Autonomic Response Testing
While blood, urine, stool, hair, and saliva are invaluable tools in assessing an individual, and should be performed in complex health cases, the reality is that as good as these tests are, they are not always practical to use, nor are they exempt from false negative results. An example of a false negative test, would be a test performed which indicated that no infection is present, despite the actual presence of an infection. Case in point, the gold standard for stool analysis in the identification of parasites, has been found to miss 40% of the cases of parasitic infections, and that is under the best of conditions when the lab knows that they’re being scrutinized.(1) Likewise, blood analysis for infections is not infallible either.(2) When it comes to chronic illness, the fact that the best labs that health practitioners use can only correctly identify parasitic infections 60% of the time, an astute practitioner should always suspect infection when symptoms match the clinical presentation, despite negative findings from stool or blood. Additionally, more and more research is indicating that “stealth infections” (mycoplasms, viruses, and some bacteria), those which hide within the cells in order to evade the immune system, are contributing to many forms of chronic illness and are grossly under-diagnosed.(3)(4)(5)
This dilemma necessitates the need for other tools in helping to gain a more thorough and accurate picture of a patients overall health status. One such tool is “Autonomic Response Testing”, a term coined by Diederich Klinghardt, MD, PhD.
Dr. Klinghardt suggests that there are three fundamental laws which govern ART. These are:
1. The First law of Autonomic Response Testing – the law of resonance between two identical substances ( this law has been most clearly identified by the research of Y.Omura,M.D.): if a substance is held in the energy field of a person and the indicator muscle weakens, the identical substance is in the body (resonance between two identical substances). If the substance is only in a particular organ, ganglion or other structure, the test substance has to be held exactly over this area. A variation of this test is the most common Autonomic Response Testing: the examiner finds a structure that therapy-localizes (while holding it, the indicator muscle weakens). The indicator-muscle becomes strong, when the resonating substance is placed anywhere on the patient.
2. The Second law of Autonomic Response Testing – 2-Pointing: if the examiner therapy-localizes more than one structure, ganglion etc. during the Autonomic Response Testing body scan or examination, two structures (or more) may be affected by the same toxin or infection, or one structure may affect one or more others. If the indicator muscle weakens while holding one of these structures but strengthens while holding another (which weakened when held alone), there is a) either a cause/effect relationship between the two or b) they are both affected by the s toxin/infection . The 2nd law of Autonomic Response Testing is therefore really a variation of the 1st law.
3. The Third Law of Autonomic Response Testing– Resonance between the examiner and the patient : the examiner’s body acts exactly like any other substance held into the energy field of the patient. If the doctor is toxic with the same substance that is causing the patient’s illness or that is stored in one or more of the patient’s tissues, the test will be affected as outlined in the 1st and 2nd law of Autonomic Response Testing Therefore, the 3rd law is really a variation of the 1st law also (but overlooked in any other school of kinesiology).
In my own quest for healing, ART proved to be an invaluable tool in the ability to identify a number of chronic infections, organ imbalances, toxicity and more, in addition to helping to identify the proper remedies in resolving the challenges of extreme fatigue and widespread pain. While there are electronic tools that can be useful to a skilled practitioner, such as electroacupuncture systems (EAV) and its offshoots, many people are suffering from sensitivity to electromagnetic systems, and the exposure to an electrical field can skew the results of those being tested. For this reason, having worked with such electronic devices, I would contend that ART in the hands of a skilled practitioner is more reliable than the electronic equipment than an EAV type device for many challenging chronic illness cases. When combined with standard diagnostics, and good clinical awareness, ART fills a much needed gap in properly assessing the overall health status and the disruptions to the body.