Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hi All, Just yesterday, I was visited by a rep trying to sell me a Bio Meridian machine. Has anyone ever heard of these? Anyone using one? Related to this discussion about replicable results, these machines do this so well, that John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis, as they have found them to be more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer. The rep who visited me told me Jake Fratkin has purchased one, and is trying to work it into his school's curriculum for students to use for diagnosis. Now I don't know about how to correlate this with TCM, because it does not give any analysis according to TCM terminology or theory. However, it does analyze relative degrees of whatmight be called toxicity in various functinal systems of the body by measuring electrical energy in various " acupoints " of the hands and feet. Some of these points are ting well points, and some are not acupuncture points as I know them. What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a " medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, including Kan and Health Concerns, and the practitioner can select any of those products and have " instant " information about which products will best address any of the imbalances it shows. Wow. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility for customizing formulas, just working with prepared remedies - including nutriceuticals, homeopathy, NAET, you get the idea. I am fascinated by this technology and what it can do, but it is a far cry away from TCM health evaluation. What I want to know is, is anyone using one of these? Anyone think this is the wave of the future? " Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. " <bhawes wrote: Z'Ev: OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do is different from science. I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it. I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing, however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine can't treat it. On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor (which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, " manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself, in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of various functions and interactions (because we all know from our studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery. You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense, we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health. But, like string theory, it may not be science. -Ben Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis...more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer >>>>> Can he show you a peer reviewed article testing this claim - Chinese Medicine Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:14 AM Replicable diagnosis by machine Hi All, Just yesterday, I was visited by a rep trying to sell me a Bio Meridian machine. Has anyone ever heard of these? Anyone using one? Related to this discussion about replicable results, these machines do this so well, that John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis, as they have found them to be more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer. The rep who visited me told me Jake Fratkin has purchased one, and is trying to work it into his school's curriculum for students to use for diagnosis. Now I don't know about how to correlate this with TCM, because it does not give any analysis according to TCM terminology or theory. However, it does analyze relative degrees of whatmight be called toxicity in various functinal systems of the body by measuring electrical energy in various " acupoints " of the hands and feet. Some of these points are ting well points, and some are not acupuncture points as I know them. What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a " medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, including Kan and Health Concerns, and the practitioner can select any of those products and have " instant " information about which products will best address any of the imbalances it shows. Wow. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility for customizing formulas, just working with prepared remedies - including nutriceuticals, homeopathy, NAET, you get the idea. I am fascinated by this technology and what it can do, but it is a far cry away from TCM health evaluation. What I want to know is, is anyone using one of these? Anyone think this is the wave of the future? " Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. " <bhawes wrote: Z'Ev: OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do is different from science. I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it. I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing, however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine can't treat it. On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor (which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, " manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself, in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of various functions and interactions (because we all know from our studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery. You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense, we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health. But, like string theory, it may not be science. -Ben Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hi Andrea, not so long ago we had a discussion on machines used as a tool in Chinese medicine. I mentioned Mora therapy in that thread. The machine you describe sounds very much like Mora bioresonance. I believe it can be a valuable asset in an acupuncture practice, but I heard from a teacher (who teaches the use of this machine) that it takes years before your test results become reliable. best, Tom. ---- 21/06/2007 18:07:33 Chinese Medicine Replicable diagnosis by machine Hi All, Just yesterday, I was visited by a rep trying to sell me a Bio Meridian machine. Has anyone ever heard of these? Anyone using one? Related to this discussion about replicable results, these machines do this so well, that John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis, as they have found them to be more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer. The rep who visited me told me Jake Fratkin has purchased one, and is trying to work it into his school's curriculum for students to use for diagnosis. Now I don't know about how to correlate this with TCM, because it does not give any analysis according to TCM terminology or theory. However, it does analyze relative degrees of whatmight be called toxicity in various functinal systems of the body by measuring electrical energy in various acupoints " of the hands and feet. Some of these points are ting well points, and some are not acupuncture points as I know them. What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, including Kan and Health Concerns, and the practitioner can select any of those products and have " instant " information about which products will best address any of the imbalances it shows. Wow. