An Introduction by Simon J. Rees, ND HOM TCM, Nov 2010. Part One

.

Introduction

Organ Resonance Testing is, in essence, the methodology of evaluating a body based on the “resonance” principle of the information fields of various organs and tissues. It is employed as a key component of the LSM Four-Stage Clinical Process.

Organ Resonance Testing represents an important breakthrough in the field of healthcare, and one of the most significant in history.

It is not classed as a medical technique or a form of medicine in the orthodox sense because it focuses on the body’s biofields, which are not conventionally recognised to be a part of human anatomy, and which therefore do not fall under the remit of any standard definition of medicine. For the same reason, it is not a method yet accepted into mainstream medical practice, but is nonetheless popular among integrative and alternative practitioners worldwide who have an interest in working with the body’s biofields.

In my view, Organ Resonance Testing is set to rise in popularity as one of the most useful of all health evaluation techniques, in line with the updating of orthodox medicine to incorporate the last century of findings in physics. At the current time, orthodox medicine still bases its diagnostic and therapeutic procedures primarily on a mechanistic “billiard ball” Newtonian perspective on human physiology – one that in modern physics has been left behind for at least a century. Eventually, orthodox medicine will be forced to catch up with science, upgrade its model and change its remit of definition. At that stage, I predict that Organ Resonance Testing will be destined to take its place at the table as a key player in the new paradigm, alongside a systems-based client interview and case analysis as performed in LSM.

Advantages of LSM Organ Resonance Testing

LSM Organ Resonance Testing, being based on utilizing the energetic and informational qualities of human physiology for the extraction of important clinical information relating to biofields, offers the following advantages:

  • Non-invasive, therefore no side effects
  • Employs an involuntary, non-force (“passive”) muscle test which is not under the client’s subjective control or ability to influence the result
  • Ability to pinpoint exact information concerning the state of the biofields of internal organs and the biofields of pernicious factors affecting them, including the biofields of many organs and tissues which in orthodox medicine are inaccessible to diagnostic investigation except under conditions of autopsy (i.e., post-mortem examination)
  • Ability to prioritize this information effectively from the perspective of systems science, incorporated into a sophisticated series of decision science algorithms which represent a series of test steps performed routinely in LSM practice

LSM Organ Resonance Testing Is Not A Substitute for Conventional Medicine

LSM Organ Resonance Testing is not a substitute or replacement for orthodox or conventional medicine. In LSM it forms part of an approach which is not a form of medicine in the conventional sense, but which is complementary to it. That is what the term “Living Systems Medicine” refers to: a new approach to living systems which is not medicine in the conventional sense, but in a new sense of biofields and specifically information fields.

The reason LSM Organ Resonance Testing is not a substitute for orthodox medicine is that it does not share the same objectives, even though they can complement each other. We do not use Organ Resonance Testing to establish the presence or absence of a condition that has a recognized disease label in conventional medicine. For that, you should see an orthodox doctor.

Instead, Organ Resonance Testing is used specifically to investigate the body’s biofields for levels of priority in relation to stress, toxicity and strain due to biofields of pernicious factors, in the biofields of the many body compartments (i.e., biofields of organs and tissues). The kind of information gleaned is not a disease label – nor the ruling out of a disease label. Instead, it is data such as, “The biofield of adrenal cortex is a priority area at present, indicating X degree of biofield stress, and residues of biofields of mercury and lead have been found in the biofield of adrenal cortex which are the key points of leverage or priority for resolving this biofield stress.” It is therefore a practical tool for those interested in assessing the health and status of biofields of organs, toxicity and related issues. Organ Resonance Testing is not a method which “diagnoses” in the conventional sense. If you as a patient with a health problem are seeking a conventional diagnosis, you will need to see a conventional doctor for that.

