In today's dominant "traditional" medical paradigm, where all too often a well meaning health professional's formal education can become their most influential limitation, the exploration of new health possibilities becomes essential to making a difference in the quality of people's lives.

There was a time when the first airplane, the first woman doctor and landing on the moon were considered impossibilities by leading experts of the day. What was considered yesterday's impossibility is often taken for granted today.

A few of you may be relentlessly searching for "something" because you have been so ill and frustrated for so long, you now feel desperate. Many of you may find the following information unbelievable, and understandably, will reject it.

With that in mind, we invite your patience in learning about something so completely different, you will not find anything else to compare it to.

We propose the following:

  1. The body as we know it began as a single cell.
  2. That single cell knew how to create an entire body.
  3. The body’s organs including the brain developed simultaneously in all directions.
  4. The body is a product of nature and knows what it is doing.
  5. The body does not ignore anything.
  6. The natural state of the body is health.
  7. The body does not know how to be sick or diseased.
  8. Interference to the body’s natural state causes all “disease”.
  9. That interference consists primarily of anything that is not natural or not produced by nature.

The forms of interference are manifested in three basic areas:

  1. Fallacious thoughts.
  2. Fallacious words.
  3. Fallacious deeds.

Definition: in•ter•fer•ence noun.

  1. involvement in something without any invitation or justification.
  2. hindrance or obstruction that prevents a natural or desired outcome.

Definition: fal•la•cious adjective.

  1. containing or involving a mistaken belief or idea.
  2. deceptive or liable to mislead people.

Fallacious thoughts consist of thinking in error. That is, thinking in a way that does not produce healthy results. Fallacious thoughts produce a weakness in the muscles of the body that can actually be measured against thoughts that produce strength in the same muscles.

Fallacious words consist of speaking in error. That is, using words in such a way that does not produce healthy results. Just as with thinking in error, there are words and phrases that produce weakness in the muscles of the body, as well as words and phrases that produce strength in the same muscles.

Fallacious deeds consist of actions that, as with similar thoughts and words, typically do not produce healthy results. This may consist of putting our body or a childs body into unhealthy circumstances or environments that may be harmful, and can include what we breath or ingest into the body. Some Examples of this are:

  1. Any food as produced by nature that has been modified from its natural state.
  2. Any substance including genetically modified biological organisms or food substitutes produced by human means. This also includes all chemicals produced by human means.

back to top

An example of the result of using fallacious thoughts and words are belief systems. Usually defined as sets of beliefs that form a unified system such as those in politics or religions. Belief systems are usually transparent but their results are usually not. They most frequently form what most of us think of as our personal reality.

Contrary to our experience of something, beliefs are usually defined as acceptance in our mind that something is true or real, or a confidence that something or someone is effective or will be good for us. An example would be to believe you know what something tastes like without having the experience of what it tastes like. In a way, it’s your minds substitution of the menu for the meal. Logically we know the difference in this example, but seldom do we become aware in life that we have substituted and continue to substitute the menu for the meal in many areas of our life. One is the area of health.

The Placebo Effect is an example of how powerful thoughts can be. Defined as a sense of benefit felt by a patient that arises solely from the idea that a treatment for a health problem has been given to them, the resulting changes in body chemistry and physiology have to be taken into account in any clinically controlled drug testing program. So influential are the thoughts, that frequently the Placebo Effect produces results that exceed those hopefully expected by the use of the drug being tested.

This leads us to perhaps the most important question, how does one discern whether a thought, word or deed is false? And what do we mean by false?

To discover, perhaps for the first time, that your body has the ability to discern true from false, beneficial from harmful, we invite you to continue reading.

How to determine the truth about anything

The purpose of the following information is to support your ability to become more autonomous by developing another resource available to you for making decisions, as compared to relying on your trust alone of another persons well intentioned advice.

Of all the information you have been dealing with, there has always been at least one challenge ever present in you quest to be healthy. Regardless of whom you have received information from, or what you may have thought, it may always have been suspect in your personal experience that it may not be the truth.

How do you know what you are being told or what you are reading is true? It has been shown that the human mind cannot decern the truth from falsehood. Essentlally, the human mind can only generate thoughts and then comment on them.

The following information will guide you to be able to make that distinction for yourself under all circumstances, at any time.... and it begins with your body's innate ability to distinguish the truth from any falsehood.

