Skeptical about kinesiology science, or alternative medicine science? New scientific healing methods often can be rejected just because they are unfamiliar. So, we must dig deeper than first impressions to derive an educated opinion about the science of applied kinesiology testing.
Without understanding a new concept, method, procedure, or technology, rejecting something new can be a base, emotional, self-protection mechanism. Without any logical component at all, there can be a limbic, emotional resistance to any new idea that may challenge us to think outside of our own familiar world.
Things You Didn’t Know About Applied Kinesiology
Applied Kinesiology is often misunderstood. There are plenty of detractors of Applied Kinesiology: the skeptics. Mostly, these skeptics are fools who proclaim a worldly expertise on just about anything they can; especially medical opinions. You’ve met people like this. They are contemptuous, know-it-all bullies who profess knowing more than you. They are fools, hiding behind their gaslighting. Many of them have had no direct experience with the practice of Applied Kinesiology. The worst of these detractors are the would-be practitioners who had tried using Applied Kinesiology briefly, but miserably failed before quitting. Now, they continue to cast their disapproval at the whole practice of Applied Kinesiology. They are resentful losers, casting hate, and professing their opinion as somehow universal and conclusive. Pathetic losers, nonetheless. Let’s move on.
Health: What Do You Want To Believe?
Let’s say you believe that because of genetics nobody can do anything to really improve their own core health. So you believe surgery, radiation, or using pharmaceuticals, or maybe physical therapy are your only options for symptom control. If this is your belief, then you are a believer in modern industrial medicine. You believe its methods, and the enormous pharmaceutical marketing campaigns that cleverly and insidiously influence you to believe their perspective. However, if you believe the human body has an innate potential to be well, then your belief system aligns with that of chiropractors and other licensed alternative medicine doctors. These clinical practitioners base their work on that initial premise of “innate potential,” plus current, published science.
Which one describes your core beliefs? You can’t believe both. Not including rare genetic diseases that have a proven genetic component, either you believe in one or the other.
A: You are a genetic product. Your destiny has been sealed inside you since before you were born (known as genetic determinism).
B: There are things outside of genetics, “epigenetics,” having major influences over health expression and function in our bodies. These give possibilities and potential for healing, or conversely, for malfunction.
Decide which one you want to believe, and acknowledge that you believe that way. It’s either genetic determinism, as in chemical medicine, or epigenetics and potential, the foundation for licensed alternative medicine chiropractors. You may consider either as “scientific” so that’s not a reason to rule-out one or the other. Excluding rare genetics, which idea describes your beliefs? Your opinions about what follows are based on this initial premise. However, if your opinion is already dogmatically positioned against alternative medicine (no matter what) and its various practitioners, (no matter what), licensed or not, lumping all “alternative medicine” into one category, then go somewhere else. Without an interest in being intellectually honest about this, why continue? Reading this has already been a waste of time for you. Go away. I really don’t care what you believe in your gut, or what your uninformed emotional opinion may be.
Kinesiology Science, or Emotions?
“The power of the preconceived notion, especially one that emanates from the elite members of the medical establishment, is a very difficult thing to overcome.” – Dr. Russell Blaylock
The following is for anyone who wants to understand, more–so than holding an uninformed, dogmatic bias and baseless, emotional rejection of a new, observational testing method; a holistic method that can be used by licensed doctors in alternative medicine clinics like ours, in Beverly Hills.
Applied Kinesiology: Scientific Observation
The scientific method teaches us that observation is the first step to understanding how something works. We can set up an experiment and observe the results from that experiment. Are the results consistent and repeatable? Repeating that experiment, observing and recording the results is where we get our data. Gathering the data, we can come to some conclusion about the observations that we have just made in our experiments. The experiments are necessary to make it scientific. This is the scientific method. Do you have any disagreement so far?
Sufficient clinical observation allows us to reveal mechanisms.
We conduct an experiment about an ability to perform a particular skill. In physiology, “motor” relates to muscular movement or the nerves activating the movement. So we decide to conduct a “motor ability test.” We want to see if a seated person can hold their arm horizontally still. The position is 90 degrees upper extremity flexion, while gravity pulls on their arm. We test hundreds of people and observe that 99.8% of people in this study can hold their arm still against only the constant force of gravity. Is there any fault with this simple experiment and observation?
Now we set up another experiment of motor ability. This time the subject (the person undergoing testing) is lying supine (on his or her back), holding their arm vertically. The arm position is still at 90 degrees flexion, but holding it up in the air. In this experiment, the torso position is different, and the effect of gravity is much less against their arm. We observe that 99.9% of people are able to hold their arm still in this position. Is there anything wrong with the modified experiment, or our observation here? No.
