For this series on What a Naturopath Does, I am working with K6 Wellness in Dallas. My son is being treated free of cost so that you can see how a naturopath works and know what to expect when visiting a naturopath. I am learning a ton and hope you do too!
The first question I get when I talk about taking my son to a naturopath for his food sensitivity issues is: how does the naturopath determine what foods he is sensitive to? The short answer is: with a computer. What kind of computer? Computer systems that do electrodermal screening. At K6 Wellness the IQS and ZYTO systems are used.
You probably remember seeing pictures of my son holding a metal “hot dog” (as he calls it) next to a computer.
There’s a really technical way to explain all of this, but here is how I understand it (a more in-depth explanation can be found on the K6 Wellness web site):
- Every atom has a specific electronic signature or “electronic identity”, the frequency at which it vibrates. The food we eat, the supplements we take, what we put onto and into our bodies in any way — all of these substances have unique electronic identities composed of the frequencies of their individual components.
- Our bodies themselves also have a certain electronic identity when healthy and at rest, which is different from when they are in distress.
- Through contact with the skin (when my son holds the metal “hot dog”), the machine reads the currency of the body. The machine then broadcasts the specific electronic logarithm of an “item” or substance into the body, then again measures the frequency of the body’s reaction to each “item”. Is it neutral or does the body react negatively?
This is how we can determine what things Little Sir’s body has trouble tolerating. As I mentioned in my previous posts, we made an effort to reduce his exposure to the things that caused his body to react negatively for a short period of time while he took a supplement and a specially charged homeopathic remedy to help his body learn to accept these problematic substances. The second time we went back and did electrodermal screening, his body reacted negatively to a much smaller number of items as the homeopathic solutions we had been using were already taking effect.
Does it work?
1) It seems to be working for us. All the issues that we went to the naturopath to resolve either cleared up immediately or are in the process of being alleviated. See my earlier post about how this is not a quick fix, but a process with the end goal of restoring the body to a point where it isn’t reacting negatively to food.
2) At the very least, it isn’t harmful. This methodology doesn’t lead to a barrage of drugs with scary side effects. It isn’t invasive. And for us, even the food avoidance was only temporary, leading to much more food freedom eventually.
3) Naturopathy offers positive and healthful treatments to the problems uncovered. I like that we aren’t going through drug after drug, filling his little body with all kinds of chemicals just to see what has the least amount of side effects or “if it works”, which is what happened to me when I went to a gastroenterologist years ago. I like that the solution isn’t to become attached to a drug for life, but instead to train the body away from the intolerances.
I have Googled “electrodermal testing” and there is one very scientific-looking web site that attempts to discredit the process, but in the end the author has 3 problems with electrodermal testing.
a) The author is a medical doctor and doesn’t like that the treatment leads patients away from commercial medications (which mean big buck$ for the doctor and drug companies). Obviously, if you are dealing with cancer or another potentially serious illness, you should probably see a doctor specializing in your condition. But I am talking about simple food sensitivity or mild intolerances.
b) The author lists the emotional distress of identifying the body’s issues and/or being told to avoid certain things as a “harmful effect”. Would we also say that being told by an oncologist that you have cancer and should stop smoking is a “harmful effect” and therefore a patient should not be given that information due to the emotional distress of being told to stop doing something and receiving bad news? I do not think that being unhappy with what is uncovered in an investigation is a reason not to investigate.
c) The author asks “Where is the evidence?”. I would argue from my personal experience that we do have positive evidence of success from our experience, but remember that the majority of scientific studies are funded by drug companies in support of prescribing more medications for particular ailments. I doubt we’re going to see Merck funding a study on naturopathy.