Astonishing as it seems, in over 20 years of research, it has been proven that any falsehood of any kind, be it by thought, word, deed or even a substance or object, is detectable by the body. Falsehood (the lack of truth) makes the body weaker and truth makes the body stronger. This is primarily detected in the muscles of the body and their response to what we refer to as negative or positive stimulus. The muscles of the body respond by becoming stronger in the presence of truth and the same muscles become weaker in the absence of truth. And it doesn't matter what the subject or object is. Truth has a natural and perfect energetic quality. It forms the background of reality. The Universe runs on it, so to speak. Anything that is a substitute for it is a weaker form of energy. Historically, we can see that the truth eventually prevails, while falsehood always eventually fails. Nature operates truthfully and eventually every unnatural human imposition upon the Earth disappears, without a trace.

Presently, in almost any circumstance of human endeavor what we define or think of as the truth is really the substitution of truth by some form of agreement, not the actual truth by existence. Most of the time people agree analytically what is true or not and rarely is it based on their actual experience of what is true or not.... and the body knows the difference.

back to top

The following is excerpted from the book Power vs Force by David R. Hawkins M.D, PhD., with kind permission from the publisher, Hay House, Inc. Lifestar's use of this information does not represent an endorsement of any kind of any part of this web site either by Dr. David R. Hawkins, or from Hay House, Inc.

kinesiology: ---n. The study of muscles and their movements, esp. as applied to physical conditioning. [Greek Kinesis, movement (kinein, to move) plus -logy.]

The study of kinesiology first received scientific attention in the second half of the last century though the work of Dr. George Goodheart, who pioneered the specialty he called applied kinesiology after finding that benign physical stimuli -- for instance, beneficial nutritional supplements -- would increase the strength of certain indicator muscles, whereas hostile stimuli would cause those muscles to suddenly weaken. The implication was that at a level far below conceptual consciousness, the body "knew" and through muscle testing was able to signal, what was good and bad for it. The classic example, cited later in this work, is a universally observed weakening of indicator muscles in the presence of a chemical sweetener; the same muscles strengthen in the presence of a healthy and natural supplement.

In the late '70s, Dr. John Diamond refined this speciality into a new discipline he called behavioral kinesiology. Dr. Diamond's startling discovery was that indicator muscles would strengthen or weaken in the presence of positive or negative emotional and intellectual stimuli, as well as physical stimuli.(2) A smile will make you test strong, while the statement, "I hate you" will make you test weak.

Before we go any further, let us explain in detail exactly how one "tests", especially as readers will certainly wish to try this themselves. Here is Dr. Diamond's outline, from his 1979 book, Your Body Doesn't Lie,(3) of the procedure adapted by him from the classic description in H. O. Kendall's Muscles: Testing and Function (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2nd ed., 1971)

It takes two people to perform a kinesiological test. Choose a friend or a family member for testing. We'll call him or her your subject.

  1. Have the subject stand erect, right arm relaxed at his side, left arm held out parallel to the floor, elbow straight. (You may use the other arm if you wish.)
  2. Face your subject and place your left hand on his right shoulder to steady him. Then place your right hand on the subject's extended left arm just above the wrist.
  3. Tell the subject to resist when you try to push his arm down.
  4. Now push down on his arm fairly quickly, firmly, and evenly.. The idea is to push just hard enough to test the spring and bounce in the arm, not so hard that the muscle becomes fatigued. It is not a question of who is stronger, but of whether the muscle can "lock" the shoulder joint against the push.

Assuming there is no physical problem with the muscle and the subject is in a normal, relaxed state of mind, receiving no extraneous stimuli (for this reason it's important that the tester not smile or otherwise interact with the subject), the muscle will "test strong" -- the arm will remain locked. If the test is repeated in the presence of a negative stimulus (for instance, artificial sweetener), "although you are push8ing down no harder than before, the muscle will not be able to resist the pressure and the subject's arm will fall to his side. "(4)

A striking aspect of Diamond's research was the uniformity of response among his subjects. Diamond's results were predictable, repeatable, and universal. This was so, even where no rational link existed between stimulus and response. For totally undetermined reasons, certain abstract symbols caused all subjects to test weak; others the opposite.

Some results were perplexing: Certain pictures, with no overtly positive or negative content would cause all subjects to test weak, whole other "neutral" pictures caused all subjects to test strong. And some results were food for considerable surmise: Whereas virtually all classical music and most pop music (including "classic" rock and roll) caused a universally strong response, the "hard" or "metal" rock that first gained acceptance in the late '70s produces a universally weak response.