As an alternative healthcare practitioner, my primary interest in any case is not disease-oriented but health-oriented. That is my role. This is why I am saying that the approaches are different but complementary. When I see a client and utilize Organ Resonance Testing, it is part of a general assessment of the client’s current “system state”, and if I give “treatments”, these are not treatments for a disease, but inputs offered for the client him- or her-self, primarily at the level of biofields. For the same reason, LSM tests or inputs are not capable of interfering with or sabotaging any form of conventional medical care, but, on the contrary, can be viewed by orthodox doctors as a supportive, complementary measure. While the orthodox doctors aim to diagnose and treat a disease, we aim to support the client and specifically to help increase the vitality of biofields of the client’s organs. Organ Resonance Testing is one of a number of useful tools employed in LSM to aid that process.

The Physics Principles Underlying Organ Resonance Testing

One of the difficulties that many people have with Organ Resonance Testing, on first encountering it, is that – unlike much of conventional and alternative medicine – it is not a procedure based on the science of chemistry, but one based on the science of physics. Due to over-specialization, most biochemists, doctors and alternative practitioners are not familiar with areas of biophysics which pertain to health and illness, as they have not in general studied these areas in their specialized medical trainings.

As such, this means that even for a medical doctor, it is usually necessary to start learning, again, from scratch, about new branches of science, before Organ Resonance Testing will make sense. To assist this process, I have included a small, selective list of science-based books at the end of this article which I highly recommend for beginning to venture into what for many people is a new scientific frontier.

In the meantime, I will share the bottom line, which is that Organ Resonance Testing – if utilized optimally as in LSM – works, and is very clinically useful. I say this above all from extensive personal experience, both in my own LSM clinic, and in observation of other LSM clinics.

I will also share a couple of analogies which I hope may help to explain what I mean by making use of “resonance” or “informational domains” in an LSM clinic.

The universe in which we live consists not of “things” all existing separately from each other, but, instead, of informational entities that are inter-connected. I mean information in the true physics sense – which co-exists with, and shapes, energy fields. The differences between matter, energy and information have been likened, respectively, by Cambridge biologist Dr Rupert Sheldrake to the bricks, workers and house design which, together, enable a house to be built. All of these layers, as in the analogy, co-exist in the human body, which was Sheldrake’s point. Organ Resonance Testing functions at all of these levels, including – most radically – the information level, i.e., the “resonance” occurs via vibrations or frequencies which may be likened to information signals being transferred. Picture a simple ham radio which is able to pick up and transmit signals and thus play music on a radio channel, and you won’t go far wrong.

Scepticism Towards the Idea of Resonance

When I think of it, listening to the radio needn’t surprise people any less than Organ Resonance Testing, and yet it does, merely because of time and familiarity – or so it would seem. Organ Resonance Testing is really no more “against the grain” than listening to the radio, it’s just that most people are used to the latter and thus have accepted it into their lives without further expression of surprise! Since I was born, I have never once heard anyone exclaim, “Simon, this radio/TV/computer is such an unlikely thing, just look at how sounds and images are made out of invisible waves! Astounding!”

Maybe people said that when these devices were new – but even if they did they don’t seem to say it any more. As such, I would argue that people are primarily motivated by what is familiar to them, and hence the problem with Organ Resonance Testing – if there is one at all – is mainly its unfamiliarity at first. In the case of both the ham radio and Organ Resonance Testing, then, there is involvement of so-called “subtle energies” or “information signals,” as well as physical hardware, and in both cases, they are based on established physics theories which most people don’t understand but which are no less scientific for it. This should be sufficient for most people’s level of interest, but for anyone who, like me, has a curious mind, I would highly recommend further reading as well if you would like to understand the physics better (see list at end).

Indulge your curiosity, and learn all you can about this fascinating branch of physics. But remember, as you do so, that one does not in fact need to understand the physics of a television in order to use it – and it is the same with Organ Resonance Testing.

