britain they may contact
Center for Bioliminal Homeopathy,25A Amerland Road London SW18 1PX
Clinic Phone: 0208 870 1808 for information and appointments.
Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane work together using homeopathy
with the technology.
C.J.Wansbrough email address is: Charles_Wansbrough@yahoo.co.uk
For an online journal for professional homeopaths, dedicated to
interfacing this technology with Homeopathy visit the following website:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus
================
Response from the inventor to inquiry:
From: PRicha4212@aol.com
CC: Szutarski@aol.com
Subject: Re: Bioluminal technology
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:34:46 EDT
In reply to your inquiry.Bioluminal Image Photographs are a result of
the altered magnetic field effect created by a device called a
Luminator. Photographs taken in the altered magnetic field environment
show the effect of weak field radiations (subtle energy) on the cell
light of the person in the photograph. When the weak field radiations
have a positive effect of strengthening the cells the subject in the
photograph presents a clear sharp image, weak field radiations that
cause a poor cell light level indicate that the material has a weakening
effect. The photographs are Polaroid 600 with the flash retarded.
Retarding the flash allows the image capture you see in Wansbrough's
photographs. The Luminator is $15,000. US fob Muskegon, Michigan. The
charge for training is $2,000. and is given at our clinic which is
located just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thank you for your
inquiry,
Patrick Richards
================
See below article, and also other articles (including some unique
materia medica of new and obscure remedies) at:
http://www.biolumanetics.net/tantalus/A ... netics.htm
Biolumanetic Technology & Homeopathy: A valid reflection of homeopathy
today?
by Kieran Linnane Published Homeopathy in Practise March 2002
A discussion of clinical findings using Biolumanetics within a
homeopathic practice
In August 1998 Charles Wansbrough and I began to use Biolumanetic
technology in our homeopathic practice to facilitate the selection of
homeopathic remedies. We had decided that we would enter this
project with an open mind and in the spirit of the unprejudiced
observer. We were aware that the world of homeopathy was rife with
rules, beliefs and myths and we wanted to inspect these thoroughly for
truth and also to be ruthless in assessing our results. Everything
was up for grabs. Three and a half years later, after amassing much
data, I felt it was time to summarise our clinical findings. Whilst
we are conscious that one can never separate the observer from the
observed, we believe that our findings may represent a valid and
authentic reflection of homeopathy today and its inherent
difficulties. This article is about homeopathy and I therefore do
not wish to present a detailed description of the technology, but for
the sake of readers who are not familiar with Biolumanetics, I feel
obliged to give a brief introduction.
An engineer called Patrick Richards is the founder of Biolumanetics
and like many inventions it was created quite accidentally. Patrick
originally designed an instrument to balance air temperatures to
enable a more efficient management of energy. However, when testing
his technology in various offices, he discovered that the machine
(which incidentally looks like a rather large stereo speaker) not only
created a more uniform temperature gradient but also that the workers
started to report improvements in their health. It appeared to alter
the magnetic field of the environment and also sensitive light meters
also indicated an increase in light emissions in the working area.
Patrick then made further explorations using photography in the
field. Photographs when taken in this altered field often produced
anomalous images of the subjects - either fuzzy or with multiple
images. After years of research, Patrick concluded that people
suffering from health challenges usually produced fuzzy or distorted
images when photographed whilst healthy individuals produced clear and
'normal' photographs. A further development revealed that when
subjects held a correct remedy or appropriate medicine for their
condition were photographed within the field totally clear images were
obtained. Patrick went on to develop his own range of subtle
medicines which he called chelates and he set up his own clinic using
the technology to treat a wide range of disorders often untreatable by
orthodox means.
Enter Charles Wansbrough onto the scene. Charles had heard about
the technology and had felt intrigued and excited by the prospect of a
tool which might objectively measure the "vital force" and which would
hopefully make the selection of a homeopathic remedy more efficient.
Charles eventually met Patrick in person at a conference and Patrick
agreed to sell Charles a machine so that he might research the
possibilities in the homeopathic arena. Shortly afterwards I joined
Charles in order to assist him in this endeavour. I had been
practising homeopathy since 1986 but had felt increasingly dispirited
with the mediocrity of my results. I knew that when homeopathy worked
there was no other medicine to equal its power but to find the correct
simillimum for my patients often felt arduous, confusing and downright
impossible at times.
