To get on in life, face forward:"Life is a series of collisions with the future; it is not asum of what we have been, but what we yearn to be."
--Jose Ortega y Gassett
"The past always looks better than it was.It's only pleasant because it isn't here."
--Finley Peter Dunne (as "Mr. Dooley," a characterin Dunne's newspaper column)
"We are tomorrow's past."=Mary Webb
Over 25 years ago, I decided to make thesimple, safe system of Touch for Healthavailable to anyone who was interested inlearning to be more aware of imbalances intheir life energy and utilize simple yetpowerful techniques to improve the flow andbalance of their energy. Since that time, Ithink all of us using muscle testing in thesubtle energy model agree that Touch forHealth Kinesiology (TFHK) has beenbeneficial on a large scale throughout theworld. As more and more people use thesystem of TFHK in lay, paraprofessional andprofessional settings there is a greater generalpublic and professional awareness of itsexistence. With that awareness comes both thepotential for increased access to thisinformation, as well as the possibility ofincreased limitation and control of TFHK.With the current "mainstreaming" of many"alternative" or "complementary" therapies,we need to look carefully at how we want tomaintain and increase access to the benefits ofTFHK. This will require that we decide towhat extent we want to "fit in" with the
dominant models of health care, scientificresearch, and third party payer systems-whether those third patties be governments,"HMO's" (Health Maintenance Organiza-tions), Insurance companies etc. We also needto consider to what extent we want to assertourselves as different or alternative to thedominant systems. I don't feel that this is aneither or question, but rather one ofarticulating multiple options and strategies (ormaking our unique contribution to the well-being of humanity through out specialtechniques of touch and energy balancing.I believe that significant data which supportsthe beneficial effects of TFHK already exists,and that we can easily generate much morepositive evidence, but we need to gather andanalyze the information in a way that will bemost accessible to the public, scientificresearchers, governments, etc. TFHK is aprime example of a valuable tool within therealm of Complementary and AlternativeMedicine (CAM) that public is learning aboutand demanding access to, and also thatscientific, medical and governmental
authorities are looking at critically in terms ofsafety, efficacy, cost, and also as a potentialthreat to established modalities, organizationsand bureaucracies. It is an exciting time asmany doors are opening, and it is important tobe aware of the opportunities as well as theobstacles for making TFHK as widelyaccessible as possible.Way back when we first started teachingTFHK, we faced the issue of ACCESS- whoshould be able to learn the techniques and whoshould be able to use them to help otherpeople, and under what circumstances? Theissues that made TFHK grow like wildfireright from the beginning are ever more urgenttoday- and today there is a far greater publicawareness of these issues. It's only beenabout 100 years since the world, especially theWest, experienced a drastic shift in the waywe think about and deliver health care. Thefirst industrially manufactured pharmaceuticaldrug was aspirin, patented by Bayer inGermany in 1899. Until that time only naturalremedies were used in one form or another.Before that, there hadn't been a great deal ofchange in our knowledge of natural remediessince the written records of 55 AD.In the last 100 years we have shifted frommore holistic, relationship based health caremodels to drug-based, profit-driven, diseasecare industries. Drugs are big business.Machines and the mechanical model of diseaseand human physiological function are bigbusiness. There is NO DOUBT that a greatdeal of new knowledge and skills have beendeveloped, with great benefit to humanity, andfew of us would want to give up access to thefull armamentarium of drugs and surgery.However, the cost of our reliance on modern,"scientific" medicine has been high. In theUnited States the cost of health care as apercentage of the gross national product isnow higher than anywhere else in the world.In countries where they cannot afford tofollow the United States' model, the costs arelower, and yet, in many cases, the lifeexpectancy and other parameters of health arebetter. Apparently the United States does nothave the best health care system in the world,but only the most PROFITABLE.The combined forces of the profit motive. theseemingly miraculous results of antibioticsand other drugs (at least in the short term of a
few decades), and the reductionist model ofscientific inquiry and evidence have eclipsed,particularly in the U.S., and even nearlyeliminated many time-honored healingmodalities as well as suppressed thedevelopment of new approaches that do not fitwith the industrialized medical model. Asthere has been explosive growth in scientificknowledge of the physical world and physicalaspects of living beings, we have divided theperson into parts, malfunctions, syndromesand diseases that are named and treated as ifthey were not part of a whole Soul. Thescientific community has become almosttotally secular and materialistic, intentionallyattempting to eliminate mental, emotional,subtle energetic, and spiritual aspects of life tofocus on a chemical or mechanical model ofdisease and injury care to the extent that thisnarrow practice of medicine has become bothphilosophical dogma and legal doctrine. Avery limited and theoretically controlled typeof scientific evidence has been legally requiredto legitimize any activity done· with theintention of improving health.The "gold standard" of scientific evidence- theRandomized Clinical Trial (RCT)- continuesto be promoted as the best and only trulyreliable evidence of therapeutic efficacy. Butwe need to consider very carefully