Certainly, on the rare occasions when I have seen critics attempting to dismiss or even demolish the idea of Organ Resonance Testing on an allegedly “scientific” basis, the attempt has been offered in an amateur and emotional “knee-jerk” way, without actually making a proper investigation of the science covered in books like those I have listed. (“I don’t like anything which is not already a part of established medicine, therefore I will automatically reject anything unfamiliar as ‘quackery,’ even though I have never experienced or studied it nor read the science on which it is based. . .”) If anyone has an objection to Organ Resonance Testing which is scientific, rather than emotional, and has also read any of the books at the end of the article, then I would happily engage in dialogue to hear your concerns and give them serious consideration. In the meantime, I can say confidently that I am healthily sceptical by nature, myself, and only formulated a clear opinion on Organ Resonance Testing as a valid method after first having investigated and experienced it myself extensively.

Here, too, I am talking about scepticism towards the underlying physics principles of Organ Resonance Testing. A separate issue, then, is the individual methods and machines used to put these principles into practice. There is diversity amongst these, and I have very high standards. I am a very demanding critic, and it takes a lot to impress or satisfy me when it comes to healthcare. LSM has married Organ Resonance Testing uniquely with the wider field of systems science and so I would present this article as perhaps an opening to inspire you to advance clinical skills beyond the “which machine?” type discussion into the whole domain of “which mental software?” – a question burning at the heart of LSM, and also burning at the heart of conventional and alternative forms of medicine.

For now, in these opening sections of my article, I would suggest that you focus first on the ‘resonance’ principle of physics discussed above, and my comparison with the use of a ham radio, rather than trying to get down to ‘brass tacks’ concerning the concrete procedural description of what is done in an Organ Resonance Test.

There is a particular reason for this: The procedure used in various forms of resonance testing varies a great deal!

It is for this reason that I use the term LSM Organ Resonance Testing to describe what we do, rather than the more generic term Bioresonance Testing.

There is a related, older practice known as Bioresonance Testing (more on this below) which overlaps with what we do but is at the same time so different in both theory and application that we used to get endless confusion over the years from people who were surprised to learn we were not using a “bioresonance machine” – which eventually led me to coin a slightly different term that is intended to emphasise the key differences: “Organ” makes reference to our primary focus on key organs (as opposed to simply “bio” which refers to the body more generally); and “LSM” makes it clear that we are bringing living systems analysis to the test – which is the most important aspect of all – as it underpins the entire “mental software” that we employ.

To clarify: when you are looking into getting a computer, yes you will be interested in the hardware, but the majority of your focus will be on the software platform and programmes, since these will frame everything you do on the computer. Likewise, every form of resonance or bioresonance testing is based on a particular “mental software”, which is the source of the test steps followed.

Imagine, by way of comparison, that you were trying to explain the phrase “lab testing” to someone. Of course, there are thousands of different types of lab tests available, and which ones you use or are even aware of will depend on your “mental software”. Most of the lab tests themselves have very little in common with each other.

Within the broader field of bioresonance testing, more typically machines are used with probes that are pressed against the skin, and other times (as in LSM) a client is muscle-tested at the ankles to measure involuntary changes in muscle contracture, due to superior results obtainable by avoiding the use of electrical machinery, which actually disturbs the resonance process. But the key point to remember is that these are not the details which make it a resonance or bioresonance test method: The underlying common element is the resonance principle itself, as discussed above in relation to modern physics, and that is the first foundational insight.

Physical Hardware vs. Mental Software

There are two aspects of Organ Resonance Testing that need to be covered in an introduction such as this: The first and less important one relates to questions of physical technique, which we will look at first below; the second, which we will turn to afterwards, and which is of far greater importance overall, in terms of its impact on our ability to help clients, relates to questions of what we refer to as “mental software.” Imagine, if you will, that you are forced to choose between the following two options but cannot have both:

  • The choice of a fancy microphone, out of a wide range available to you in a luxury catalogue
  • The choice of a fancy speaker who will actually be saying words of import when the microphone is used

Clearly, the first is a nice-to-have, whereas the second is a must-have. By way of example, most of us would rather listen to The Beatles singing through a poor-quality microphone, than hear, through a top-quality expensive microphone, a most monstrous din… such as that of a cacophonous, poor-quality, half-baked attempt at heavy metal music from some boys down the road who until yesterday didn’t even know how to position a guitar on their bodies… Such choices, put in such exaggerated terms, hopefully bring clarity to the distinction!