Our protocol was to take an initial photograph of our patients,
followed by a detailed homeopathic case, and then patients would hold
various remedies while we photographed them. We made the assumption
that a remedy which produced a coherent photograph when held by the
patient was likely to be the simillimum or, at the very least, might
constitute a beneficial remedy for that patient. Coherence was our
benchmark for any remedy which we gave in our clinic and we have seen
from our results that this has proved to be a valid and pragmatic
modus operandi.
Below I will discuss our findings.
1. There are no major or minor remedies, only the correct
remedy for the patient.
Charles and I embarked upon our venture with high hopes of finding a
way to make homeopathy simpler and more effective. However, we soon
found ourselves feeling rather dispirited. This was due to the fact
that only very rarely did the polycrest remedies produce coherent
photographs. At this point we turned in desperation to Jan Scholten's
work on the mineral kingdom and without his input I think we might
never have got off the starting block. We discovered that every
patient entering our clinic needed a very precise prescription. There
appeared to be no short-cuts or handy specifics. Following on from
our study of Jan Scholten's material, we also were obliged to scan all
the newly proved remedies and to read all the back issues of
Homeopathic Links to hunt out unusual remedies. In some cases only
these would produce the clarity which we knew would provoke movement
in our patients. We have, of course, given polycrests in our clinic
but these prescriptions do not constitute the majority of our
prescriptions. For instance, we have given Pulsatilla literally twice
over the last 3 years. This is not because we have not tested it. It
is just that the remedy often refuses to yield clarity even in those
cases where one would swear blind that this was a "Pulsatilla case."
I recall one particular case where any rational homeopath would
definitely have given Pulsatilla - indeed you would have been mad not
to - but the prescription which yielded total clarity was not
Pulsatilla but the newly proved remedy Kauri (Agathis australis).
Similarly with Natrum muriaticum. Often the remedy which was
eventually given was another Muriaticum salt, for example Cuprum
muriaticum or Aurum muriaticum This would explain to me how prior to
the technology often I would give Natrum muriaticum in what appeared
to be a classic Natrum muriaticum case, only to be severely
disappointed by the result.
The precision which is required in homeopathy was also confirmed
when I decided to bring into the clinic some patients of mine whom I
had been treating over a number of years prior to the technology but
for whom I had the sense that I had not yet found the optimum remedy.
(Truthfully, how many of these patients do you find on your books?) I
recall a mother and daughter who came. I had Charles retake their
cases and we spent about four hours struggling to achieve clarity.
The daughter, who suffered from sore throats and dysmennorhea I had
treated mainly with Silica and Tuberculinum over the years with some
improvement but no lasting disappearance of her symptoms. The two
remedies which eventually cleared up the case were Iris Germanica and
Calcarea silicata. The mother had various complaints including
recurrent bronchitis and anxiety. I had lost count of the remedies
which I had tried with her and I never had felt satisfied with the
results. The eventual remedy which was given which was to make a
profound difference to her health was Betula Alba. We found this all
rather alarming but it did explain the difficulties I had encountered
in both these cases.
The problem with having to find a highly individual remedy for each
patient who walks into our clinic is that we literally have to scan
thousands of remedies. We found ourselves sinking under a morass of
information. At this point Charles started to work on a workbook
where the remedies would be categorised according to their kingdom and
also he began to create "webs" of the different kingdoms. In this way
we started to get some kind of handle on things. We now are able to
intuit much more accurately when a patient requires a mineral, plant
or animal remedy. The plant remedies, however, present us with the
greatest difficulty in that there are literally thousands of remedies
about which we know very little.
2. In an unknown case give an unknown remedy
I have borrowed the above aphorism from Jan Scholten and we can
confirm its validity. At first we were tempted to try and fit the
remedies we knew to the particular case. After 3 1/2 years of work we
find ourselves in the unenviable position of completing taking the
case and knowing more often than we enjoy that we haven't got a clue
what remedy the patient requires. So I would say that after 13 years
of practice I now know when I don't know. This may be a step up but
it can often feel terribly daunting. The problem is how do you find a
remedy that you don't know? We do use the repertory (although Charles
and I would confess not be the greatest of repertorisers) and all the
books and computer programmes at our disposal. But we also using
dowsing at times. We use our pendulums to hunt out unknown remedies
when we are at the end of more analytical methods. Despite being
quite "classical" in our approach, we have no sense of shame in this.
