- All
- Applied Kinesiology Muscle Testing
- Consultation & Clinical Process
- Coronavirus
- Cost
- Courses
- Heavy Metals & Detox
- Homeopathy
- Information Fields
- LSM Resonance Remedies
- Mainstream Opinion
- Non-Health Topics
- Nonlineopathy
- Resonance Testing
- Safe Levels
- Scientific Proof
- Treatments Used in LSM
In Living Systems Medicine, there is no bioresonance testing machine at all! Yet no matter how many times we explain this, people are often confused and may ask the same question a second time. It was for this reason that we took the prefix “bio” out of the word and instead named our type of testing LSM Resonance Testing. In this way we week to clarify that although LSM Resonance Testing is related to the field of Bioresonance Testing, they are not identical. Most specifically, and unlike in most forms of Bioresonance Testing, we do not use a machine to test the body. Instead, we use hundreds of small test vials, which we evaluate the body’s response to via an involuntary stress response at the ankles. More importantly, our exact choice of which test vials to use and in what order are what we call the “mental software” – and the mental software that we use is unique to LSM, as it is based on living systems science.
There are no courses planned during 2020. For future years, we will update you on this website as soon as new course dates are announced. In the meantime, if you haven’t done so already, please register your interest in future courses here.
Currently the whole curriculum is being re-developed after breakthroughs that we have made in a number of important new areas of Living Systems Medicine.
We are aware many of you have health concerns during this crisis. In light of this, and in response to a flood of requests, we have put together a coronavirus and flu immune support pack. We will keep you updated here with any major developments we feel need discussing. We are also available for consultation and general enquiries throughout the outbreak.
This is such a common enquiry that we have prepared a separate page dedicated to answering it here.
This is such a common enquiry that we have prepare a separate page dedicated to answering it here.
The cost of an LSM consultation and related services depends on which practitioner you attend. Charges vary worldwide, and are decided individually by each clinic.
Likewise the pace of LSM follow-up consultations varies, but typically patients of LSM need a process of re-tests over the medium to long term, which take place at a regular pace (e.g. such as once every 3 to 6 weeks, again depending on the case and on the clinic). This is because benefits of LSM are cumulative over time – because LSM is not based on looking for a quick, magic bullet, but instead on helping the system to find its own way to better health at its own pace and at a whole-system level and via its own internal processes.
In some regions, some of the costs may be recompensed by health insurers, depending on what services your practitioner is offering, and which insurance plan you have.
Many people use phrases such as “subtle energy fields” to refer vaguely to as yet poorly understood fields used in healing modalities. However, in Living Systems Medicine we prefer to be precise and use the scientific terminology of information fields as distinct from energy fields. This idea is a core aspect of LSM and warrants explanation.
In ancient Greece, the idea of the “atom” was proposed. This was the idea that everything in the universe might be composed of indivisible, basic units of matter. Towards the end of the 19th century, electromagnetism was defined and so modern science recognised a second domain that was within these atoms of matter: energy fields. It was then thought by physicists that there are two domains of substance: matter and energy. (This dichotomy was also later reflected by the famous “wave/particle duality” in physics research).
However, in the twentieth century, a third domain became recognised in physics, that is separate from matter and energy. This third domain is information.
Matter, energy and information all interrelate (as shown, for example, in the wave/particle duality experiments), so it is not that they exist in separate locations, but, rather, that they comprise different perspectives or aspects of the substance of everything.
Information, or information fields, represent the patterning of an underlying substrate. Author Rupert Sheldrake (in his book, “Morphic Resonance”) has likened the difference between matter, energy and information to a house construction project, in which matter is the bricks, energy is the construction workers, and information is the house design. The latter can be encoded in a carrier medium (e.g. the house architect’s drawings can be set to paper) but essentially comprises the shape or form that things will take. Even if the construction workers place the bricks together, they will not form a functional house without the element of design to shape the project.
In the same way, our internal organs require information to grow and function. Think of this like a template. Did you know that every organ in your body contains cells that have the exact same DNA, and yet the structure and function of cells in different organs are vastly different? Have you ever wondered how that takes place? How on Earth do all the same undifferentiated cells, with identical DNA, differentiate into such an array of different cell types around the body? Furthermore, when researcher Robert O. Becker MD (author of “The Body Electric”) grafted a salamander’s tail cells onto its leg stump, he wondered if a tail would grow on the leg stump – but instead these tail cells mysteriously transformed into leg cells! Dr. Becker concluded that the only plausible explanation is that there is an informational template in the area of the leg, or otherwise that would not happen, and there would not be a functional leg.
This is such a common enquiry that we have prepare a separate page dedicated to answering it here.
