The British newspaper “Daily Express” just published that article on Tuesday October 12, 2010, by Jane Symons. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204814/Allergy-detection-What-works. I wrote the paper asking permission to re-post that article here, but so far they have not replied. Such articles appear now and then, and appear more factual than is sometimes the case. The rest of this post is my reply to that article, pointing out some of the deficiencies and misleading “information” it has portrayed. I personally know the Natural Bioenergetics™ Practitioner and believe she did nothing at all wrong or inappropriate, though the tone of the article implies otherwise. Allergy in Natural Bioenergetics™ terms is now “exposure to a substance which causes an altered reaction in the bioenergy system “.
Here are my comments. (I also got these posted on the Daily Express Comments section about the published article.) Looking at the article will help put my comments in perspective.
I make no comments about the Vega or the Hair Testing sections, as I do not use those procedures and they are unrelated to Natural Bioenergetics™.
This article certainly is not any sort of scientific “test” of Natural Bioenergetics™. There are too many distortions and factual errors. I discuss some of this as well as the underlying knowledge related to the article.
The definition of “allergy” is crucial for interpreting the results of any sort of “treatment”. The original definition was simply “altered reaction”. In the 1930’s medical allergists in their effort to become more scientific redefined the word to mean “causes an antibody reaction” (Ig, immunoglobulin). Even at that time there was disagreement over the new definition, as it was pointed out that there were people who react to a substance but who do not show an Ig reaction. By the late 1930’s it had been demonstrated that skin testing (“skin prick”) was inappropriate for food testing because the immunoglobins in the skin were different than the ones in the digestive system. The first book about this was published about 1941. I read the same information in a medical allergy textbook published in the 1950’s. There are some who consider skin testing for foods as medical malpractice!
Nevertheless, the medical allergists decided that skin testing was the standard and any other test had to match that standard. If a better test did not indicate the same as skin testing it was / is considered inadequate! Different medical testing methods can give very different results. One test says allergy the other says not allergy. In some cases the medical testing will not indicate the allergy unless the person has recently been exposed to the substance. Rarely noted is the information on the, sometimes low, reliability of all sorts of medical testing.
In Natural Bioenergetics™ (note that Natural Bioenergetics™ is not Applied Kinesiology) the definition of allergy is when exposure to a substance causes a change (altered reaction) in the body’s bioenergy system. This is identical to the original definition of allergy except it is specifically applied only to the bioenergetic system, and may not reflect or relate to any specific physical or mental signs or symptoms. This bioenergy definition has been around for more than 25 years. In 1984 I published a small book in which I listed 12 different ways a person can react to a substance in addition to allergy and intolerance. Allergy and intolerance are very different things, and a person can have a zero tolerance for something and still not have an allergy to that something. The truth of the matter is that when people react to almost anything they will call it an allergy. I also believe, in Natural Bioenergetics™ terms, that medical “allergy” testing is really “tolerance” testing, Tolerance has a graded scale of reaction; up to a certain exposure there is no reaction but above that something more happens. Allergy is binary: either the energy system reacts or not. Tolerance is more physiological; allergy is more energetic.
In the case at hand, Ms Epps had asked the mom to bring in anything to which she wanted her son tested. Mom did not. The vials were homeopathic substances used because mom had not brought items in for evaluation. Real foods, as eaten by the client (not patient), are preferred because the sample used for the homeopathic may differ from what is purchased and eaten.
Cashew is a seed in the same family as poison ivy. The inside of the seed pod has a toxic waxy membrane which must be properly removed or broken down via heat.
When asked if son had known reactions mom did not indicate anything.
Mom did say she “did not want to go down the medical route”.
Vials would not be placed on the chest, but rather over an acupoint just below the navel.
Crystals were not used.
Natural Bioenergetics™ works in the body’s order of preference. If someone has a strong reaction to something and is now avoiding that substance, then the body automatically lowers its priority for handling it. It is not that important unless the person is exposed!
Natural Bioenergetics™ does not diagnose. Natural Bioenergetics™ only evaluates the bioenergy.
Natural Bioenergetics™ does not treat, we only balance bioenergy. Natural Bioenergetics™ has never endorsed the use of the term “treatment”, although many practitioners do use the word as in a common usage, but it does have a different meaning than medical treatment.
Natural Bioenergetics™ has used the term “allergy” but that term only relates to the Natural Bioenergetics™ definition, which has been available to everyone for at least 25 years. The medics use their different definition. Do they also own the Natural Bioenergetics™ definition?