“In the world of laboratory testing, if a test is not reproducible, it is considered worthless. The validity of a test or its correlation with disease states is irrelevant if a test is not reliable” – Sheryl B. Miller, Ph.D
Going further, of the people who have the previous motor ability to perform the task, we decide to introduce a very slight, and slowly varying horizontal force to the person’s vertically held arm. We always start from the same position, applying the same line of force each time (± a small margin). Please note: sufficient training and skill are necessary for the examining doctor (scientific kinesiologist) to perform these tests properly and to interpret the test results reliably. This cannot be emphasized enough!
The notion that a practitioner, let alone someone who doesn’t even work with patients, thinks he could jump right into successfully performing a muscle test without ever trying before, or practicing, is in the realm of the delusional, narcissistic, and self aggrandizing. Could a pianist show you some notes to play, and then do you think you would play them just as well as the pianist? Could a doctor show you where to place a stethoscope on a patient’s body and rely on your interpretation of the sounds you hear? Could an artist give you a paint brush, show you what to paint, and would you be able to paint it like the artist, on your first try? Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a learned motor skill that takes practice to master. It doesn’t come in one day, one hour, or a few minutes standing next to the doctor.
“Arguments against the value of manual muscle testing [are] like arguing that a microscope is unreliable since many inexperienced students are unable to see through it.” – Fred P. Gallo, Ph.D
We instruct the subject to hold their arm still against that minor force (a motor skill). Once we know that each person understands their only goal in each test, we commence with our clinical examination. We repeat the test to establish consistency. In this clinical application of kinesiology (applied kinesiology: a clinical application of the study of movement), we are testing for the motor performance of a motor skill. Now, we observe that 80% of people can consistently hold their arm still against this mild push to their arm. Furthermore, we observe that within the 20% who are unable to hold their arm still, there are three distinct arm movement patterns indicating performance failure.
So far, we have set up an experiment, made clinical observations, and recorded the data. If you are already getting a repulsive gut feeling, please acknowledge that your feeling has nothing to do with science or logic. It is merely an emotional response to a set of circumstances that are unfamiliar to you. For some non-logical reason, this situation might threaten your current beliefs, so you naturally reject the idea that this can be useful. Along the continuum through these experiments, just note if you start to feel like you want to flee or fight. Then you can (at least) understand what part of this methodology brings about this gut response in your body.
By now we’ve observed thousands of people with their arm up in the air. Failed performance of the motor skill showed one of the three movement patterns. The other 80% performed the task easily; holding their arm still.
The Variable in the Experiment
We also observed in the 80% group, that by changing one thing about each experiment, the observed response could change. In science that one thing we changed is the “variable.” The key is that only one variable was changed in thousands of experiments. Where the observed responses had changed, the responses were either of the three distinct movement patterns that we had observed in the initial stages of this experiment. Conclusion: the subject was either able to hold their arm still, or one of three distinct movement patterns were observed. Sometimes the movement was subtle, sometimes obvious, but each time within just three types.
Here are the things that we changed in any one experiment. Remember, only one thing was changed at a time:
We touched one single part of the subject’s body.
We placed something of clinical interest on the subject’s body (edible, and of consistent size and weight).
Skeptic check: ask yourself, again if you are getting that gut feeling mentioned above. If you are, ask yourself if you can logically describe why you are feeling this emotion. Do you object to the variables of the experiment? Why would it stir your emotions? So far, we are only discussing a scientific experiment, or its variables. If the scientific method itself is your issue, then maybe you should just stop reading this now. If you are feeling this way now, and you can’t pinpoint why, it will likely become less clear and worse as you continue. However, if this is not challenging your emotions, and to you the process we are going through is apparent as logical and scientific, let’s move forward.
By now, thousands of people have been through these clinical trials and the reactions to the variables observed. When looking back at the data and tracking the health of the participants (known as a longitudinal study), a particular pattern becomes very evident: The part of the body, that correlated with an altered response when touched, inevitably showed as a problem area for the individual, in 85% of cases, up to 13 years after the initial testing was done.
To gain knowledge from all the data compiled from these experiments, we draw an observational conclusion: A person, lying supine with their arm vertically raised at 90 degrees is able to hold their arm still against a minimal, varying horizontal force. However, touching a specific part of their body, or putting a specific item on their body may change their original response to the test. Their timing of muscle activation changes. When this happens there must be a logical explanation. We have observed a changed response that is consistent and repeatable, and we must ask, “Why?”