This is such a common enquiry that we have prepare a separate page dedicated to answering it here.
Living Systems Medicine forms the central, practical part of a broader transformation of paradigm which we are introducing under the name that we coined in 2009 for the broader transition taking place throughout science and society: The Living Systems Revolution.
Forerunners of this paradigm shift began to publish their seminal works about half-way through the twentieth century, and with our unique and original vision as presented on this website we are ushering in a revolution of ideas so that it moves into full swing. These ideas are in process of transforming practically all sciences, arts and areas of society. For this reason, we decided from the start to include a lot of medical and health-related content on this website, but also to contextualise and complement that with a regular stream of content relating to other areas of life in which The Living Systems Revolution is having an impact.
The Nonlinear Path is a key example. This phrase, coined in 2019 by Simon J. Rees ND, refers to an overriding need to take a new approach in almost all areas of science, art and society. This is because a majority of the world’s problems boil down to a single, near-universal cause: the over-emphasis on linear, reductionist modes of thought and method. To remedy this, we advocate the concept of nonlinearity, a key area of systems science. Throughout this website we talk about why, and what this means for medicine as well as many areas of life and society.
The first point to make is that if this relates to the information fields of toxins such as mercury or lead, or to the information fields of common infectious agents such as candida or parasites, finding these in the majority of patients being tested will come as no surprise, as these are near-universal in prevalence.
Next it is important to point out that we draw a relationship between the information fields of things such as toxins and infectious agents, and the actual things. This relationship is at the same time not accepted in modern medicine, which does not consider information fields a valid concept in medicine. Modern medicine does not do so because it is operating based on an out-of-date nineteenth century Newtonian paradigm which proceeds as though the last century of developments of paradigm in modern physics never took place. However, in Living Systems Medicine we take a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) view which is different, and thus drawing from modern physics we do see a relationship.
Next it is useful to point out that the great majority of people in modern societies have been extensively exposed to small but long-term, bioaccumulating levels of heavy metals including mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and radioactive toxins, for the simple reason that all of these toxins have become widespread, biopersistant contaminants of the very ecosystems from which we draw our food, water and air. They get into the rains, the soils and the crops. This is not a local problem but a global one. Therefore do not feel surprised at the thought that you, too, will have mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and radioactive toxins in your body. How many you have, and in which organs and tissues, varies from case to case.
Another useful point to note is that the names on LSM Resonance Testing vials or remedies, such as “Maxillary Sinuses” or “Strep A”, are not always to be taken literally. Through a concept known as the Law of Similars, we find that what arises in LSM Resonance Testing is often but not always exact to the corresponding biofields in the body. For instance, “Maxillary Sinuses” may come up for biofields of neighbouring sinuses such as the Frontal Sinuses, or “Strep A” may come up for biofields of a different strain of bacteria such as Strep P. Once you think in terms of information fields, you realize that each item is not necessarily a discrete entity, but more like a colour on a palette of colours where there could be over a hundred similar shades of light green, and the degree of precision needed to achieve a given outcome will vary from case to case. Therefore, when you see a name on an LSM Resonance Remedy label, don’t necessarily take it literally.
Technically yes, although it is so different to the usual form of applied kinesiology that most people are accustomed to, that a distinction needs to be made – and we have had many experienced kinesiologists who studied LSM and then told us that they think our method of muscle-testing is better.
Here we are referring only to the mechanical method of testing the muscle, rather than the “mental software” behind what is evaluated.
The main difference is that LSM Resonance Testing is a non-force type of muscle test. In this way it is similar to the type of muscle testing used in Field Control Therapy (FCT) and, before FCT, by certain kinesiologists and chiropractors. That is to say, instead of pressing down a muscle and asking a patient to resist the force applied, e.g. as typically done on the arm, wrist or hand in applied kinesiology, in LSM we muscle test the ankles to evaluate the presence or absence of an involuntary stress response there.
Consider the huge difference between evaluating “muscle strength” vs “muscle stress”. One (regular applied kinesiology) is a resistance test involving the patient’s will to hold the muscle strong, whereas the other one (LSM) is an involuntary reflex test.
As the patient does not need to resist any force or do anything in LSM muscle testing, we find this type of muscle testing more objective, as well as being better suited to being used for a series of many hundreds of muscle test responses that are evaluated in a typical LSM Resonance Test (which would be much less feasible or practical using the typical form of conventional applied kinesiology).
A mistake that is commonly made is that many people fail to realize the gap between science and politics. They are not the same thing, and frequently they are in conflict with each other.