We figure that our job is to find the best possible remedy for the
person in front of us and we will use any methods to achieve this
aim. Often, however, I will use my pendulum just to focus my mind
while I scan the remedies in our workbook and open myself up to
inspiration from the gods. I find myself wondering whether classical
giants like Vithoulkas and Mangialavori actually rely on their
intuition much more than they let on. Charles and I both agree that
the practice of homeopathy is the marriage of the analytical and the
intuitive. Some of our best prescriptions have arisen from a sudden
intuitive flash in one or other of us and of course the best
prescription is that which can be analytically validated as well.
This is not always possible if there is very little information about
the remedy or it has only recently been proved.
3. There is a wide variation of response to homeopathic remedies
due to the differing energetic sensitivity.
This is where I am going to appear to contradict myself somewhat.
In my description of the technology I mentioned that Patrick Richards
discovered that people suffering from health challenges would produce
fuzzy pictures while those in good health produced clear images.
Actually, we discovered that the story is a little more complicated
than this. At first we were puzzled when patients would come into the
clinic suffering from quite serious and/or chronic conditions and
would produce almost coherent base photographs whilst others with much
milder illnesses would produce much fuzzier images. What was going on?
After much research, we concluded that the base photograph revealed
not so much the state of health of the patient but rather revealed
their 'band widths' in relation to homeopathic remedies. For example,
a patient arrived at our clinic suffering from a painful type of
arthritis. His base photograph, however, was almost completely
coherent which did not seem to reflect either the severity of his
illness nor his distress. Our task was to find a remedy which
produced either an equally clear or even clearer photograph. The
remedy we eventually found was Granite which when administered cleared
about 50 per cent of the patient's symptoms. On returning after a
month for a follow up appointment the patient's base was much
fuzzier. Based upon this case and others, we concluded that the base
photograph actually provided us with a picture of the energetic
configuration of the patient. Some patients appear to have more
tightly bound, armoured, energy systems which require a kind of
"breaking down" before other remedies act. This is reflected in the
coherence of the base photograph. We have found that these types of
patients respond well to "wall" remedies like Granite or Berlin Wall.
The latter remedies seem to break down the armour of the patient and
allow other remedies to be given with much better response. In the
case above, the patient was eventually given Strychnine which proved
to finish off the case but I doubt whether we would have got anywhere
with giving Strychnine as the first prescription. Other patients
whose base photographs are much fuzzier present a much wider band
width, being more sensitive to a number of remedies. As the treatment
progresses their base photographs become clearer whereas with the
former patients it is the reverse. At the far end of the wider band
width group are those who will prove any remedy you give them, what we
might call the sensitives. This type of patient is well known in
proving circles as they sometimes produce symptoms which are the
essence of the proven remedy.
There is a group of patients who will produce clear photographs when
tested with well-selected remedies but who return a month later with
no improvement or change whatsoever. Some of these patients are
suffering from incurable illnesses and this is understandable but
there are others whose illnesses are not severe and yet do not respond
at all to homeopathic remedies, no matter how well selected.
Thankfully, this has proved to be only a small minority of our cases
but it has nonetheless proved highly challenging to us. These days if
we encounter a patient like this we do not waste much time in giving
remedy after remedy as our brief is to be as efficient as possible.
We either turn to Patrick Richard's modified homeopathic remedies
which he calls Chelates and which can be given in various combinations
or else in the more intransigent of cases we turn to sound therapy; we
find a particular sound signature for the individual and they are
given a "tone box" which plays this sound repeatedly and which they
carry around with them. We have often found that sound therapy is the
only therapy which can radically help patients suffering from
illnesses such as MS or chronic ME.
4. Potency is not a crucial issue - accuracy of prescription is.
We have found the issue of potency to be more or less irrelevant in
our practice. We tend to keep it simple.
# Patients who are suffering from functional, non-serious
illnesses tend to receive the appropriate remedy in the
200th centesimal potency and this is given morning and
evening for three days (6 tablets).
