Letter in response to “Applied Kinesiology — what is it?”

Letter to the editor concerning the article:

Applied Kinesiology – was ist das?

Dr. H. Garten, alongside W. Gerz, unquestionably deserves credit as one of the first German AK diplomates to spread the classical method of Applied Kinesiology among medical practitioners in Germany.

However, their claim to be the sole representatives teaching the only correct type of kinesiology,

despite their tireless criticism, is probably not only outdated—it recalls the old battle between electroacupuncture according to Voll (EAV) and bioelectronic functional diagnostics (BFD) thirty years ago—but, in a new era, even inappropriate, if not uncollegial towards

physicians and dentists who seriously practise other methods of kinesiology.

I myself have practised kinesiology since 1982, when the first course in dental

kinesiology according to G. Eversaul, based on AK, took place in Hamburg, and have taught it since approximately 1983, specifically as physioenergetics (PE), or holistic kinesiology. This likewise performs Goodheart's AK muscle test, but its principal testing criterion is V. Assche's arm-length reflex (AR).

From PE, with its more general-medical and osteopathic orientation, I developed dental PE (ZPE), and likewise train only medically educated people in this discipline, just as do the PE Teaching Institute in Sindelfingen and the PE Working Group in Vienna. The first edition of my book Ganzheitliche Zahnheilkunde, including the above subject among others, appeared as early as 1985; the fourth edition appeared in 1997.

There can therefore be no question, as H. Garten claims, that only the classical

form of AK “alone offers the full spectrum of therapeutic possibilities” (quotation).

Regarding the “improved AK diagnosis of intraoral interference fields” (quotation), the following should be said: I am pleased that H. Garten has developed “a substantial improvement in the sensitivity of the test” (quotation) “compared with previous testing using therapy localisation (TL, diagnostic touching) of the tooth with the patient's finger and nosode challenge” (quotation). Yet he later qualifies this himself insofar as he again uses and describes precisely these two elements, TL and nosode challenge.

For the same purpose I developed the “odontogenic challenge” (EHK 5/00,

pp. 317–328); in this respect too, the claim to exclusive representation is unjustified.

If one takes account of the findings of acupuncture-point biophoton research (ABF) (Omura, V. Benschoten), the “jaw measurement point Lymph Vessel 2 of EAV” (quotation) mentioned by H. Garten is more than questionable for any form of kinesiological testing, especially when evaluated according to AK criteria. According to these findings, it has this meaning only when measured using electroacupuncture devices operating with externally supplied current above 180 mV. If it is measured with the muscle test or bidigital O-ring test (Omura) according to ABF, it is found to belong to the classical lung acupuncture meridian located there, whereas the lymphatic activity of the teeth is represented at the acupuncture point “Large Intestine 5.”

Holding medications in the hand to identify a jaw problem is also questionable according to ABF and ZPE findings. There, medication testing (resonance testing) is now performed without contact through an acrylic-glass honeycomb with an acrylic-glass tube directed towards the patient at a distance of approximately 30–45 cm (resonance test set according to Rossaint, based on ABF findings).

All things considered, I can only encourage those responsible for AK finally to allow their repeated attacks on other schools of kinesiology—even over the internet—

to give way to fruitful dialogue, for the benefit of patients and medicine as a whole.