Toxicology is the scientific study of factors which have a toxic effect on the body – including mercury, radiation and electromagnetic fields. In contrast, so-called “safe levels” are a political notion, decided by people who have university degrees in subjects such as political science and philosophy, not toxicology. Furthermore, politicians are under a constant pressure from the public, and particularly from lobby groups, which means that they have to keep many people happy, and juggle many competing agendas.
Is it any surprise, therefore, that a notion such as a “safe level”, which has no bearing at all in toxicology, should have become a widespread notion in politics?
There are many reasons in toxicology why there is no such thing as a “safe level” that can be defined for a whole population. One of the most clear-cut and important ones is the well-established principle of “synergistic toxicity”. This means that before you can determine how toxic a particular toxin is, you must first know what other toxins are adjacent to it, and what the combined toxicity impact is. Well-known examples of this principle include mercury and aluminum, or mercury and lead. Just a tiny bit of aluminum or lead makes a tiny bit of mercury 50 or 100 times more toxic!
As this illustrates, this principle changes our ability to assess the toxicity of any toxin by many orders of magnitude. It just isn’t possible to be able to define a generally “safe level” of a toxin due to so many potential toxic combinations that could take place in one of our internal organs, and which for the most part have not even been studied yet. The complexities involved are enormous – and consider also how many as-yet unstudied combinations exist with 3, 4 or more toxins together. This means hundreds of millions of as-yet-unstudied combinations!
Even if we could ignore this, we would still have to point to some other powerful arguments. Through what I call the logical fallacies of “false equivalence” and “false distinction”, politicians and others sometimes falsely justify a particular toxin as “safe” by making phony comparisons. In logical terms, this is like saying, “all green plants are safe to eat because we know that lettuce is safe” (= false equivalence) or “this sample of arsenic isn’t poisonous because it has had a colourant added and you can see it’s a different colour, so we can ignore all studies concerning the other-coloured arsenic” (= false distinction).
Clearly that is all faulty logic. Yet this is what happened when, for instance, th-imerosal (an ethylmercury preservative that has been used in vac-cines), as described by Boyd Haley PhD, was falsely described as safe based on studies relating to a different form of mercury, methylmercury, which, unlike ethylmercury, has a very poor rate of mobility around the body and across the blood-brain barrier. It is also what happens frequently when pundits dismiss concerns about x-ray radiation or cell phone microwave pollution by making comments about our normal levels of “background exposure” to radiation from volcanoes and space, including the x-ray exposures that we get when flying airplanes. This is false equivalence because a completely different type of natural exposure is flakily and unscientifically used to make a false claim of “safety”, even though it differs in many parameters that make it like “comparing apples to oranges” – such as: frequency spectra involved; location of source; degree of focus on a particular area of the body; focus vs dispersion of an amount of radiation across an area of space or time; whether or not the radiation is of a pulsing type vs a linear wave form; and so on.
In summary, and using just a few examples like these, we should pay all ideas of there being a “safe level” of toxins or EMF with a healthy dose of scepticism, and remember that such ideas originate in politics not in science.
A classic example is mercury used in dental fillings. In the 1980s, a lot of newly-funded science clearly documented the harm to health caused by mercury in dental fillings. As a result, the national dental associations in some countries such as Switzerland decided to stop using mercury in dentistry back in the 1908s – period. Why, then, have many countries including the USA and UK never taken that step, and here we are several decades later with mercury still being used in dentistry? Clearly the reasons are not scientific, but political, and in this way we see that it takes many decades for even basic science to filter through to political decision-making in most countries.
This is a huge subject. The real question behind the question, in this case, is: “Is LSM legitimate?”
If legitimacy is defined by official recognition, then no, LSM is not recognised officially by mainstream medical authorities. It is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapy. This means it is not endorsed by the authorities, but is tolerated, thanks to your universal, inalienable human right to freedom of medical choice.
However, if legitimacy is defined by science, then yes, LSM is scientific, in that it draws from many fields of science and from an extensive catalogue of scientific research studies (the references for which we are preparing for publication in forthcoming books, and some of which are already quoted on this website), and, most importantly, LSM has been systematically based on principles of the field of systems science.
Scientific validity has become the gospel of modern times. Yet how can we define that? During my own studies for an MSc in Integrative Healthcare I have done an academic deep-dive into the philosophy of science, and in brief summary: science isn’t as simple or black and white as journalists and politicians often make it out to be.