thetendency of the RCT to eliminate lLC (TenderLoving Care). Perhaps we'd prefer to promoteTLC and eliminate the RCT! In the waningdecades of the 20th century, the West has seena massive resurgence in a wide variety ofancient and traditional or alternative healingmodels which rely on different world views,beliefs and models of reality, because Westernscience and medicine has failed to address ahuge portion of the experience of humanbeings which is not easily quantified,controlled or medicated. But again, I don'tbelieve it has to be either or. Only a smallpercentage of people go exclusively toalternative practitioners because they have lostall faith in modern medicine or beoause theyfeel that their particular complaints will notrespond to modern medical care or has failedto respond. The largest percentage of peoplewant access to all of the healing modalities.We want information about and access to thebenefits, risks, consequences and costs ofestablished "medical" procedures as well as
alternative or natural therapies.Governments around the world, especiallydeveloped, industrialized nations, are re-examining the effectiveness and efficiency ofmedical orthodoxy as well as CAM. They arecoming up with their own answers andshaping new frameworks for access totraining, and healthcare. More and more theright to study and to practice what we aredoing is being written into governmentregulations and/or payment is being suppliedby third parties. Questions are being raisedabout what works. What kind of therapiesonly relieve symptoms while others also helpto resolve life issues? What allows people tobe more productive and more satisfied in theirlives, rather than merely blunting their pain?What interventions are safe and at what cost?What qualifications should the practitioners,teachers, tutors and therapists that useparticular interventions have? Who at presentis utilizing and who is delivering each type ofcare? What are the ethical standards of thesepeople? Are they organized and does theorganization have practical, educational andethical standards? Do they have evidencebased research to demonstrate that they aresafe and effective?A report by the Select Committee on Scienceand Technology of the House of Lords in theUnited Kingdom was released in December2000. This report is already influencing andwill continue to influence disease and injurycare and government regulation around theworld. This report quotes the broaderdefinition of CAM from the CochraneCollaboration:[CAM is] "A broad domain of healingresources that encompasses all healthsystems, modalities, and practices andtheir accompanying theories andbeliefs, other than those intrinsic tothe politically dominant health systemof a particular society or culture in agiven historical period."The report categorized the various modalitiesthat it examined into three broad groups:"The first group embraces what may be calledthe principal disciplines, two of which,osteopathy and chiropractic, are alreadyregulated in their professional activity andeducation by Acts of Parliament [in England].
The others are acupuncture, herbal medicineand homeopathy. Our evidence has indicatedthat each of these therapies claim to have anindividual diagnostic approach and thatthese therapies are seen as the 'Big 5' by mostof the CAM world.The second group contains therapies whichare most often used to complementconventional medicine and do not purportto embrace diagnostic skills. It includesaromatherapy; the Alexander Technique; bodywork therapies, including massage;counselling; stress therapy; hypnotherapy;reflexology and probably shiatsu; meditationand healing.The third group embraces those otherdisciplines [which similarly] purport to offerdiagnostic information as well as treatmentand which, in general, favour a philosophicalapproach and are indifferent to the scientificprinciples of conventional medicine, andthrough which various and disparateframeworks of disease causation and itsmanagement are proposed. These therapiescan be split into two sub-groups.Group 3a includes long-establishedand traditional systems of health caresuch as Ayurvedic medicine andTraditional Chinese medicine.Group 3b covers other alternativedisciplines which lack any credibleevidence base such as crystal therapy,iridology, radionics, dowsing andkinesiology. "(Note: enlarged, bold and italic typeemphasis added above and in thefollowing quotations--- JFT)The report supplies the following Definitionof Kinesiology: " A manipulative therapyby which a patient's physical, chemical,emotional and nutritional imbalances areassessed by a system of muscle testing. Themeasurement of variation in stress resistanceof groups of muscles is said to identifydeficiencies and imbalances, thus enablingdiagnosis and treatments by techniqueswhich usually involve strengthening thebody's energy through acupressure points.An important point that has been raised inmany submissions to us is that the list oftherapies supplied in our Call for -Evidence
vary hugely in the amount and type ofsupportive evidence that is available .... Manysubmissions assert that several of thedisciplines, especially those listed inour third group, have no significantevidence base to support their claimsfor safety and efficacy and as suchshould not be considered alongsidewell-established and generallyaccepted CAM therapies such asosteopathy or chiropractic. So m esubmissions have complained that we havegrouped all these therapies together and thatmany have nothing in common. Theycomplain that it may be damaging to the better-established CAM professions and disciplinesto group them with those which have noevidence base. We understand these viewsand it is for this reason that we propose thegrouping given above."The report goes on to say in reference to thegroup of modalities that includes kinesiology:"These must be subject to rigorousappraisal. Many conventional medicalscientists, while accepting the validityof accumulative empirical