Question of Technique

In parallel, while we discuss the question of technique below, it is vital not to get lost in the discussion, imagining that the technique “is it,” since, like the microphone in the above analogy, and by parallel like all forms of medical diagnosis, they are nothing more than technologies through which a human being (the practitioner) must ask relevant questions and make appropriate and clinically useful interpretations of the data. This fundamental point can hardly be over-stated, in relation to LSM, and also, in parallel, to the field of orthodox medicine.

Easy as it sounds, it is in fact the most challenging part, and for this reason it is the central focus of LSM in terms of its successful application of systems science to clinical practice – since, according to systems science, the only way to determine the best questions and interpretations is in the context of a prioritized deductive process of systems analysis.

This also serves as one of many examples of situations where in LSM, when a question is asked, it usually requires an answer which leads the question itself onto a new level of perspective. For example, if I have been brought up in the desert and have never before seen a forest, then one day I approach one for the first time, and pick up an acorn, I may ask, “Oh, what’s this acorn? What’s it for? Why is it on the ground here?” These are perfectly reasonable and simple-seeming questions, but the LSM type of answer ends up trying to put those questions into a wider context, by saying, “That acorn fell from one of these trees here, which are part of this forest….” So as the inquirer I wanted to find out about acorns, and discover that in order to understand the purpose of an acorn, I have first to understand what a tree is as well. . . In this fashion, and as you will discover throughout this website, for me every question is an opportunity not only to answer that question at the current level of perspective, but also to open a door into other related perspectives. Indeed, this in itself is a systems way of answering questions! Thus when someone asks, “What is Organ Resonance Testing?”, for me it naturally leads on to many bigger questions, at the same time.

Origins of Organ Resonance Testing

Historically, precursors of Resonance Testing, known as “Bioresonance Testing” of various types, date back to a method invented in Germany in the late 1940s by a man named Dr Reinhold Voll (1909-1989), still referred to now as Electo-acupuncture According to Voll (EAV).

Since that time, the practice of Bioresonance Testing has been greatly advanced, through various generations of innovation, most of which have depended on machines and gadgets of various kinds. Now a far more prioritized, deeper and more clinically successful version is utilized in LSM. I have renamed it LSM Organ Resonance Testing to distinguish it from other types of Bioresonance Testing which generally involve the need for use of electronic equipment or machines, unlike in LSM Organ Resonance Testing. Use of any electronic equipment in fact disturbs the natural resonance principles of human physiology due to the introduction of foreign forms of energy and information in the form of electricity.

Other branches of Bioresonance Testing (such as VEGA, MORA, and many others, often in successive generations of hardware and software) have also been introduced over the years, but mostly, unfortunately, merely as machines or physical techniques rather than a full clinical training curriculum as in the case of LSM – a subject I will go on to look at in depth in this article, concerning the difference between a skilled discipline and a piece of machinery.

For now, let me characterise this essential distinction as being a bit like comparing a piece of rope or even a boat with a sailor who knows how to tie knots and navigate the seas, or comparing a dictionary to a person who can actually speak a language. Clearly, the differences are not minor, for we are talking about things which are worlds apart. LSM utilizes Organ Resonance Testing as a part of its system, in the way that a Russian speaker uses words that may be found in a Russian dictionary. Selling expensive, fancy Russian dictionaries is not just a poor substitute, it is also nonsensical, if a foreign consumer is buying the dictionary in the hopes of learning to make Russian friends that way.

Why, then, was Dr Voll’s original method not sufficient in the first place? I might suggest that it is because, as is par for the course in fields of discovery, with occasional exceptions, the original inventor isn’t usually the one who is also able to refine his or her own invention. We have only to look at the early bicycle, calculator or computer, and their incredibly unwieldy bulky designs to see this! Coming up with an original idea of use is, of course, not the same thing as evolving that idea into something fully useable, feasible and effective. Dr Voll deserves a lot of credit for having come up with a brilliant new idea on behalf of humanity, but it is in LSM that we see this idea put to best use.

