Testing gives us a chance. 5 benefits of muscle testing
On the future of energy-science based testing, what it offers, and why this is relevant to you
Let’s throw away garbage muscle testing
You may not be interested in muscle testing. Let’s face it: there are a lot of grifters in holistic medicine, and especially in the muscle testing field, where an assessment might show that the primary things you need just happen to be products the practitioner sells.
You might be told there is a cure for your diabetes by a practitioner who can’t differentiate that your type one is in fact not curable (there are few case studies suggesting the possibility, and most of them pertain to honeymooners delaying onset, MODY and other not-exactly-type one cases, and people who claimed cure but still don’t have normal blood sugar levels).
Or, you might be told you have very concerning problems. Very concerning problems, in fact. I recall a patient whose practitioner had him come in every week for electrodermal scanning, and sold him new supplements at each visit. The problem was that the practitioner was extremely proficient in convincing this patient that the problems warranted the weekly sessions and the weekly purchases. This, unfortunately, was a naïve patient who had lots of money and was extremely devoted to finding solutions for his problems. This, unfortunately, was a victim.
The use of homeopathy often erroneously receives criticism. How can one take a bottle of sleeping pills and not fall asleep, a skeptic might ask. And yet, exposing the body to the sense that it has been exposed to something should produce no such effect. For example, taking homeopathic mercury makes the body believes it was just poisoned with mercury, to put it one way, and this leads to the body preparing a detoxification response. This effect is not only plausible but actual; case studies of food intolerances being removed after taking homeopathics of foods they were sensitive to are clinical examples. But the substantial body of studies supporting homeopathy, interestingly, are never accepted. Rather than straight reporting on positive studies, you will see headlines suggesting that any positive study rests on dubious merits, “sparks uproar” to quote one, etc.
In the same way, muscle testing is seen by psychopaths as something instantly discreditable, when it is not. Papers on manual muscle testing or applied kinesiology focusing on assessment of neurological and structural dysregulation (this refers to muscle testing used i.e. by chiropractors to assess structural issues, rather than testing used to assess which variables cause positive or negative response) are substantially positive (example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17341308/). One paper effectively says, there is no reason to believe this works, but it seems to here (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32720584/).
Conversely, the testing of vials for response through muscle testing (which is effectively part of our work) are generally extremely negative. One paper found 53% accuracy in correctly muscle testing responses to two vials, one of which contained a poison and the other of which was a control. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24607076/).
On the other hand, there is no reason to believe such papers tell the whole story. Here are three peer reviewed studies showing positive results for the use of muscle testing to make assessments of responses to variables, using the Autonomic Response Testing method. One assessed muscle testing results to find IgE mediated food intolerances (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29332023/). Another is written on case studies pertaining to treatment of surgery scars (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27782920/). We have one interesting and compelling paper showing that the areas found to contain pathology through Autonomic Response Testing could be verified to have the pathology (https://doi.org/10.3844/ajisp.2017.114.126).
So, in effect, we have a diverse array of findings from peer reviewed studies on muscle testing. Nothing, to be clear, makes clear the scientific efficacy of muscle testing generally. But we do have papers indicating that results are plausibly supported by science, indicating the need for non-biased, new research.
One might further conclude, as Dietrich Klinghardt suggests, that muscle testing may be used—but it must be used with the appropriate precautions to avoid bad results. His teachings primarily start with a walk through of why numerous methods in muscle testing do not work, and how to avoid such problems.
We might also include that understandings of the biophoton field are necessary for adequate muscle testing. Klinghardt’s ART is muscle testing implemented with the purpose and goal of assessing the body’s response to problems that uses tools to assess whether one’s light is emitted in a coherent pattern as an indicator of underlying blockage to find where the problems are. If a variable (for example, a food you ate) causes biophoton emissions to become garbled, that is his indication that there is a problem. Interestingly, one of the most poignant criticisms by Klinghardt of other schools of muscle testing is that if one places a hand on the body (i.e. over an organ you want to test), and tests whether this causes a stress, the practitioner is not testing what is going on in the organ, but on the skin, or in the nervous system—his suggestion is that touch is not enough to cut through to “test” an organ. On the other hand, an assessment for blocked regulation coming out of the organ is going to give you much more information, and be more useful.
For me, this shakes down to the indication that muscle testing will likely give bad results, but that there is clear literature to support some systems working effectively, such as ART to find food intolerances, or traditional AK to find structural injuries.
One might wonder why I am so confident, when studies simply haven’t been done to analyze relevant techniques in my field. Aside from applauding those with the ability or capacity to ascertain nuance (especially given the backdrop of financial influence behind the peer reviewed literature body, which does not favor the assessment of holistic techniques), here, I must tell a personal anecdote. I lived for years without a glucometer and used muscle testing to reliably assess how much insulin was needed to cover a meal, how many carbs were needed to prevent a low, whether I needed to treat a low, and whether I needed to treat a high (and with what dose). So excuse me if I found my success with that a little bit compelling.