observation,believe that those therapeuticdisciplines that are based principallyon abstract philosophy and not onscientific reasoning and experimenthave little place in medicine.Professor Lewis Wolpert of theAcademy of Medical Sciences told usthat: "Medicine aims to base itselfupon science. I am sorry that anycomplementary or alternative medicineprocedure for which one can see noreasonable scientific basis should besupported" (Q 1404).The entire report can be read on the Internetwhere I got much of this information for thepaper at «www.parliament.uk». (Click onHouse of Lords, then Select CommitteeReport, Science and Technology). The reportgoes to some length describing the objectionsof many CAM practitioners and researchers tothe "gold standard" of the RCT, but finallydismisses these objections with a quip from aMedical Doctor who personally saw no reasonwhy CAM modalities should not be subjectedto essentially the same kinds of tests to provetheir efficacy and safety as are drug therapies.And I also felt that the definition of
"kinesiology" was problematic at best whenapplied to the non-diagnostic, meridian basedmodel of TFHK and other Kinesiologieswhich follow the TFHK model, which I feelprobably encompasses a larger number of laypeople, instructors, and practitioners thanwould say they practice Kinesiology in adiagnostic, disease centered model. But at thesame time, the fact that Kinesiology is on themap- though apparently poorly understood atpresent - and that the bulk of the discussion ofRCT actually seemed to be critical of itsapplication to CAM, encourages me that thisreport will generate productive discussion andgreater access to kinesiology in the future.I take heart that the very "established" CAMmodalities (which are separated froin suspectand "tainted" modalities in this report) werethe suspect and "tainted" modalities ofyesterday. The people have voted with theirpocketbooks for over 30 years to establishthese professions, and it is that financial signof faith that has both funded and attracted thefunds to create "scientifically acceptable"evidence of efficacy. And this process oflegitimizing new of different modalitiescontinues to accelerate due to greater publicneed and demand as well as an expandingmodel of what constitutes real evidence ofefficacy.Ironically, the very profit motive of theindustrial-pharmaceutical model has beenpartially blunted in the United States by theopposing profit motive of the HMO's. Theinterest in economical efficiency which has, tosome extent, curtailed our access to costly anddangerous drugs and surgery may alsoincrease access to and encourage the use ofsimple, minimally invasive and negligiblyrisky interventions that can be delivered at thegrassroots with extremely high costeffectiveness.There is nothing new about suspicion fromestablished professions, or limitations createdby medical legislation that does notcomprehend our alternative models of healthcare, although this report may mean lessfreedom and more requirements for CAMpractitioners in England. Several strategieshave developed in parallel in the United Statesand throughout the world to cope with theselegal and professional issues.
One is to utilize the tools of TFHK not as aseparate and distinct methodology but as partof one of the already recognized BIG FIVECAM therapies. This has been the officialposition of the ICAK (International College ofApplied Kinesiology) almost from thebeginning of Applied Kinesiology. Under thismode], if you want to use kinesiology, youmust get appropriate training in an establisheddiscipline and receive a license to diagnose.Those of us operating under a specific licenseneed to be vigilant that we continue to be ableto use Kinesiology- that it is not defined as theexclusive domain of a specific profession, andthat it is not excluded from our particularprofession either by regulation or legislation.The original model of Touch for Health, whenI first began training my Chiropractic patientsto use the techniques for themselves, was tolimit the use of TFHK to family and friendsfor self-care. This was in a preventative, non-diagnostic, Well ness model From this grewthe need for lay teachers of Kinesiology,many of whom became full time professionalsin this educational model. Those of us whovalue the availability of TFHK in the lay andeducational model need to be vigilant that thevalue and safety of TFHK remain accessible atthe grass roots, and is not prohibited or co-opted for professionals only.As many instructors became more excellentwith the TFHK techniques, and developednew techniques, many naturally becametherapists under varying degrees ofgovernmental tolerance or sanction. Today, aprofession of Kinesiology that unites themany strands of TFHK and otherKinesiologies, which use muscle testing andenergy balancing, is coming into being. TheInternational Kinesiology College (IKC), andvarious schools and governmental programsin various countries have developed, or areworking to develop all the necessary standardsand organizations which regulate aprofessional modality. The IKC now hasdeveloped a Personal Development School,which includes Touch for Health and willinclude other personal development programs,and the Professional Kinesiology School forsetting standards worldwide for peoplewanting to be professional Kinesiologists, Asthese Professional Kinesiology programs aredeveloped, the requirements begin to look