How is Organ Resonance Testing Done in LSM?

In place of an electricity-based machine, hundreds of small test vials are used instead, as a part of the resonance circuit between practitioner and client. These test vials are LSM Organ Resonance Vials , or in other words, they contain water which has been informationally/energetically imprinted. The client’s body is tested in response to these vials, which contain information fields that represent a great variety of different organs, tissues and pernicious factors such as metals, chemicals, bacteria, viruses, fungi and others.

This is achieved thanks to the introduction of a “non-force” version of a method known as “Applied Kinesiology,” a form of muscle-testing which is used to evaluate bodily responses to a variety of inputs. Imagine it as being not dissimilar, in principle, to the traditional knee-jerk hammer test, in the sense that the responses being tested for in LSM Organ Resonance Testing are not under the client’s conscious control. These responses follow a set of algorithms aimed at interrogating the information fields of internal organs, to establish prioritized information about the status of the body’s biofields. Based on the test results, a biofield treatment plan is prepared right afterwards.

But Just How Objective And Reproducible Is This Method?

This would be a suitable moment to pause and respond to a question which might be in the reader’s mind – or which, at any rate, has been brought up on countless occasions, for understandable reasons, by those unfamiliar with Organ Resonance Testing: Hold on a minute, this procedure sounds a bit wacky to me! Just how objective, scientific and accurate is this whole thing in practice?

That will form the main subject of Part Two of this article. So until we get to it, you will need to bear with me, for now, when I say that LSM Organ Resonance Testing is just as objective as (to compare it to something different in nature) any form of medical diagnosis available (to repeat, LSM Organ Resonance Testing is not a medical diagnostic technique – what I am saying here is that the level of objectivity is the same) – a statement I will more than justify in Part Two.

Mental Software – and A Summary of Key Points So Far Covered

LSM is not a form of medicine, because medicine does not address biofields, and LSM is primarily focused on biofields. However, we can compare LSM to certain aspects of medicine to reach some helpful conclusions.

Far more significant than the description of physical technique in the first section of this article is what we have been referring to as the “mental software” of the practitioner, and this takes up the greatest time and energy on the part of any student.

The same is true for all forms of medicine. In LSM we place great emphasis on recognizing this fact and, based on this knowledge, on evolving and utilizing the best possible training, questions and interpretations. By way of parallel, and as every doctor knows, the physical techniques employed in medicine are only a small part of the overall task, and a more complex and difficult part is the decision-making process incumbent on every medical practitioner.

In our technological era, the general public often forgets this, and mistakenly equates “high-tech” with good quality medicine, whereas “high-tech” is actually only a small part of good medicine – and in some cases may even detract from it. In LSM, the Organ Resonance Testing set-up used is – compared to more traditional forms of bioresonance testing – simpler, hugely cheaper in terms of equipment set-up, and more straight-forward – due to being “low-tech” – and yet it is at the same time actually better for the purposes of technique for reasons explained above. The objective behind the tools chosen in LSM is what works best for the client, rather than focusing on what has the most “high-tech” misleading appearance of technological advancement.

As a humourous aside from Monty Python’s Flying Circus which, in an obviously exaggerated but inevitably hilarious fashion, illustrates this point all too clearly about over-emphasis on equipment (i.e., hardware) in medicine, I enjoyed this sketch, embedded here courtesy of youtube and, of course, the Monty Python crew themselves:

Monty Python – The Miracle of Birth (Hospital Sketch)

Naturally, the average hospital isn’t that bad! But the basic point which is valid is that the doctors in this sketch are preoccupied with impressive-looking machines which go “Ping!” and yet it is the human being herself – made to appear so unimportant compared with all the machines – who is miraculously able to create new life and give birth.

