| home | how it works | equipment & training  | Testimonials | contact us |            
         
   MRT AND MEDICINE
       
 
 
MRT - The Studies

 
 

Tens of thousands of health professionals, including many medical doctors, use some form of Muscle Response Testing (MRT) in their practice, and based on the results with their own patients, have an unshakable conviction of its legitimacy.

With its increasing popularity, clinical studies have been performed on different forms of MRT.  The results strongly favorable, yet there's always some contention, isn't there?  We've included reviews of both favorable and an unfavorable studies below, along with links to the source documentation.

 

 

In one well-designed favorable clinical study published in the prestigious professional journal Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89 healthy college students were subjected to a battery of tests on congruent (true) and incongruent (false) statements. 

Overall, they consistently demonstrated an 17% increase in muscle strength in true vs. false statements.  Test subjects were kept unaware of what changes in muscle strength, if any, would occur.  They had no preconceived notions of how their muscle strength should respond.

This study is highly significant because the JET Technique for Kinesiology uses the key element of the true/false stimulus in our testing protocols.  These protocols have been refined and perfected at JSI over the last 12 years.

 

 
 

Editor's note: The unfavorable clinical study in the next section is part of an article which appears when you search for "kinesiology" or "muscle testing" on the web.

The article on the web is titled Stay Away from Applied KinesiologyIt's important to look into both sides of this story. For your convenience, we've included the links below.

However, keep in mind the preponderance of evidence points to the truth that kinesiology works, and any interested person can see that, regardless of the controversy of this single letter.

 

 
 
 

In this unfavorable clinical study on Applied Kinesiology, double-blind and placebo elements were applied to ascertain its validity. The value of these controls are well documented - these elements insure a person's mind is not affecting the results.

MRT failed to perform well during these clinical trials. Statistical analysis yielded no significant judgmental reliability between testers, and no consistent correlation of test results with standard biochemical tests for nutrient status.

Double-blind and placebo elements created inconsistencies with test results, with subjects testing incorrectly on placebo elements thought to be nutrients. The conclusion reached based on these clinical trials: Applied Kinesiology was an unreliable methodology.

 

 
 

But wait, there's more to it.  The International College of Applied Kinesiology published a rebuttal letter identifying the faulted muscle testing methods used by the persons performing the testing in this unfavorable clinical study.

In addition, the Ridler points used in the clinical study were not even Applied Kinesiology techniques.  Plus, the three "qualified" kinesiologists used in the study were actually two lay persons and one chiropractor whose education in Applied Kinesiology was not identified.

They also point to several other significant studies establishing both the validity and reliability of their testing methods.  The ICAK has amassed a considerable amount of positive research over the years, and accepts only physicians licensed to diagnose into its curriculum.  Applied Kinesiology and the ICAK are very well established worldwide.

 

 
 

Who to believe?  While the debate may continue for the next 50 years, it may be helpful to keep a balanced perspective.  In today's fast-changing world of commerce, technologies survive only when the consumer continues to receive benefit.  It's a fact.

Millions of people over the past 50 years have experienced MRT. Thousands of health professionals, including medical doctors, utilize it in their practices. Its validity may be able to rest on these solid statistics instead. 

In a final analysis on the validity of MRT, a little common sense might come in handy. If one person says it works, they may have an overactive imagination. If 100 say it, you can get 100 people to do anything. But if millions of people worldwide over the last 50 years have used MRT, then maybe it’s time you looked at it.

 

 
What really matters is your personal experience of MRT.  Most people want to know the truth about what's good for them - and what's not.  When you consistently experience the same test result with the same substance 10 days in a row, you will know there's something to it.  In the final analysis, isn't your opinion what really counts?
 

   
 
 
 

JET Technique for Kinesiologysm

JSI Institute of Michigan

306 Fitzner Dr
Davison MI USA 48423



phone
US/Canada (800) 381-8039
Outside: +1 (989) 345-8030

 

skype
jsi_institute

 

hours
Monday - Friday

hours where I live

12 noon - 9:00 pm Eastern

 

fax
+1 (949) 682-4838

 

email

click here


      
 
           
    | home | how it works | equipment & training  | testimonials | contact us |      

Copyright 1996-2008 JSI Institute - JET Kinesiology - All Rights Reserved
The JET Technique for Kinesiology is a self-help method that quite often produces marvelous results and wonderful benefits. Nevertheless, you, the student, must take 100% responsibility for your own decisions. JET Kinesiology should not be misconstrued or used to diagnose the presence or absence of any particular mental, physical or emotional ailment. Neither muscle testing nor these techniques should be used to diagnose, mitigate, treat or cure the presence or absence of any disease or condition. This methodology is not intended to be a substitute for the services of any health care professional. No agent of the JSI Institute is responsible for any consequences incurred by those employing the techniques discussed or taught. Any application of the material set forth in any of the courses is at the student’s discretion and is his or her sole responsibillity. This information has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.