Comparing LSM Resonance Testing with lab testing
It may surprise you to hear that LSM Resonance Testing is just as objective and reliable as lab testing – and like lab testing it is subject to the same universally inherent limitations of objectivity in all forms of testing. I will explain why in a moment.
It is important to pause here, for a moment, to remind you in passing that, unlike lab testing, LSM Resonance Testing is not a form of medical testing or diagnosis in the conventional medical sense. Instead, it is a form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapy testing which is orientated towards the biofields of the body. Now that we’ve got that clarification out of the way, let’s return to the question.
Let me fire a different question back at you first: do you consider medical lab testing to be objective? If so, then on what basis, and how objective?
The truth is that there are many factors which make medical lab testing far from objective in a pure sense. All forms of objectivity, as we shall see in a moment, are inherently relative.
False positives and negatives
Here are some examples of why.
Have you heard of “false positives”? This is when a lab test gives a positive result which is actually untrue. It happens very often. For instance, people with tuberculosis will tend to test positive for HIV but it’s a false reading.
Have you heard of “false negatives”? This is when a lab test gives a negative result which is actually untrue, so that you are actually unable to rule out the very thing which the test is supposed to be checking for. This, too, happens often, and a classic example is parasite testing in stool samples which, in standard forms of the testing used in conventional medicine, have a less than 50% chance of actually detecting the presence of any given parasite in your stool! How “objective” or “reliable” is that?
To clarify, I am not attributing this to any deliberate falsification of the results occurring! It is simply that lab tests do not have a 100% reliability score, due to inherent limitations of accuracy. Most people wrongly assume that lab tests are 100% reliable and accurate, because our society has been falsely conditioned to view all things in conventional medicine in fake black and white terms like this. The underlying message that we have all been subjected to endlessly is that anyone in a white coat knows what they are talking about and is doing something which is 100% reliable, scientific and accurate.
Of course, this analysis may seem a bit harsh, because even though the reliability score is much less than 100%, at least there is an honest aim to use methods which are as reliable and objective as they can be for any given testing parameter.
In other words, we make do with the best degree of objectivity that can be attained.
Now let’s look at LSM Resonance Testing in this light
In response to each of hundreds of test vials used, an involuntary muscle response is evaluated at the patient’s ankles.
The first observation to make is that the patient does not do anything and is not involved in the ankle response, as it is an involuntary response just like when a doctor bangs your knee with a hammer (except that it is much gentler than that!) So we can rule out any lack of objectivity stemming from the patient’s side.
Secondly, we can observe that the LSM practitioner does not do anything to the muscle, either, because it is a passive muscle test response known as “non-force applied kinesiology” (which is totally different to the more usual force-based applied kinesiology used by most kinesiologists). The LSM practitioner simply detects via certain muscle groups at the ankles whether or not there was an involuntary contraction leading to a change of leg length. The LSM practitioner does not press or push or force these muscles and therefore cannot force a particular outcome to the test.
This objectivity on the LSM practitioner’s side is further verified by the fact that as LSM practitioners we are unable to dictate what the test results will be, and of particular relevance here is the fact that LSM Resonance Test results frequently do not coincide with the tester’s expectations. For example, the tester might expect the biofields of the adrenal cortex to register stress, and may expect to find mercury throughout the body, but neither of these things may be found in the test – and instead the tester may find some other things that are totally unexpected.
So far so good. All of this confirms that the physical procedure used in LSM Resonance Testing – the muscle testing – is objective and reliable.
What about the LSM Resonance Tester’s “mental software”, though?
Think of the “mental software” as being like software on a computer: the hardware of your computer can behave in very different ways depending on which software is installed into it. Similarly, a tester has a “mental software” which comprises that person’s evaluative and decision-making process whilst doing the testing, as well as the knowledge base that informs it. Does this “mental software” have a subjective impact on the test? Yes, of course it does.
For example, it is the tester’s mental software which leads him or her to decide whether or not to test the adrenal glands vial in the first place. This is a clear example of how the thought process of the tester has a direct influence on the test. A different tester may skip testing the adrenal glands altogether, and therefore come up with a different set of results.
Does this observation make LSM Resonance Testing any less objective than the level of objectivity in medical lab testing, though? No.
If we look at medical lab testing, we will find that the exact same thing holds true. There are thousands of lab tests in existence, and there is not enough time, money, resources or attention span to do all of these lab tests for every person, which would be a totally unfeasible proposition. (If you have ever watched the award-winning TV series “House MD” you will know exactly what I mean). Every doctor must make a selection of which lab tests to order, based on a decision, which is a thought process. And in any case, a thought process is again required in order to interpret and respond intelligently to any test results obtained. And this becomes an iterative process, or in other words a string of thought processes into which the lab tests themselves are weaved.
Let me remind you that it is conventional medicine I am describing here. Yes, the men and women in white coats are not doing something as black and white as most people think! – they are doing something that is primarily driven by “mental software”. (Again, watch any single episode of “House MD” to understand exactly what I mean. Watch it and then try to argue that the character Dr House is doing something that is not primarily driven by a thought process based on mental software. And then remember that his character is presented as a fictitious medical hero – the very apex of modern medical skill).
This is exactly like the example above of whether or not an LSM tester decides to check the adrenal vial or not. And the same holds true throughout all types of testing that exist (including, incidentally, all types of bioresonance machines, which are no less objective in this way because they, too, need to be pre-programmed by a designer who makes decisions based on his or her thought process).
So it is inevitable, and we cannot get away from it: the mental software behind all types of testing is always based on a thought process. It cannot be any other way. And a thought process is inherently subject to subjective bias.
However, instead of rejecting this idea, let’s embrace it.
Embracing our subjectivity as an effective tool in all forms of medicine
Subjective bias is not the monster it has been made out to be. Rather, it consists of a software without which the hardware of the computer cannot be used. Yes, software needs to be programmed based on decisions, so let’s not abolish software – let’s just design it as effectively as possible.
This process is known as decision science – that is to say, the study of how people make decisions, and particularly the effort to improve the basis upon which decisions are made. In LSM, we have ticked this box well because the decision-making process (mental software) is firmly based on objective criteria of living systems science. This does not remove the subjectivity of the practitioner – it directs it so that it can be put to better use.
In summary, there are 4 clear points to answering this question:
- All objectivity is relative.
- The physical component of LSM Resonance Testing is objective, to no less of a degree than medical lab testing is.
- The mental component of LSM Resonance Testing, or “mental software”, is partly subjective, just like that in medical lab testing and all other forms of testing.
- Subjectivity is not an evil to be abolished from an increasingly mechanized form of medicine – that is one of the chief red herrings of modern times. Instead, subjectivity consists of the human mind’s incredible ability to participate in every activity and potentially optimise its efficacy if it is applied in the best way – including by basing our mental software on objective criteria of systems science.