First of all, there exists a lot of phony “science”, consisting in poorly designed studies which are falsely referenced to dismiss undesirable and/or misunderstood areas of research – including certain CAM therapies. This happens commonly and easily, particularly as most people don’t read the full studies, nor understand their design limitations. Furthermore, selection bias and confirmation bias have a profound impact on which science actually gets attention. Also, there is phony “science” used to justify high-stakes profit-providing commercial products promoted in various industries including medicine. This includes an example which shall remain unnamed here but affects us all and is currently the subject of a class action lawsuit. Rather than focus on the specifics of that, I would like to leave you with this as a general principle: always be distrustful towards what is referred to as “science”, because often there is distortion and corruption in ways such as these.
Secondly, medical research in particular has created a very high bar in terms of cost, before something is officially considered valid. This achieves two things. First of all, it weeds out ideas that are not patented – hence you will not find much high-profile scientific research these days about something as simple as vitamin D, whereas billions of dollars pour into testing pharmaceutical ideas that can be patented. Secondly, it provides an easy pretext for those with the validated patents to mock the many non-patentable ideas (such as vitamin D) that could otherwise compete for airspace or attention. Did you ever stop to wonder why, during the Coronavirus pandemic, they almost never mention through public channels the most important immune nutrient that exists – vitamin D? Shouldn’t it at least be the subject of frequent debate and investigation at present? This is not a conspiracy of silence, it is simply that the majority of people are easily misled, due to not having any relevant expertise in such areas. The point here has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or agendas. It is just a lot of good people doing their best to communicate what they know, not realizing that they have been misled on complex topics like these for the above reasons.
And who are the small number of people misleading the majority in these ways? The influence of both corporate lobby groups and intelligence agencies on politics, science and journalism is a matter of public record and simple observation. Yet none of that would matter if it weren’t for the fact that the majority of journalists and politicians fail to ask the right questions or probe deeper in order to find out the truth. They allow themselves to be misled, and true investigative journalism is not much in demand. The end result is that we should not turn to journalists or politicians to find out what is really “science” or “truth”, unless we too wish to allow ourselves to be misled.
This is such a common enquiry that we have prepared a separate page dedicated to answering it here.
Yes. The reason we modified the name by removing the prefix “Bio-” and replacing it with “LSM” is to clarify the unique type of Bioresonance Testing that we use in LSM. In particular, we wished to avoid the common confusion that arises otherwise whereby many people falsely associate the name “Bioresonance” with the use of an electrical machine of some sort (of which many types exist). We do not use an electrical machine in LSM Resonance Testing, but instead we use a set of hundreds of small test vials combined with a non-force muscle test at the patient’s ankles to assess changes in leg length in response to the test vials.
The resonance principle underlying Bioresonance Testing generally, and LSM Resonance Testing in particular, is the same regardless of whether an electrical machine is used or not, although we deliberately choose not to use one because we get better results this way. Consider the fact that the electricity of a machine has an impact, itself, on the body, which can therefore interfere with the testing procedure by introducing a foreign type of field to the test circuit. In contradistinction, we keep the LSM Resonance Testing area as free from extraneous electromagnetic radiation as we can, so that we get clearer, more objective test results and especially so that we avoid missing testing layers in the body during the test.
LSM is not the same as homeopathy, but, depending on how you define homeopathy, it could be argued that they share certain areas of overlap. Specifically, the core concept of information fields utilised in LSM provides a model to explain homeopathy in a new way. One of the many LSM-related books in the planning phase has a working title of “The Scapegoated Science of Homeopathy”.
The supposed biological implausibility of homeopathy is its biggest sticking point by far, in the mainstream media and in conventional circles. However, based on the physics concept of information fields, the mystery of how homeopathic remedies function is no longer a mystery, and, most importantly, is biologically plausible – unlike what many critics of homeopathy falsely claim. The problem is that many people apply the wrong science to assess homeopathic remedies: the science of chemistry.
This is like trying to listen to music by using a magnifying glass: you are using the wrong tool. In order to evaluate the biological plausibility of homeopathic remedies, you need to use the fields of physics and systems science, not chemistry.
So, viewed in this light, LSM Resonance Remedies and Homeopathic Remedies could be said to have a similarity in that we would argue that they both make therapeutic use of information fields through a carrier medium.
In short, it could be said that they are both forms of information medicine.
However, in relation to the original form of Homeopathy as founded by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann MD, this is where the similarities end – because there are many different types of information medicine, in which the information fields are used in different ways. Again, though, this depends on how you define the term Homeopathy. In his scholarly book reviewing the history of homeopathy, “Method”, Alastair Gray presents about a dozen different schools or branches of homeopathy which each take a different approach. Under this perspective, we would describe all of these as variants of information medicine, and in that sense LSM is related because information medicine is used as one of the various LSM tools.
A common misconception is that mainstream authorities and news outlets can be depended upon to provide a full picture of truth on any given subject. This is clearly not the case, based on a simple analysis of their respective backgrounds and motivations.