There was one other phenomenon that Diamond noted in passing, although he devoted no deeper analysis to its extraordinary implications. Subjects listening to tapes of known deceits -- even though the speakers seemed to be telling the truth and sounded convincing -- tested weak. While listening to recordings of demonstrable, true statements, they universally tested strong.(5) This was the starting point of the work of the author of this volume, the well known psychiatrist and physician, David R. Hawkins. In 1975, Dr. Hawkins began research on the kinesiological response to truth and falsehood.

back to top

It had been established that test subjects didn't need any conscious acquaintance with the substance (or issue) being tested. In double-blind studies -- and in mass demonstrations involving entire lecture audiences -- subjects universally tested weak in response to unmarked envelopes containing artificial sweetener, and strong to identical placebo envelopes. The same naive response appeared in testing intellectual values.

What seemed to be at work is a form of communal consciousness, spiritus mundi, or as Hawkins calls it, following Jung, a "database of consciousness." The phenomenon seen so commonly in other social animals -- whereby a fish swimming at one edge of a school will turn instantaneously when its fellows a quarter mile away flee a predator -- also pertains in some subconscious way to our species. There are simply too many documented instances of individuals having intimate acquaintance with information experienced firsthand by remote strangers for us to deny that there are forms of shared knowledge other than those achieved by rational consciousness. Or perhaps, more simply, the same spark of inner subrational wisdom that can discriminate healthy from unhealthy can discriminate true from false.

One highly suggestive element of this phenomenon is the binary nature of the response. Hawkins found that questions must be phrased so that the answer is very clearly yes or no, like a nerve synapse that's on or off; like the most basic cellular forms of "knowledge"; like so much of what our cutting-edge physicists tell us in the essential nature of universal energy. It the human brain, at some primal level, a wondrous computer linked with a universal energy field that knows far more than it knows it knows?

Be that as it may. As Dr. Hawkin's research continued, his most fertile discovery was a means of calibrating a scale of relative truth by which intellectual positions, statements, or ideologies could be rated on a range of 1 to 1,000. One can ask, "This item (book, philosophy, teacher) calibrates at 200 (yes/no?): at 250 (yes/no?)," and so on, until the point of common weak response determines the calibration. The enormous implication of these calibrations was that for the first time in human history, ideological validity could be appraised as an innate quality in any subject.

Through 20 years of similar calibrations, Hawkins was able to analyze the full spectrum of the levels of human consciousness, developing a fascinating map of the geography of man's experience. This "anatomy of consciousness" produces a profile of the entire human condition, allowing a comprehensive analysis of the emotional and spiritual development of individuals, societies, and the race in general. So profound and far-reaching a view provides not only a new understanding of man's journey in the universe, but also a guide to all of us as to where we and our neighbors are on the ladder of spiritual enlightenment, and on our own personal journeys to become who we could be.

In this volume, Dr. Hawkins brings these fruits of decades of research and insight into the penetrating illumination of revolutionary discoveries in advanced particle physics and nonlinear dynamics. For the first time in our Western intellectual record, he shows that the cold light of science is confirming what mystics and saints have always said about the self, God, and the very nature of reality. This vision of being, essence, and divinity presents a picture of man's relation to the universe that is unique in its capacity to satisfy both soul and reason. There is a rich intellectual and spiritual harvest here.... much that you can take, and much more than you can give yourself.

Turn the page. The future starts now.

E. Whalen, Editor, Bard Press, Arizona, 1995.

  1. (3) See Diamond, 1979
  2. (4) See Kendall, 1971
  3. (5) Diamond, op.cit.
back to top

Details of Kinesiologic Testing.

Scientific validity depends upon replicability. To ensure reliable duplication of results, the kinesiologic testing techniques used for all of the research cited in this book [Power vs Force] is described in detail below. It's essentially the same method developed by Dr. John Diamond in his pioneering work, Behavioral Kinesiology.

Step 1

Two people are required (see note). To determine the suitability of a test subject, the tester presses down quickly with two fingers on the wrist of the horizontally extended arm of the subject, simultaneously telling them to "resist" (against the downward pressure). A normal subject is able to resist the pressure and keep their arm extended parallel to the ground.