# Patients who have chronic illness tend to be given the
remedy in a LM potency, usually starting off with LM1. We
have found that accuracy of prescription is far more
important than the potency.
In the case of (a) when the patient returns for a follow-up
appointment, usually after a month, a base photograph is taken. If
the patient is doing well and their base photograph is coherent then
we do not repeat the remedy but ask them to return in a month. If
they are doing well but their base photograph is still fuzzy we test
out the same remedy. Usually this will produce a clear photograph and
we will repeat the remedy either in the same potency or in a 1M. If
the patient is doing well and the base photograph is fuzzy but the
original remedy does not produce a clear photograph when tested, we
may consider that the remedy is close but not close enough so we hunt
for another remedy which is even better. This procedure has been
borne out from empirical observation. We perceive that homeopaths
will tend to repeat a remedy going up the potency scale for the
patient to eventually stall or even relapse. Then the homeopath is
forced to find a better remedy. In our view this is because the
original remedy was similar but not similar enough. We believe that
our technology fully reflects this truth.
In the case of (b) as long as the patient is doing well and the
remedy produces a clear photograph we maintain them on that particular
remedy taking them up the LM potency scale. If the patient ceases to
do well we will tend to search for another remedy.
Despite using a very narrow range of potencies in our clinic,
generally we do not experience many aggravations. I can recall only
three aggravations in the time we have been using the technology and
these were short and sharp. Our sense is that if the prescription is
very accurate the less likely the individual will encounter an
aggravation of symptoms.
5. The issue of the constitutional - an outdated concept?
There appears to be much confusion still in homeopathy concerning
the "constitutional remedy". At college I was taught that we all have
a constitutional remedy which is our basic remedy. The more healthy
of us will be able to respond to this remedy immediately whilst other
patients will require treatment with other remedies in order to clear
the case in order to attain the constitutional level. Some homeopaths
taught us that there were very few "constitutional remedies", namely
Sulphur, Calcarea carbonicum, Lycopodium, Silica and Phosphorus.
Other remedies were meant to cover a more fundamental layer e.g.
Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla. Other homeopaths, however, taught
that any remedy could be a constitutional remedy. Needless to say I
emerged confused from my college course and have remained baffled by
this concept ever since. In fact, when did the term "constitutional
remedy" enter into homeopathy? I cannot recall Hahnemann ever writing
about the "constitutional". Was it Kent?
Jan Scholten in his Epilogue to Homeopathy and the Elements writes
that "patients are not remedies". Hence, we cannot say about someone,
"she is a typical Calcarea." Life and human beings are far more
complex and fluid and the concept of the constitutional cannot
possibly reflect this, fixing the individual into an unchanging,
almost rigidified state. Surely the concept of the constitutional
implies that individuals cannot change. Maybe this theory did have
more relevance in bygone ages when people were less urbanised and
therefore healthier and less stressed. Do we require a more
sophisticated brand of homeopathy these days which takes into account
the rapidity of change to which we have been subjected over the past
50 years? I recall an article written by Peter Chappell where he
wrote about his experience of treating an essentially peasant
population in Bulgaria and how amazed he was to find that individuals
responded beautifully to the well-known "constitutional remedies".
6. The issue of the simillimum
The above leads me on to a discussion of the simillimum. This is a
very complex issue and Charles and I discuss this ad infinitum with no
absolute conclusions. We have read Massimo Mangialavori's beautiful
cases where he finds a perfect remedy for his patients and then this
remedy is repeated on and off over a period of years, with the patient
advised to take the remedy whenever he suffers from an acute.
Unfortunately, this does not reflect our own practice. We have found
that if a very precise remedy is given, the "state" for which the
patient is being treated tends to dissolve rather rapidly. Obviously,
if the state is very engrained this process might take a little
longer, but it usually does not take years and years. If the state
has been dissolved we do not understand why the same remedy should be
given again. It is our experience that once this state has dissolved,
another state (underlying this state) will rise to the surface
requiring another prescription. It is almost as if all the patient's
energy is going into coping with a particular problem. Once this
problem is resolved, another deeper issue will arise to the surface
requiring treatment.
To give an example from our own practice: we took the case of a
woman who had problems with anxiety and guilt around the rearing of
her baby son. We gave her Calcarea bromatum which successfully
reduced both the anxiety and guilt. She was a different woman when
she returned after a month. However, about four months later she
returned to our clinic wishing for more treatment as a sexual issue
which was a problem for her had not been touched by our prescription.