Skeptic watch: If you believe that there cannot be a logical explanation and that this is not a scientific endeavor, then you can stop reading now, but first, ask yourself why you are so against this scientific process. Your reasons tell more about your own beliefs, fears, and your own personal history than anything about this study. If you don’t have this issue, great. Let’s continue.
There are two logical choices for what these results could mean:
1. The function at that body region was under some kind of stress, or was sub-optimally functioning. Therefore, to prevent potential disease development involving that body region, it requires additional investigation at that time.
2. Touching that body region while performing that test, set some subtle stress in motion, leading to a regional disease process.
We used inductive reasoning, the inference of general laws from particular instances, to come to these two possible conclusions. Now let’s look at these two possible conclusions and see which one makes sense. Considering option 2 (above): Can just touching a body region cause it to have dysfunction at a later date? No. From our own life experiences we already know this concept is false. A non forceful touch to any body region does not do this kind of thing. This idea makes no sense at all, so let’s explore the other logical option.
In an optimally functioning body, a sensory stimulus from touching a point on the body, would not be any threat at all. OK. But wherever physiological functioning is already challenged in some way and to some degree, the body may subtly express that challenge before any disease is detectable in that area; i.e., before disease is detectable with conventional investigations such as x-ray or blood tests. In other words, the subject’s body and brain may interpret the normal stimulus to their sensory nervous system as a threat. “Don’t touch me there!”
Why? Because that particular body part is already affected by either physical stress, chemical stress, or emotional stress. Then–if prodded with a subtle stress–it could exhibit a subtle stress response. Does this occur anywhere else in nature? Here the answer is yes.
Real Life Examples
1. After heavy lifting, you strain your back. Then, someone bumps into your back by accident. Normally, you wouldn’t care, but after all that lifting it really hurts to just get a bump.
2. You were just cleaning your bathroom with chlorine cleansers. Later that day you walk through a market where someone spilled ammonia. It gives you an immediate headache, but that kind of exposure at a market wouldn’t normally give you a headache.
3. You had just heard some personally upsetting news. Then on TV you saw an overdone news story that resonated and really felt upsetting.
These are examples of similar reactions in our experience of life. There is a sensitivity from either physical, chemical or emotional stress. When that stress gets challenged again or triggered, there is a changed response; different than your normal response. Finally, the example of a person who was chronically exposed to environmental toxins and started to develop a disease. It was detectable over 10 years later and it correlates to that chronic exposure (like lung cancer).
Our kinesiology science model in Beverly Hills
Likewise, in our kinesiology science model, consistent patterns emerge when we collect data regarding the variable single substance of clinical interest that was on, or immediately adjacent to (touching) the subject’s body. The idea to use these items of clinical interest arose from knowing their properties and correlating these properties with the regional anatomy and physiology of the original point that elicited a failed motor ability test (a stressed pattern of movement).
We find that placing an edible item on the subject that restores motor ability (a positive change) is a possible solution to the subject’s problem. In support of this hypothesis, the subjects who consume that item of clinical interest on a regular basis, show one form of improvement or another regarding their pre-disease condition at the time of testing. In other words, the consistent findings show that there were certain items of interest that have an association with improvement in the health of the subject.
In a scientific setting where only one variable changes in any particular clinical trial, we observe a consistent pattern with thousands of people as the subjects (the individuals undergoing testing). Furthermore, changing one variable at a time, one after another in sequential order on any individual subject, observing and logically interpreting the data, we can get even more information about the fundamental functioning of the subject’s body at that time (the big picture).
We have taken this same kinesiology science model and put it into clinical practice in Beverly Hills.
Every living organism has some ability to sense what is immediately around it. This is necessary for survival. Humans have that ability too, but it is not conscious. We don’t have a name for it, but we can use it to help you.
Conclusion about Kinesiology Science
We started with a simple scientifically based clinical trial, scientific observation, a collection of data, a clear pattern that emerged from the data and an interpretation of that data, which we use to reach a conclusion of how to use the original data for our own benefit. The benefit will be the improved level of health and function from taking appropriate action. We can consider this appropriate action as a proactive application of the scientific method. Through sufficient, consistent, scientific observation we establish the process of validating kinesiology science.
Now that we’ve taken you through the process of the science of applied kinesiology testing, and demonstrated that applied kinesiology is a method deserving research funding – as applied kinesiology is scientifically based, safe, and consistent with good patient outcomes, you can understand why skeptics who bash this holistic healing method simply have an unqualified opinion. Some people would rather die than receive help via something that challenges their emotional beliefs. I hope you choose life.