Occasionally, there are people who are unable to keep their arm extended when any downward pressure is applied due to previous contact with weakening energy fields or negative health conditions; these aren't suitable test subjects. Some of these subjects can recover by thumping themselves over the Thymus gland (at the top of the breastbone) in a "one-two-three" rhythm, while they smile and think of someone they love. They'll then "go strong" and respond normally, but the "fix" may last for only four hours and this "thymus thump" will then have to be repeated.

(Note: Some people are able to get good results just by themselves by making an "O" ring with their thumb and forefinger. When the results are "true," the "O" is strong and it's difficult to pull the thumb and forefinger apart; a "no" makes them relatively weak and easy to separate. If an important decision is to be made, it's best to verify the answer by the 2-person method described above.)

Step 2

Keep the testing situation impersonal -- refrain from smiling or making personal comments; keep the environment free of noise, background music, or distractions such as pets, or intrusive children. Remove metal objects, such as eyeglass frames, from the test subject's body midline. Also remove watches or jewelry (including necklaces). Be aware that aberrant stimuli, such as a tester's perfume or aftershave lotion, may affect the test results. To improve concentration, have the test subject close their eyes.

Step 3

If subjects repeatedly go weak, evaluate the examiner's voice. The voice that makes others go weak disqualifies its owner as a tester under ordinary conditions.

Step 4

Do a trial run with the prospective subject. Ask the candidate to think of someone they love, then press down with two fingers on the wrist of the arm extended out to the side, parallel to the ground. A normal subject will go quite strong and be able to resist firmly. Next, have the party think of someone they hate, fear, or have resentment toward. ( Aldolf Hitler will alternative work) A normal subject will go very weak and be unable to resist downward pressure on their wrist. Run through a few more contrasting pairs of stimuli to establish consistency or response and to develop a rapport between tester and subject. Some sample ideological, visual, and auditory stimuli with predictable responses are:

Test Weak ------------------------Test Strong


Swastika..........................American Flag

Joseph Stalin...................Mahatma Gandhi

Gangster rap music..........Classical Music

back to top

Step 5

After establishing that the test subject reacts reliably and is in a normal state, proceed with the topic under investigation by making declarative statements. Questions should always be posed as a declaration of fact; it's useless to ask questions about the future, as the test results will have no reliability. Always preface the investigation with the statement,

"I have permission to make inquiry into _____________________ (the specific topic)." (yes/no?)

The line of questioning itself can be checked by stating, "This is the correct form for the question." (yes/no?)

The statement -- such as "The accused committed the burglary." (yes/no?) -- may be made by either the questioner or the test subject.

Each time a question is stated, the test subject is told to resist and the tester presses down quickly with two fingers on the test subject's extended wrist.

In our research, we frequently used teams of test subjects. For example, 20, 30 or up to 1,000 people were divided into two-person teams who took turns as tester and test subject. The entire group was asked the same question at the same time, or was divided into subgroups for independent research projects. In a group of 100 people (50 two-person teams), perhaps one or two will have difficulty obtaining the same results as the others. They can be taken aside to the "thymus thump" [described in Step 1], which will return their responses to normal, and they can then rejoin the group.

Using the above method, test results are 100 percent replicable over the course of time so that any group of people anywhere will always produce the same results; for example, the image of Adolph Hitler will make everybody go weak, even if they've never heard of him or think that he's a great national hero.

Step 6

The test can also be performed by holding test objects next to solar plexus of the test subjects. They'll be found to go weak in response to artificial sweetener, pesticides, or even a picture of Hitler concealed in a manila envelope. They'll go strong in response to nutritious food, beneficial medicines and nutrients, a concealed picture of Abraham Lincoln, and so on.

Step 7

Test results can be verified to be independent of the test subject's knowledge, opinions, belief systems, or attitudes. For example, an image of Nelson Mandela will make all test subjects to strong, even racists who resent him. The music of Bach makes everyone go strong, even if they don't like it, just as heavy metal music makes all subjects go weak, even if they personally prefer it.

This confirmability of results by thousands of clinicians using kinesiology in their everyday clinical practices or for research. The results, in fact, are more consistent than conventional diagnostic methods used in traditional medicine (that is, a weak heart never tests strong with kinesiology, but may give an erroneous normal EKG tracing -- this is a well known fact).

back to top

The information on this site is subject to change without notice. Copyright 2009-2017 Lifestar®. All rights reserved