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility for customizing formulas, just working with prepared remedies - including nutriceuticals, homeopathy, NAET, you get the idea. I am fascinated by this technology and what it can do, but it is a far cry away from TCM health evaluation. What I want to know is, is anyone using one of these? Anyone think this is the wave of the future? " Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. " <bhawes wrote: Z'Ev: OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do is different from science. I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it. I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing, however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine can't treat it. On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor (which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, " manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself, in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of various functions and interactions (because we all know from our studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery. You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense, we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health. But, like string theory, it may not be science. -Ben Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 On Thursday 21 June 2007 10:14, wrote: > > What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a > " medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, Hi Dr. Andrea! If it serves up ads it should be free? Is there a web link that describes it? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 I will ask her. Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis...more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer >>>>> Can he show you a peer reviewed article testing this claim - Chinese Medicine Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:14 AM Replicable diagnosis by machine Hi All, Just yesterday, I was visited by a rep trying to sell me a Bio Meridian machine. Has anyone ever heard of these? Anyone using one? Related to this discussion about replicable results, these machines do this so well, that John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis, as they have found them to be more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer. The rep who visited me told me Jake Fratkin has purchased one, and is trying to work it into his school's curriculum for students to use for diagnosis. Now I don't know about how to correlate this with TCM, because it does not give any analysis according to TCM terminology or theory. However, it does analyze relative degrees of whatmight be called toxicity in various functinal systems of the body by measuring electrical energy in various " acupoints " of the hands and feet. Some of these points are ting well points, and some are not acupuncture points as I know them. What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a " medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, including Kan and Health Concerns, and the practitioner can select any of those products and have " instant " information about which products will best address any of the imbalances it shows. Wow. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility for customizing formulas, just working with prepared remedies - including nutriceuticals, homeopathy, NAET, you get the idea. I am fascinated by this technology and what it can do, but it is a far cry away from TCM health evaluation. What I want to know is, is anyone using one of these? Anyone think this is the wave of the future? " Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. " <bhawes wrote: Z'Ev: OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do is different from science. I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it. I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing, however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine can't treat it. On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor (which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, " manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself, in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of various functions and interactions (because we all know from our studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery. You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense, we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health. But, like string theory, it may not be science. -Ben Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hi Tom, This machine is called Vantage, and is made by Biomeridian. They describe it as measuring bioelectrical impedance to optimal energetic flow in the meridians. I will look up the thread you mentioned - thanks for reminding me about it. Tom Verhaeghe <tom.verhaeghe wrote: Hi Andrea, not so long ago we had a discussion on machines used as a tool in Chinese medicine. I mentioned Mora therapy in that thread. The machine you describe sounds very much like Mora bioresonance. I believe it can be a valuable asset in an acupuncture practice, but I heard from a teacher (who teaches the use of this machine) that it takes years before your test results become reliable. best, Tom. ---- 21/06/2007 18:07:33 Chinese Medicine Replicable diagnosis by machine Hi All, Just yesterday, I was visited by a rep trying to sell me a Bio Meridian machine. Has anyone ever heard of these? Anyone using one? Related to this discussion about replicable results, these machines do this so well, that John Hopkins Hospital is about to implement them this year for diagnosis, as they have found them to be more reliable than any other testing means in this past year, for diagnosing lung cancer. The rep who visited me told me Jake Fratkin has purchased one, and is trying to work it into his school's curriculum for students to use for diagnosis. Now I don't know about how to correlate this with TCM, because it does not give any analysis according to TCM terminology or theory. However, it does analyze relative degrees of whatmight be called toxicity in various functinal systems of the body by measuring electrical energy in various acupoints " of the hands and feet. Some of these points are ting well points, and some are not acupuncture points as I know them. What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, including Kan and Health Concerns, and the practitioner can select any of those products and have " instant " information about which products will best address any of the imbalances it shows. Wow. Of course, it doesn't have the flexibility for customizing formulas, just working with prepared remedies - including nutriceuticals, homeopathy, NAET, you get the idea. I am fascinated by this technology and what it can do, but it is a far cry away from TCM health evaluation. What I want to know is, is anyone using one of these? Anyone think this is the wave of the future? " Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. " <bhawes wrote: Z'Ev: OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do is different from science. I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it. I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing, however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine can't treat it. On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor (which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, " manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself, in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of various functions and interactions (because we all know from our studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery. You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense, we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health. But, like string theory, it may not be science. -Ben Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hi Pete, This is no advertisement. The company asks manufacturers if they want to provide their lists of products, at no charge to them. This software module then is available on a " virtual library " which is leased to the practitioner for $25 per month, for use with the machine. The link to biomeridian's website is www.biomeridian.com. I didn't find much information there about the virtual library, but there is some. Though I am investigating this equipment, I have no financial interest in this company. I am providing this link to satisfy Pete's request, and my own questions to help me sort out whether or not I want to add this to my practice. Thank you, Pete Theisen <petetheisen wrote: On Thursday 21 June 2007 10:14, wrote: > > What fascinated me about this machine is the software, which contains a > " medical library " of thousands of products by hundreds of manufacturers, Hi Dr. Andrea! If it serves up ads it should be free? Is there a web link that describes it? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and lay it on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 On Thursday 21 June 2007 13:35, wrote: <snip> > module then is available on a " virtual library " which is leased to the > practitioner for $25 per month, for use with the machine. Hi Dr. Andrea! Do you have to buy the device, or is it included when you take the service? > If it serves up ads it should be free? Is there a web link that describes > it? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Yes Pete, the machine needs to be purchased, and it is expensive - to the tune of $10K, depending on how you finance it. Pete Theisen <petetheisen wrote: On Thursday 21 June 2007 13:35, wrote: <snip> > module then is available on a " virtual library " which is leased to the > practitioner for $25 per month, for use with the machine. Hi Dr. Andrea! Do you have to buy the device, or is it included when you take the service? > If it serves up ads it should be free? Is there a web link that describes > it? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and lay it on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 On Friday 22 June 2007 07:43, wrote: > Yes Pete, the machine needs to be purchased, and it is expensive - to the > tune of $10K, depending on how you finance it. Hi Dr. Andrea! OK, it is 1) expensive and on top of that 2) there is a monthly fee to use the database and not only that 3) the database amounts to advertising and finally, 4) it hasn't been " proven " effective or even accurate. Our cup runneth over. Someday someone will have one that is affordable, effective and really works. Just not this one. > Do you have to buy the device, or is it included when you take the > service? > > > If it serves up ads it should be free? -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Ok, didn't know if I was going to write or not, but here I am. Meredith, CAc, MSOM and ND. I bought the BioMeridian last year. Yes, it is expensive. I didn't pay $10,000. Maybe $6,000. Then training. I bought it because 1)patients love the charts. They love hard copies that give them graphs and chart their progress 2)we studied EDS/EAV in Naturopathic school. At the time (1996) the probes were very subjective. It was hard to replicate results from practitioner to practitioner. The probes have definitely improved...have less error, have a smaller learning curve. It is not the only method of diagnosis that I use. I really use more as a back up when I am not able to get to the bottom of the problem (or the answer). And I have been delightfully happy with the confirmation of my other diagnostic tools. I do not yet have the virtual library as that is another learning curve and expense. I am just using software associated with one particular nutraceutical vendor (about 6 different vendors are available) at $25/month. But as a bonus, the vendor paid for my first year's use of the software ($300 value). They were my biggest supplier before and of course are still my largest supplier. I am anxious to get and use the virtual library...very exciting and seemingly bottomless capabilities and all in due time. I hope that helps. I am not endorsing it. Just sharing my experience. Like I said, patients like it and I am pleased with how consistent it is with my other tools, TCM and otherwise. Meredith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Hi Meredith, Thank you for sharing your experience with this equipment. I have three questions for you: 1) I see you are a naturopath in addition to an acupuncturist. As an acupuncturist, how do you interpret the test results with TCM diagnosis? I didn't see any direct correlation, and this is one of my concerns. 2) Are you using primarily nutritional supplements or also herbal formulas? The company that introduced me to the machine is a nutraceutical company, and this is an arena in which I haven't worked, so I'm unsure about it - it would be a major shift in my practice focus. However, the virtual library would enable me to use the machine with herbal formulas by some of the manufacturers I like my patients to use, and still confirm patient progress. 3) What is EDS/EAV? Thanks again for sharing your experience. If it is more appropriate, I will address future emails to you privately. Blessings, natdoc48 <natdoc48 wrote: Ok, didn't know if I was going to write or not, but here I am. Meredith, CAc, MSOM and ND. I bought the BioMeridian last year. Yes, it is expensive. I didn't pay $10,000. Maybe $6,000. Then training. I bought it because 1)patients love the charts. They love hard copies that give them graphs and chart their progress 2)we studied EDS/EAV in Naturopathic school. At the time (1996) the probes were very subjective. It was hard to replicate results from practitioner to practitioner. The probes have definitely improved...have less error, have a smaller learning curve. It is not the only method of diagnosis that I use. I really use more as a back up when I am not able to get to the bottom of the problem (or the answer). And I have been delightfully happy with the confirmation of my other diagnostic tools. I do not yet have the virtual library as that is another learning curve and expense. I am just using software associated with one particular nutraceutical vendor (about 6 different vendors are available) at $25/month. But as a bonus, the vendor paid for my first year's use of the software ($300 value). They were my biggest supplier before and of course are still my largest supplier. I am anxious to get and use the virtual library...very exciting and seemingly bottomless capabilities and all in due time. I hope that helps. I am not endorsing it. Just sharing my experience. Like I said, patients like it and I am pleased with how consistent it is with my other tools, TCM and otherwise. Meredith Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.