Taking scientific topics as an example, neither politicians nor journalists have a good understanding of science, in general, or a science background, and meanwhile they are subject to strong incentives that could lead to frequently reporting things that represent less than a full picture of truth. Such incentives could include pressure from public demand, pressure from advertisers, pressure from lobby groups, the peer pressure of what is deemed fit subject matter, the documented influence of intelligence agencies in steering what is deemed suitable subject matter in the mass media, and any number of many other incentives and influences that could easily throw them off the path of truth from time to time. Given all of this, what could possibly lead you to assume that we can rely on a 100% picture of truth being presented on every subject matter by all politicians and journalists?
At best it might be 50-75% as a thumbrule. And then the question becomes: what missing gaps in knowledge and understanding fail to enter public discourse?
Here, too, we can easily identify several characteristics which would tend to make a topic more likely to fall away from public discourse. For instance, it could happen if it is a subject matter that is difficult for the average person to relate to – e.g. such as the science of the toxicity of mercury vapor that is released 24/7 from mercury dental fillings and breathed in – but is invisible and lacks any smell or flavour.
Or it could happen if it is a subject matter that people might be afraid to speak out about for various reasons including a fear of social taboo – e.g. such as anything which is a new idea that most people don’t already think.
This was no doubt a not insignificant part (among other reasons) of why the well-documented scandal of Church pedofilia took so long before it came out into the open – and met with considerable obstacles just before it finally did – as shown in the award-winning film “Spotlight”. As shown in this film, after enormous resistance from nearly all sides, the Boston Globe finally made a sea change and began to report on it. Consider that this relates to a global sex abuse ring in parts of the priesthood dating back centuries, yet no one was talking about it in the open until very recently – so why was that? And what can this teach us about journalism in general?
There could be any number of factors – besides the truth – that have an influence on what gets communicated through official channels of the press and governmental bodies. And clearly, as illustrated with this Church scandal example, we can and do sometimes see an overwhelming global silence on the part of the media and governments in relation to an entire area of reporting, if there exists a confluence of certain factors to make it so.
The question is, then, what other areas are a part of that silence right now?
We believe that several topics on this website are included in that general media and governmental silence right now, but will break out of the silence at some point, when the moment is right – including for example the toxic effects of mercury and electromagnetic radiation, the huge relevance of simple vitamin D testing and treatment to immunity including in relation to Coronavirus, and the scientific validity of various forms of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies, including even, wait for it. . . that dirty word “homeopathy”.
Meanwhile remember: you heard about these things here first! We pride ourselves for being at the vanguard of cutting-edge scientific knowledge and health methodologies.
Nonlineopathy, pronounced non-linn-ee-OP-ath-ee, is a new technical term defined by Simon J. Rees ND in 2019, utilised as a part of Living Systems Medicine. It refers to the application of nonlinear tools (“Nonlineo-“) to illness (“-pathy”) or to systemic problems in any type of system (including society) that are causing suffering (pathos).
“Nonlinear” is far more exciting than it sounds. It is a term from systems science, used to describe how an apparently small input, if given in the right place and at the right moment in a cycle, can lead to a disproportionately large outcome for the system. Nonlineopathy emphasises such inputs because this is how we can achieve “more bang for our buck”, or, in other words, help a self-managing living system to better overall lasting health with the smallest possible inputs.
Why would we want to prefer small inputs? Well, it is well-known that large or strong inputs have a multitude of side effects in living systems. These arise due to properties of living systems as defined in LSM; namely, because living systems intelligently self-manage and therefore respond dynamically to all inputs.
Using a nonlinear approach (“The Nonlinear Path”, as Simon calls it) can be thought of as looking for “the tide that lifts all boats”. We are always looking for those nodes in the network which have the greatest impact on the whole network. In living systems this includes an emphasis on The 5 Key Organ Systems.
The term nonlineopathy also refers indirectly, in part, to the history of “homeopathy” and “allopathy” which were the two competing types of mainstream medicine recognised during parts of the nineteenth century. “Homeopathy” means using something similar to the disease (as a “hormesis” stimulus to the system to help it overcome the problem), whereas “allopathy” (conventional medicine) means using something counter to the disease (e.g. an anti-inflammatory to reduce inflammation). The introduction of the term “nonlineopathy” defines a new, third approach to medicine which is not the same as the other two.
This marks an historic moment in the development of medicine.
Think of it as “the third way”. Instead of defining our therapeutic inputs based on what is either similar to or counter to the disease state, nonlineopathy defines therapeutic inputs based on what is a nonlinear approach – showing a preference for nonlinear inputs.