What testing do all people deserve access to?

What are the problems being missed in the populace--and what solutions exist for them not to go undetected?

We all know what it’s like to be overly obsessive about something.

It just so happens that this obsessiveness often finds a great house with those researching supplements and alternative health cures. There are many who, in researching the facts behind their own personal issues, will, like me, go on to have a career in health. There are many more who will hear about dozens of potentially beneficial items, and have very little filter about which they should use.

When we ask the soul what it wants, we often get good answers. I say this so as not to disacknowledge the intuitive, the prayerful, and those who have had signs, or who “felt called” towards different routes.

It is unfortunate, though, that such intuition cannot be paired with adequate assessment skills.

Conversely, those who are “too smart” can often tend to be a danger to themselves. Sure, we can be David Wolfe himself, or one who might buy and do literally everything that might ostensibly be beneficial. But that can lead to a crazy lifestyle. Whereas in the Klinghardt world it tests as beneficial to sleep with the head of the bed lifted up a couple inches to allow for better drainage from the head, Wolfe once shared what he did when travelling and had to sleep in a hotel room. Aside from grounding himself (ostensibly through the ground of his outlet, which hopefully he tested was a clean ground) with grounding sheets (much less useful than a shielding canopy, many now believe), he described lifting his feet over the headboard of the bed, to allow for better blood flow. One could imagine this ecstatic sleeping event as powerful. He described it to be just that, such that he only required a few hours of sleep.

But those of us with real lives?

Throw away your fantasy.

Let’s Keep It Practical

The end of fantasy might look like having an adequate list of things that cause benefit for us, and employing those things. If sleeping with our feet raised, or our head raised, was on our list of beneficial things, it would be best if we would do it. If it was not on the list, it should be discarded as irrelevant.

The key to such a magic card catalogue system that could sort all options (for the young, card catalogs refer to a librarian’s tools pointing one to where different books were) would be its ability to assess viability of the broadest array of protocols (it could recommend Gerson protocols, carnivore protocols, etc.), based on the individualized needs of the patient.

LERA intends to do just that.

Whereas most muscle testing systems have some degree of incredible bias about which products should be used for different things (which is odd, given that people sign up to learn about techniques, and it is as if assumed that it is appropriate to teach them a certain style of naturopathic protocols at the same time), our system is firmly committed towards teaching practitioners to assess things through different lenses.

Rather than have tunnel vision to convince students into accepting, we want practitioners to develop their own unique type of tunnel vision, wherein they learn to test factors that they believe are relevant to assess and apply factors pertaining to their interests. And then, we want these same practitioners to be able to try out dozens of other types of tunnel visions:

• Let’s think about this issue in a Datis Kharrazian way.

• I wonder what Scott Forsgren would think when setting up a baseline for a new patient who has never been on a protocol?

• My patient is into Medical Medium, but they don’t seem to be applying protocols correctly. I wonder if I can meet them where they are and use tools from Anthony Williams toolkits?

Into A Systems Point Of View

Thinking this way was taught to me by one of the greatest professors I ever studied from. In political science, he, generally describing himself as a “neoconservative”, was teaching that political science was a science and one needed to be able to think through a variety of systems of thought. He gave an example, teaching on the Sudanese civil war from a Marxist perspective, wherein the ruling elites were making use of one group to go after another group who was for them problematic. He would then shift gears, and take up the perspective of a different political philosophy, and teach about a current event as it would be beheld from that point of view.

One does not need to think an idea is right, of course, to employ a method of thinking. But regardless of which systems of thought one thinks of as correct in any ultimate fashion, even the most hardened conservative will see validity in the Marxist view of the civil war in the example above. The different systems of thought can compliment each other in surprising ways.

Of course, viewpoints can clash.

I mention this example, and I will go on mentioning this example. Do not tell a type one diabetic that they can cure themselves with Reiki. You will be a laughing stock, and memes will be made about you (examples, examples, examples). If there were a treatment that had yielded five cures of type 1 diabetes, it would be on the news, worldwide. But running a holistic support group for type one’s, I still have not seen case studies of cures. There are odd stories here or there, where we do not have firm evidence that the person was actually type 1 (before and after antibody labs not shown), or where the person claims cure but they are still not in normal blood sugar range (much better to be taking insulin than to keep an a1c over 6), or where the person is simply honeymooning and they prolonged the phase where their body is still making insulin (which is, in no way, a cure).

Sometimes, one must hold their tongue. They must learn to use it wisely. They must learn appropriate can and can’t do’s with reiki, or their appropriate therapy.

I mention reiki, because it is a bit funny. There are so many fundamental questions about the system of thought behind reiki that it would be extremely interesting to research.

For example, I would like to see the assessments of a reiki practitioner, and see if they could be validated through our testing. I would like to see before and after treatment results, and see what benefits caused matched benefits caused by an acupuncture session, and what benefits were not caused that an acupuncture session was able to do (since they both work with the energy of the body).

I would like to observe the possibility that major issues were missed by the reiki, and I would like to see what benefits could be found. If the patient tested as having issues with a variety of toxins, foods, EMF exposure sources, infections, structural issues, etc., I would like to know which could be transformed by the reiki, durably.