There is no machine in the world which can or could make intelligent medical decisions on behalf of every patient – a human being must do that. I say this next bit with tongue in cheek but – If medicine could be truly mechanized by robotic means, then I would imagine the medical industry might already have found a way of doing this as it would have increased their profits by cutting out the middle man: but it is physically impossible because the human body itself is an open system not a closed one – hence we will always need well-trained doctors to employ their mental software to help evaluate health problems and formulate intelligent strategies of diagnosis and treatment.

Similarly, in computer language, no matter how great our hardware – and whether we have a Mac or a PC – still everything will depend on the operating system and programmes we install. Okay, the analogy is actually poor, because (in spite of any Apple lovers reading this!) the software market remains dominated by Bill Gates. . . but nonetheless, I hope you get what I mean at least in principle! Hypothetically speaking, an enormous range of different software programmes could be installed on computers with the same hardware, and then they would all function extremely differently and give radically different results in any projects undertaken.

By way of parallel, let’s take a simple task such as washing clothes, which is infinitely simpler than medicine: Even a washing machine, which can wash our clothes fairly automatically, still needs us to do the following: choose which clothes to put in; choose what setting to use; add soap; and later extract the clothes, dry and put them away in the closet. And every once in a while the machine may also go wrong and need fixing or replacing – by humans. And here we are talking about a “closed system” which is many orders of magnitude less complex than human beings.

Sadly, since the human body is a living system of great complexity – and with general systems properties of being open and non-linear – this means the task is never simple or linear in nature. A human body is unfathomably more complex than a washing machine! In other words, in order to truly help people with their health in the most successful way, the practitioner must be devoted to learning more than merely mechanical procedures and techniques – it is also necessary to gain a deep understanding of health and disease, and learn to ask appropriate questions in each case based on this.

I Get By With a Little Help From My Systems Analysis

In LSM training, we focus a lot of energy and attention on making complexity as simple and clear as possible, by highlighting some of the most important systems principles of all in the context of health. Priority is everything, and that in turn is not possible without simplicity and clarity. Therefore a potentially difficult and complex matter is, thanks to systems science, made a lot easier and more focused in the context of LSM.

The clinical decision-making process of questioning and interpretation in LSM is far more rigorous than in other clinical approaches, a conclusion I can draw even just based on the observation that Decision Science is not taught or used in other approaches. There, instead of the process of decision-making being subjected to scientific rigour, it is merely an after-thought, left up to the individual practitioner – in spite of what we recognize in Living Systems Medicine to be one of the most important facets of clinical practice of all.

The systems approach has been uniquely and thoroughly integrated into LSM Organ Resonance Testing via a series of decision science algorithms. Previous forms of bioresonance testing and medical approaches have not done so, yet this is the focus of LSM.

By “systems approach,” I don’t mean, “Some dry subject that doesn’t mean anything concrete, and no one really knows much about, and which we don’t need to take much notice of. . .” On the contrary, as discussed elsewhere on this website, I am referring to absolutely fundamental questions in clinical practice.

This does also mean that when comparing LSM with other “similar” methods, it can be a bit like comparing apples and oranges. For example, sometimes people hear about a form of bioresonance testing, kinesiology, homeopathy or something else, and say to me, “Ah, I came across this new system, and it sounds just like LSM. . . ” Admittedly, I have to swallow and catch my breath, realizing that, once again, the deep basis of Living Systems Medicine – and all that this means clinically – has once again escaped the notice of the person in question. He or she is instead innocently observing superficial similarities of equipment or procedure, not realizing, as I hope I have illustrated in this article with many examples, that there are far deeper questions than that of hardware.

How to Climb Mount Everest

If you want to climb Mount Everest, you’ll need more than just a rope. You’ll need skill. And so even if you saw ten people with ropes who all looked like they were climbers, that does not mean they all have the expertise to climb Everest!

Organ Resonance Testing Is Not A Stand-Alone Procedure

Organ Resonance Testing is not the only method employed in the LSM client evaluation.

Various other clinical procedures such as the client anamnesis (i.e., interview), laboratory testing and physical examination are also used alongside the Organ Resonance Testing, wherever deemed relevant, and may form an important part of building the overall picture – especially the anamnesis and the case analysis based on it, using principles of living systems science.