We knew that our patient required another remedy to heal this
particular layer which led us to prescribe another remedy, Natrum
fluoricum. Now, I suppose Massimo would argue that had we been better
homeopaths we would have been able to find a remedy which encompassed
all aspects of this case: the guilt, anxiety and sexual issues. We
are now back with the tyranny of the "constitutional remedy". Whilst
Charles and I attempt to give prescriptions based upon as much of the
totality of the case as we can, this is not always possible. Either
it is because of our lack of knowledge, or perhaps in a lot of cases
it is because there is no one remedy which covers such a totality. It
is perhaps significant that Massimo acknowledges that only a third of
his cases do wonderfully, another third are mediocre and the remaining
third do nothing at all. Perhaps this is more a reflection of my last
point, that in certain cases it is impossible to find a remedy which
covers the totality.
7. Miasms - a myth?
We have more or less thrown out the concept of miasmatic treatment
as we have found it to be a not particularly useful concept in
practice. We give nosodes based only upon the symptomatology of our
patients, i.e. only when the particular nosode is the simillimum at
that particular time. We have never found the nosodes to produce
coherent pictures when based upon a theoretical reading of the case
e.g. there is a lot of sycosis in the case therefore we should give
Medorrhinum, or there is a lot of cancer in the background therefore
we should give Carcinosin. Nosodes are therefore not considered any
differently than any other remedy. Similitude is the only basis upon
which we prescribe a nosode. Perhaps the miasmatic theory was only
developed in the first place because Hahnemann lacked enough
potencised remedies to fit his cases. We consider that Sankaran's
more elaborate miasmatic theories are purely symbolic in nature i.e.
he has identified patterns of energy which he corresponds to miasms.
These theories help him to find appropriate remedies but in no way do
they reflect an actual "reality" of miasms.
Conclusion
My experience over the past 3 1/2 years has been that I have been on a
very sharp learning curve. The technology is rather akin to being in
the presence of a master teacher who tells you more often than not
that you are wrong and the ego finds it sometimes very difficult in
the face of such severity However, I can honestly report that I have
learnt more about remedies and prescribing whilst using the technology
than in the ten years prior. Hence, the potential of Biolumanetics to
make a massive contribution to homeopathic knowledge.
We have, however, been somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest
in the technology by the homeopathic community in general. We have
encountered very few homeopaths who perceive the potential of this
technology, as if the community were frightened to look outside of
their own preconceived notions and rigid mind-sets. Using the
technology has been a completely heuristic process, forcing me to
abandon my own rigidity of thinking and innate conservatism. It has
made me a much more creative and inspired homeopath. The technology
appears to call forth the highest level of practice from the homeopath
and we feel it reflects the difficulties of present-day homeopathic
practice rather than producing them. It is not an easy option, but
the results so far have been worth it.
================
Other objective confirmatory methods extant at the present time include
pupillary response, chinese pulse response, Points of Weihe, Applied
Kinesiology and others. A gifted dowser may find their method
reliable; but for most it is less objective than data received via a
systematic or instrumented method from the patient's body or aura.
For more info on objective confirmatory methods see:
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... s/ART.html
http://simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/ ... amics.html
There is an (expensive) book by De Groote which goes into depth about
using the Points of Weihe and other meridianal confirmatory points.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: BIOLUMANETICS
Irene Phillips wrote:
====================
Dear Irene,
Thanks for some third party input from the patient side.
You wrote:
The bottom line is that they are very skilled practitioners and they have to test their skills each time with this technology as there is no room for failure.
Perhaps it is clear how having an easy-to-use, quick, and reliable non-subjective benchmark to remove much of the uncertainty of a candidate remedy is a boon that homeopathy has needed since its inception. In California in 1994, in one of the last lectures before his physical exit, the great homeopathic contributor Edward Whitmont stated (paraphrase) the following: in order for homeopathy to progress further as a reliable remedial modality, an objective technology for confirming remedies will be needed. Biolumanetics is an example of such a technology. There are other as yet unborn possibilities for electronic methods of
objectively and quantitatively evaluating remedy-whole client resonance before oral administration. We are not speaking here of dowsing or radionic methods but of electronic methods of evaluating life force-remedy interaction. Evaluation of meridians by electro-acupuncture is in this category, but does a meridian reflect the aggregate?