What was the accompanying picture? It was not of the session, the practitioner pictured was not doing “allergy work”, was not asked for permission for publication, and was not given any credits, so it is quite misleading.
The Expert Comments come from a person apparently not expert in any of the disciplines named, other than perhaps, medical allergy treatment, which is not the subject of the article. That is like having a UK soccer fan discuss the subtleties of American Major League Baseball. All this leads me to wonder if the article is supposed to be objective reporting or rather is part of some other agenda.
Because there are not established standards for the intake of a nutrient absolutely does not mean people cannot have a deficiency!! DHA, for example, is used by the body, among other things) to manufacture cell membranes in the nervous system, the retina, and other cells, and is partly used by the body to move soluble calcium out of the blood into the cells. Milk is a poor source of soluble calcium, as the pasteurization binds the calcium to the protein, making both harder to absorb and utilize. DHA is now added to processed baby foods because babies need it so much for development of the nervous system and mental functioning, and research showed the harmful effects of not having enough! Yes, it can be manufactured within the body, but it is far easier for the body to utilize a ready supply from the diet.
One possible reason people might react to a food (especially botanically unrelated foods like cashew, walnuts, and Brazil nuts) is that they have a metabolic issue with processing the fats and or proteins (it can also be minerals or any other nutrient, too). This would most likely show up as a very low tolerance to the food, not as an allergy (as Natural Bioenergetics™ defines it). Properly balancing their bioenergy can often help the body overcome these metabolic issues. Unfortunately, most medical students receive very little adequate instruction in nutrition, a “tradition” seemingly unchanged for the several decades since I was on the faculty of the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco.
Three “allergy” stories:
1) A Swiss Natural Bioenergetics™ student asked if we could do something about his young son’s sensitivity to bee stings, as he just had an anaphylactic reaction and almost died. I said we would try. I had the dad collect some bees of the sort which stung his son, and we used those for balancing the bioenergy while exposed (but not by stinging!) to the now dead bees. A few weeks later the mom took the son to the medical allergist for desentization shots. The medical doctor said there was no need to test the son because the reaction was so strong that it was obvious he was allergic to the bees. But mom insisted, so finally the MD gave in and tested the child with very much diluted bee venom. No reaction. This was repeated until the material was full strength, still with no reaction. “Take him home, there is nothing we need to do” was the response. Proof that the Natural Bioenergetics™ technique worked?
2) A few months later, after the above story, a German Natural Bioenergetics™ student (A Heilpraktiker) saw a woman client, She carried her EpiPen with her everywhere because once she had almost died from a bee sting. The Natural Bioenergetics™ student did the same type of bee sting bioenergy balancing correction with her. A few weeks later, as “luck” would have it, the woman was actually stung by a bee. Since she had no reaction whatsoever she did not bother with the EpiPen. Proof that the Natural Bioenergetics™ technique worked?
3) In Jakarta, Indonesia, two Natural Bioenergetics™ students (also medical doctors) were eating lunch with a friend in an outdoor restaurant. Their friend picked up his glass of fruit drink and took a sip, not noticing the bee which had entered the glass for its own lunch. The bee stung the inside of his lip, and caused an immediate pain and visibly growing swelling. The Natural Bioenergetics™ people did an immediate lay person bioenergy balance and the swelling disappeared in moments, leaving a small hard ring inside the lip, with no pain. Proof that the Natural Bioenergetics™ technique worked?
Natural Bioenergetics™ has a powerful underlying scientific basis. As an experienced scientist trained in real scientific method I felt a need early on to construct a Scientific Model of this energy work. This Model as it has evolved is described in the various Natural Bioenergetics™ class manuals, and is based on scalar electromagnetics as developed by physicist Tom Bearden (http://www.cheniere.org) From the original Maxwell Equations. He shows mathematically how bioenergy (not necessarily by that name) is connected in the universe. The books by physicist Ervin Laszlo describe, from the quantum physics viewpoint, exactly what I have described from the bioenergy viewpoint. In other words, we know, in modern terms, how and why Natural Bioenergetics™ works. And it is this theoretical knowledge of energy structure which allows Natural Bioenergetics™ to create new procedures as required.
We describe the BioEnergetic Model as different and distinct from the Medical Model, and use different words and concepts, understanding and approach, methodology and procedures. I am told that Natural Bioenergetics™ threatens the establishment because of it powerful effectiveness. Proof that Natural Bioenergetics™ techniques work?