very much the same as for other establishedCAM modalities. Regardless of the extent oftraining for professional Kinesiologists, thespecific techniques that make Kinesiology adistinct modality are and will continue to bescrutinized regarding the evidence base, whichproves their efficacy and safety.I believe that we need all of these ways ofusing TFHK in order to make it accessible tothe most people. And, to keep TFHKavailable, and make it more acceptable inwider circles, we will need to answer someimportant questions for ourselves that willcounteract false impressions made upon thirdpatties who have a limited understanding ofTFHK:Which of our techniques relieve what kind ofsymptoms?What kind of life issues can our methodsaddress?What can we do to help people be moreproductive and fulfilled in their lives?What interventions are safe? What risks areinvolved? What are the costs?What qualifications do the practitioners,teachers, tutors, therapist that use particularinterventions need to have?Who are the present deliverers of these typesof care?Are we organized and do the organizationshave practical, educational and ethicalstandards?What at'e the philosophical concepts that uniteus?What is the ontology of Kinesiology?What is the epistemology of Kinesiology?Do we have evidence based research todemonstrate that what we do is safe andeffective?This last question is probably the mostproblematic. The tremendous value of TFHK isabundantly apparent to thousands who haveachieved excellent results working with family.friends or clients. However, as this informationbecomes more widely available, there is theinevitable demand that the methods ofKinesiology be proven effective in a "trulyscientific manner". Doing so in a way that willnot do violence to the integrity of our model ofWellness, but that will also satisfy the powers
that be, will require some very intelligentresearch design and cost a great deal of money.I believe that we will have to initially fund ourown research. We will be able to get fundingfrom Governments, Foundations and othersafter we have some answers, or at least somepromising evidence to support investigation.Just to design studies and write grant proposalswill require significant funding. People with thequalifications to write these proposals must bepaid. The greater the talent and the better theirreputation, the more they cost.What kind of research can we start doing now,and how will we pay for it?The simplest research is writing down ourobservations. These are the kinds of anecdotalreports that I have been encouraging peopleusing TFHK to record for many years now andmany of us are indeed gathering this data, butso far it has not been reported in peer reviewedjournals. These reports, when analyzed on alarge scale, will point to the areas where moreextensi ve studies can be done to determine ifthe results are something that can be expectedin the general population, but we need to findallies who can publish our findings in theprofessional journals.Actual, real world practice in all the health caremodalities varies greatly from practitioner topractitioner, and from decontextualized,"controlled" studies. The cutting edge ofscientific research is finding ways to study thedifferences in outcomes of different therapiesin authentic, real-world settings. In theconventional biomedical community, successhas been appraised in terms of mortality,physiological measures, such as blood pressure,or diagnostic laboratory test results. Clinicaltrials have produced these objective measures astheir primary dependent variables. Seldom havethe goals and the subjective feelings of patientsand clients and the preferences for outcomesand risks of treatment been used to evaluatehealth services; they have been perceived asimportant but subjective and unreliable.However, our experience has shown that thesubjective experiences of the individual qualityof life are far more significant than "objective"data. Individual values, preferences, perceptionsof symptoms and experiences of improvedfunction are far more meaningful to actualliving people. Indeed, health perceptions-therating by individuals of their overall health -are among the best predictors of mortality andfuture use of services.The TFHK emphasis on goal setting andbalancing for positive outcomes fits well with
the functional, quality of life measurements. Weroutinely assess the ability of individuals toperform activities that are important to them,ranging from general activities of daily life topeak performance in a special competition. Incontrast to the allopathic approach, TFHK is acontext-dependent procedure. We value thebeliefs, expectations, fears (both conscious andunconscious) of the individual. The core ofTFHK is the encounter between the participantsin the healing process, the helper and theperson seeking help, the tutor and the student,the practitioner and the client, person who feelsill and the friend. It is not only what is done butalso the context in which it is done. Thisactually places us at the forefront of the currentscientific practice of medicine.I am currently developing a program that Ibelieve will help get the ball rolling for TFHKresearch. This involves a computer based TFHKlearning, teaching and reference program, aswell as a simple database that can be used torecord profiles of multiple persons, andmultiple sessions for each person. This data willthen be automatically submitted (sans the actualnames or identifying information of theindividuals) to a central database on theInternet. This data will automatically becompiled into some simple tables that will giveus some real-time statistics of the outcomes ofour various Kinesiology outcomes. In order tofund this process, as well as more complexanalysis of the massive amounts of data wecould collect, I propose a TFHK Research Club.I estimate that we could easily have 5000members worldwide. The initial membershipfee ( which would include a CD-ROM disk ofthe TFH Interactive Program and Database) anda nominal yearly membership fee wouldmaintain the ongoing data-gathering process, aswell as fund some initial studies that mightattract additional funding from governments,universities, etc. Hopefully this effort will be apositive contribution to the creation of a morerobust evidence base for Touch for HealthKinesiology, thereby assuring the public andthe powers that be of the efficacy and safety ofTFHK, and insuring that the greatest number ofpeople continue to have access to these simpleyet powerful techniques.