Biolumanetics (which could be termed an electronic-optical system with an objective output which can be evaluated qualitatively) appears to be the first practical device for objective confirmation of the homeopathic remedy on-the-fly and in the clinic. It is evident that Richards has invented a user-friendly technique which Wansbrough and Linnane have successfully adapted to homeopathy (see Linnanes summary article in previous post). The 4 years of pioneering work in their London clinic has led to conclusions which should be taken note of by any practitioner with unsolved cases (which is all of us). The example given that a case
which has all appearances of Pulsatilla but which is not; and other investigations of how a case can be "blocked" and how to remove that block suggest that Biolumanetics is a tool which may yield more information about homeopathy in general. Use of the classic materia medicas and of innovative techniques (eg Sankaran and Scholten methods, taxonomic relations, relationships of remedies, etc) in combination with a benchmark reference such as Biolumanetics appears to be one approach to unsolved cases. It also appears to provide an excellent "teacher" with which to explore unfathomed regions of materia medica in ongoing practice.
Note that this post is an opinion, not an advertisement. The US $15K price tag at present is certainly an impediment, but some practitioners or clinics may wish to investigate this technology further.
Best to All,
Andy
Practitioners who wish more information:
Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane (homeopaths using the technology) (their email addresses as quoted previously appear to be obsolete)
Center for Bioliminal Homeopathy,25A Amerland Road London SW18 1PX
Clinic Phone: 0208 870 1808 for information and appointments.
=============
Patrick Richards (inventor) at PRicha4212@aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
====================
Dear Irene,
Thanks for some third party input from the patient side.
You wrote:
The bottom line is that they are very skilled practitioners and they have to test their skills each time with this technology as there is no room for failure.
Perhaps it is clear how having an easy-to-use, quick, and reliable non-subjective benchmark to remove much of the uncertainty of a candidate remedy is a boon that homeopathy has needed since its inception. In California in 1994, in one of the last lectures before his physical exit, the great homeopathic contributor Edward Whitmont stated (paraphrase) the following: in order for homeopathy to progress further as a reliable remedial modality, an objective technology for confirming remedies will be needed. Biolumanetics is an example of such a technology. There are other as yet unborn possibilities for electronic methods of
objectively and quantitatively evaluating remedy-whole client resonance before oral administration. We are not speaking here of dowsing or radionic methods but of electronic methods of evaluating life force-remedy interaction. Evaluation of meridians by electro-acupuncture is in this category, but does a meridian reflect the aggregate?
Biolumanetics (which could be termed an electronic-optical system with an objective output which can be evaluated qualitatively) appears to be the first practical device for objective confirmation of the homeopathic remedy on-the-fly and in the clinic. It is evident that Richards has invented a user-friendly technique which Wansbrough and Linnane have successfully adapted to homeopathy (see Linnanes summary article in previous post). The 4 years of pioneering work in their London clinic has led to conclusions which should be taken note of by any practitioner with unsolved cases (which is all of us). The example given that a case
which has all appearances of Pulsatilla but which is not; and other investigations of how a case can be "blocked" and how to remove that block suggest that Biolumanetics is a tool which may yield more information about homeopathy in general. Use of the classic materia medicas and of innovative techniques (eg Sankaran and Scholten methods, taxonomic relations, relationships of remedies, etc) in combination with a benchmark reference such as Biolumanetics appears to be one approach to unsolved cases. It also appears to provide an excellent "teacher" with which to explore unfathomed regions of materia medica in ongoing practice.
Note that this post is an opinion, not an advertisement. The US $15K price tag at present is certainly an impediment, but some practitioners or clinics may wish to investigate this technology further.
Best to All,
Andy
Practitioners who wish more information:
Charles Wansbrough and Kieran Linnane (homeopaths using the technology) (their email addresses as quoted previously appear to be obsolete)
Center for Bioliminal Homeopathy,25A Amerland Road London SW18 1PX
Clinic Phone: 0208 870 1808 for information and appointments.
=============
Patrick Richards (inventor) at PRicha4212@aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]