Therefore these various tools – working together – are able to greatly improve the depth, accuracy and range of information available to us in an individual case. Based on this, we can then choose more clinically effective, individualized and appropriate strategies (and/or advice), following on from our findings in the Organ Resonance Test, but this article is limited for now to an introductory discussion of the investigative procedures only, focusing on the nature and value of a well-chosen, systems-evolved form of Organ Resonance Testing.

.

This article is continued in Part Two, in which I will focus on the wider question of objectivity, and how Organ Resonance Testing is different from medical diagnosis.

Suggestions for Further Reading, With Accompanying Comments

As you can see below, all of the first nine books I can recommend on this subject, except for one which was unusually pioneering at the time it was written, have been written within the last decade (as at the time of me writing this article in 2010). As such, in reading this article, you are literally joining a key part of a modern scientific revolution which is taking place as I write these words! This concurrence of dates is not by coincidence, because we stand at an exciting juncture in history where modern physics is finally being applied to medicine and clinical work, at last validating and integrating organ resonance testing, homeopathy and other methods based on the use of information fields.

It turns out that those who have doubted the validity of such approaches as organ resonance testing or homeopathy, or who have simply failed to understand either field, were making the simple mistake of applying the wrong science: They were trying to understand these disciplines on the basis of the science of chemistry. It cannot be done, any more than a ham radio can be explained by a chemist. To understand – and validate – organ resonance testing and homeopathy, the science of physics is needed, because we are not dealing with chemicals, but instead with information waves – just as in my example of the ham radio!

For the sake of convenience of reference, let us refer to this branch of modern physics as information physics. Application, then, of information physics to health-related investigations results in the up-and-coming approach named organ resonance testing. In parallel, application of information physics to health-related inputs results in the fields of organ resonance remedies and homeopathy (which are beyond the scope of this article), which are therefore due for a revival – just as soon as medical doctors are required (as they should be) to read books such as those below concerning information physics. . .

1. Laszlo, Ervin, “Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything,” Inner Traditions (2007). I cannot recommend this book highly enough, both for the general reader and the serious one. Ervin Laszlo presents a convincing new scientific model of the interconnectedness of all things via information fields, and shows how it fits the facts and at the same time resolves a range of the most enduring unexplained dilemmas of various sciences including physics and biology. For anyone who fails to understand the nature of Organ Resonance Testing, or how it works, Ervin Laszlo’s book – while it is not about Organ Resonance Testing and doesn’t mention it anywhere – provides a new view of life and the universe in which the prospect of a method such as Organ Resonance Testing no longer jars, but would instead be a logical option. Similar comments are true of the next few books listed below which also, in their different ways, tackle the interconnectedness and vibrational nature either of the human body and/or all of reality from a scientific perspective. The books I have chosen for this list are only small in number, but are focused specifically on opening the unfamiliar mind to the fascinating “new physics” research reported by the authors, much of which lays the foundation for a new perspective where a method such as Organ Resonance Testing fits the nature of reality – and the nature of the human body – like a glove.

2. McTaggart, Lynne, “The Field,” Element, HarperCollinsPublishers (2001).

3. Wolff, Milo, “Schrodinger’s Universe: Einstein, Waves and the Origin of the Natural Laws,” Outskirts Press (2008).

4. Becker, Robert O., M.D., and Selden, Gary, “The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and The Foundation of Life,” Quill (1985).

5. Yurkovsky, Savely, M.D., “The Power of Digital Medicine,” Science of Medicine Publishing (2003).

6. Ho, Mae-Wan, “The Rainbow and The Worm: The Physics of Organisms,” World Scientific (2008).

7. Tiller, William A., Ph.D., Dibble, Walter E., Jr., Ph.D., and Kohane, Michael J., Ph.D., “Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics,” Pavior (2001).

8. Greene, Brian, “The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,” Vintage (2000).

9. Oschman, James L., “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis,” Elsevier Limited, Churchill Livingstone (2000).