Without such evidence, I would be hesitant to recommend someone to a reiki practitioner. I have also seen reiki practitioners make someone worse; not to say that this is the norm, but it can happen.

When we assess the systems of thought that are out there, we often forget that we can be as dumb as the reiki practitioner.

As dumb as the reiki practitioner saying he can cure type 1 diabetes

To be as dumb as the reiki practitioner offering a cure for type 1 diabetes here is pretty impressive. One would have to know nothing about what you are treating, and yet offer a treatment anyway, and yet not see this as monstrously wrong and an insult.

But, as in life, we have to not focus on the stye’s in other’s eyes. We must see where it is we, ourselves, that have the stye.

Of course, we get the phenomenon that someone offering treatments for cancer, with some degree of confidence, when they have never studied the use of the protocols they are offering for cancer, can be seen as unwise. If they are offering an idea, and not being paid, this might be anywhere from annoying to helpful to a cancer patient. If they are offering an idea, when they are hoping to be paid, the idea will generally come across as insulting.

It is my thesis here that we are all guilty of being the reiki practitioner. We have all studied issues and applied the results of our studies incorrectly and unwisely, and our having done so is resultant to our inability to switch in and out of modes by gauging which mode of thought is most appropriate.

What is needed, thus, are the three things we offer at LERA:

• The ability to test which system of thought is relevant

  • If a patient would benefit from thinking like a reiki practitioner or CBD oil marketer, or from thinking like Katz or Davis, or from thinking like Klinghardt or Forsgren, then we should apply the system of thought to the best of our ability.

  • More specifically, there are hundreds of ideas put forward by Klinghardt. We might need to think in terms of parasites according to Klinghardt, or parasites according to Yu. We might need to think in terms of mercury according to Klinghardt, or mercury according to Cutler.

  • We thus are learning never to use the wrong book, but also never to be focused on the wrong chapter.

• The ability to test protocols from different systems of thought

  • Timing, dose, product selection, duration of protocol: these are important elements. If it tests well to take an item from Liz Lipski’s book on digestive wellness, but at a different dose than she suggested, we should, doubtless, be wary about dose. If it tests well to give an item Klinghardt suggested, but only for four months, we must be explictly clear: the patient should not take the item for less than four months, but they also should not take it for more than four months.

  • Aside from dosage, we need to be able to vet options. Body builders, attempting to learn what items will support their body building, will come across dozens of options, all supported by effectively personal or clinical experience of others in the field, potentially with some scientific studies backing up that personal or clinical experience (scientific studies, let’s be clear, are irrelevant to holistic medicine. It is a pipe dream to say that the studies we have will effectively guide us to correct solutions for a patient. They will just give us ideas). LERA’s method’s most important benefit, thus, is to not only allow practitioners to switch from one mode of thinking to another, but to test one protocol option vs. another. I would rather take one item that tests as explicitly beneficial for me than a dozen that research says is generally beneficial but does not test well for me.

• Thirdly, we need to be able to track progress over time

  • The anchor of tracking progress in our work is not lab markers. Instead, we test specific and measurable aspects of bioenergetic wellness pertaining to the patterning of your biophoton field.

  • For each pattern of imbalance, we will find a solution that can correct the imbalance.

  • We can come back and revisit the issue, allowing us to reassess whether progress is being made, whether things are getting worse, or whether there has been a complete resolution.

  • The tracking of this is the most important part of our work; otherwise we would simply be offering a haphazard list of things that would be good for the client.

Summary of ideas on the nature of our work

Nobody needs a list of things that are good for you that aren’t actually good for you. Nobody needs ideas that were helpful to someone else, but that aren’t relevant to your circumstance.

The three principles constantly being defied by the stream of holistic health advice are the following: we are offered ways of thinking about our problems that aren’t relevant; we are offered protocols that aren’t specifically helpful in our particular case in the way they might be helpful to others; there is no assessment of what problems were found and no ability to reassess progress.

With these three tools in hand

The world becomes our oyster.

We can test what imbalance patterns glyphosate is linked to, flip through a dozen styles of thought about remediation for glyphosate, settle on one type of solution that tests well, and find a specific protocol and dose and employ it.

We can find imbalance patterns relevant to Lyme, or mold, or another infection. We can look at dozens of ways of thinking about this. We can find one that tests well (i.e., find a practitioners protocol list), and then test specifically which aspects of their protocol can and should be employed, and at what dose and duration. Then, we can measure whether this worked over time.

We can research an impossible to research idea: is masturbation harmful? Would we benefit from slowing down with our work? Do we need more exercise? Can we get by eating one meal a day (does that test well compared to other options)?

We can instantaneously assess such ideas and whether the thoughts behind them are relevant, whether protocols connected to them test as beneficial, and whether they are actually connected to real imbalances with our biofield, or whether they are not.

Everyone should get a test

Yes, this article is a pitch. You can get a free first test at LERA by signing up at freefirsttest.com. Our current distance testing modality just requires you to send a photograph, and sign up takes less than ten minutes. Our current top feedback is shock that we found things they had not mentioned to us.

Welcome to LERA, a better form of testing.