Why Muscle Testing Is Needed
To give an answer as to why muscle testing is needed, we simply have to look at the problems today.
We never know whether an issue is going to be primarily relevant to someone, or practically non-relevant. To give an example: there is a need to assess when someone needs food intolerance testing. Or, it needs to be assessed when prayer will cause the most benefit (let’s say, compared with exercise, or diet protocols, or treating chronic infections).
This is something muscle testing offers that other examination methods cannot. Rather than the intellect of a doctor, nurse, practitioner, etc., this is a system that effectively can determine which issues need to be addressed (note: just because I am saying muscle testing can and should be used for this purpose does not necessarily mean that all muscle testing systems can and do offer this effectively. This paper does not support most muscle testing systems and their pathways and results).
Second, we need to be able to take a deep dive into a variety of issues, affordably.
Who can do an effective deep dive into parasites using conventional testing? Stool tests can’t test for larval stages of parasites in the brain, or parasites in the lung and other tissues. Stool tests can test for a very limited number of parasites, and will often yield false negatives. This leads to those intellectually interested in parasites having few options other than to pursue the treatment of parasites on their own. Muscle testing, instead, allows one to dive deeply into both findings on parasites, and on methods to deal with parasites. Muscle testing can, further (at least in our system), offer objective methods of assessing outcomes. We can see how the protocol worked out, whether new protocols are required, whether the approach was a failure, etc.
All of this being, of course, predicated on benefit #1.
Third, we need to explore alternative ideas.
Deuterium depleted water comes to mind. Some find this very interesting. Some find this very effective. But, given the cost of protocols and inaccessibility of the information, it is not likely to spread like wildfire into the hearts and minds of millions (let alone billions).
People need simple ideas that are affordable. Eat better. Or, eat keto. Or, take vitamin D. The idea that it has taken decades for vitamin D levels to be cared about by the mainstream health system is a derogatory remark creditors would do well to make note of. The mainstream world is so drastically behind the cutting edge of holistic it is galling. Why, exactly, cannot glyphosate be tested for harm, when we have myriad papers showing it causes harm? Simple ideas are better for the mainstream. If you smoked, ever, that is going to be what caused your cancer, according to your oncologist. There is no effective way to assess which of the items on an impractically endless list might have caused a specific person’s cancer. Much easier, and less litigious, to blame the victim and move on.
This benefit is more specific to our system in particular. Benefit #4 is that muscle testing allows us to explore the mechanics of the human biofield.
Not just blocked or coherent. Our work effectively centers on the assessment of everything that the biophoton can do, and everything that it does.
The practical applications of this are scary; much like AI is currently heralding incalculable changes to the creation of information (it being early 2023), the assessment of what light actually does will have an indeterminant end.
To state the relevant concerns simply: hopefully our biophoton field’s responses to all variables are not used against us. No, we do not need a cell phone that can tell us whether one advertisement yields a positive response, nor do we need a government technology that can assess whether one is actually listening in middle school. But such things can be done.
Rather, the exploration of the mechanics of our biophoton field can and should lead to enlightenment for everybody. “Satan should be thwarted with an active sense of duty and capacity,” the Christian muscle tester might implore. Simply, they can test all of the things in a patient’s life that thwart their connection with God. They can know that watching porn causes harm to one’s spiritual life (if it tested out that way anyway—lol), and they could know that going to a church offers the key to enlightenment (let’s hope for the current Christian mob that it is at least beneficial, lest they find their promises were standing on false merits).
In exploring the existential element, the body could be refined. One could eat food that supported one’s biophoton field, do exercises that supported them, make life path choices that supported them, and so on.
The possibilities are endless, given that all findings are predicated on the understanding of our enlightenment’s mechanics.
Much like with AI, where one can ask for a report on nearly anything, muscle testing allows us to ask questions. This is benefit number five.
“Should I take this supplement” quickly segues into “is this food better than that one,” for the curious practitioner. This further develops into the asking and answering of more enlightening questions: “should I watch Netflix, or do something else?” “Is this lecture the one that will really speak to me at an online conference, or a different one?” “Should I go to this school or that one?”
“Does God want me to _____?” “Am I close with God when I _____?” “Can I help another in my life?” “Should I go to this event?”
Or, for the more science minded: “How can I optimize my scores between 5:30am and 8:00am?” “What is the best activity for me to do at night during fifteen minutes of free time, that will optimize my scores the next morning, for the lung meridian on the eighth layer?” “What effect will this supposedly beneficial supplement have? Will it impact my nutrient level dysregulation patterns, or cause an energetic benefit to my body, or help regulate my mood and behavior?”
Creating a system that allows us to ask question, and consider the answers as supportive of our personal soul evolution, is the work of LERA.