Understanding Nanoamperage

Understanding Nanoamperage Point Values
in Clinical Practice:  The “Performance 2001”

As manufactured for the Quadromed firm by Med-Tronik, Germany,
based on the concept of Dr. Helmut W. Schimmel (M.D., D.M.D.)

Introduction

The revolutionary diagnostic instrument described herein for measuring the patient’s own emitted potentials at the acupuncture points in nanoamperes (billionths of an ampere!), was recently discontinued. However, a compact next generation model offering even further advanced technological improvements has been developed, which will shortly be available in North America [at a considerably lower price]. It will be thoroughly supported in Canada and the U.S.A., and promises to continue revolutionizing the methods known as ‘point testing’ or ‘electro-dermal screening’. Unlike many of the other equipment “dinosaurs” in my collection, I still use the Performance 2001 regularly and find it indispensable in clinical practice.  TR

A non-invasive measurement is taken at an acupuncture point that represents a known meridian and associated organ system in the body. The measurement, in nanoamperes (nA), is recorded. Normal values are between 400 and 800 nA. If the value is lower than 400 that system is lacking the energy to function properly. If the value is higher than 800 that system is either inflamed or infected. After an initial evaluation of all the relevant points and systems, we focus on correcting the lowest reading either with common sense lifestyle modifications or remedies or both. The person being tested then holds a small clear glass bottle of a remedy associated with that system. The point is tested again. If the measured value now returns to normal levels we know that the person’s body can use the frequency of that remedy to correct the problem detected at the acupuncture point. The established effect of the remedy gives a clue as to the cause of the disturbance. This is known as a “medication test”.

The German “Photon Emission Scanner” proves the scientific basis of the medication test. This unit can reproducibly measure the photon emission frequency of any substance, thus also proving that all substances have a characteristic frequency and measurable field. The overlap between the
remedy’s field and the body’s field, as measured in nanoamperes, creates a resonance that is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the body.

“This is a true scientific breakthrough, since such factors as skin moisture and electrode pressure are no longer even a consideration. The revolutionary new foolproof acupuncture point measurement aspect of it is based on reading the body’s own infinitesimally small currents [nanoamperes] at the acupuncture points (similar to ECG and EEG), without inducing a foreign current as is required in doing conventional skin resistance measurements or electro-dermal screening [such as EAV (Voll), Vega, Echo, Enclosion, Computron, etc. TR].

The Performance 2001 now actually puts medication testing on an objective basis. In Europe it is already attracting orthodox physicians, dentists and even university researchers, who previously shied away because of the subjective and poorly reproducible nature of all previous electro-dermal screening methods.”

Dr. Walter D. Sturm, Occidental Institute Research Foundation, Canada

The great clinical value of a system such as this is that the physician can know beforehand, based on physiological, objective, in vivo evidence, what remedy to give the patient. Without a method such as this one is forced to guess, be guided by generalized statistics, or wait for lab results that could take weeks to perform. I would also add that testing with this method has many times revealed to me a serious problem that the patient had neglected to mention. The most valuable clinical asset of the method is that it tells you the patient’s priorities in healing, meaning what to do first and how to do it. Without this clear information you are doomed to the need for figuring out which of the several hundred options for each problem is the correct single one for this patient, at this time. Trial and error could take a long, long time.

The research value of this method is also great. During the formulation of a remedy or the creation of a manufacturing process one can evaluate at each cumulative step of the process the exact synergistic impact of that step on any organ, system or structure in the body. It is done quickly and objectively. One can see side effects and eliminate them before even taking the first test dose. This method looks beyond, and includes, the standard and more generalized laboratory analyses of human function, which are still not as useful as one might like them to be. One can measure the exact reaction of the body’s controlling bioelectric currents to the introduction of a remedy’s field.

Assessment with the Performance 2001

Normal values are between 400 and 800 nA, as established by Dr. Helmut Schimmel. Unfortunately, this unit encountered language priority problems due to the high European demand, so there was not the expected English support on how to use it clinically. Several doctors who acquired one became frustrated with this situation. With the assistance of Dr. Sturm at O.I.R.F., we figured it out on our own. Over the last few years of using the “2001” the following information has been found to be clinically significant.

There are three main categories of readings:

Category 1  All points read below 400 nA. There is degeneration and/or a focal blockage problem, most likely a “Low Battery” effect, blocked regulation or CNS instability.

Category 2  Some points are above and some below normal. Correct the lowest reading as it represents the body’s most urgent need. If possible, find a single remedy that will both correct the lowest and highest reading. The more remedies in the protocol, the more difficult it is to manage the case. Generally, only the remedy corresponding to the patient’s primary need will correct both the lowest and highest reading.

Category 3  All points read above 800 nA. There is an acute state of inflammation, allergy, infection, acidosis, or hyper-arousal.

Significance of Performance 2001 Findings

1. If the patient is in Category 1 or 3, correct the readings to Category 2 first before beginning detox or other therapeutic interventions.
2. Remedy testing in Categories 1 and 3 is not as accurate, but Ingestion Testing is (described below). In these categories there is either not enough energy to respond to and utilize the remedy (1), or the energy is in such a state of chaos that it cannot notice a distinct and different frequency (3). An examination of the obstacles and symptoms may provide a clue to the first step. Usually these categories require ‘deductive’ therapy (withdrawal of an offending substance) or obstacle correction (sometimes as simple as chewing their food well) for a week or so before remedies can be given safely.
3. NDF Plus (Nanocolloidal Detox Factors), Inhaled Ionized Oxygen, cold laser or Bio-Photon therapy, and the BEFE (Biological Electronic Frequency Enhancement) foot bath will generally be of benefit in Category 1.
4. If head trauma or mental dysfunction appear in the history, real time EEG neurofeedback has helped stabilize patients in both Categories 1 and 3.
5. In Category 3 there is usually an acute condition. This of course has to be dealt with first.

When the patient falls into Category 2, I do the remedy testing. If there is metal toxicity, I first attempt to correct all points with NDF or NDF Plus to keep the case as simple as possible. Most of the time it works.

You will notice that working with the Performance 2001 narrows down your remedy selections. With EAV testing, I used to have about 5,000 remedies at hand. The Performance 2001 has helped me distinguish between remedies that had an exclusively energetic effect (that should be prescribed as they are tested, e.g. worn around the neck in a clear glass vial) and those with a physiological effect (i.e. actually do something). This simplification has dramatically improved case outcomes for the positive, as you can well imagine.

The information derived here will represent about 50% of the total picture. This objective approach, and other subjective resonance testing methods, only measure the body’s electrical response to the frequency of the tested substance, not the remedy’s post-ingestion electrochemical effect on the whole body. This gives a good clue, but not a final answer.

Increase in EAV Point Testing Accuracy / Performance 2001 Interface

For the first several years I followed the official seminar guidelines for location, pressure and angle during EAV point testing. Results were about 70 to 80% consistent with other lab findings. I think it was Voltaire who said that if doctors would just leave their patients alone, 70 to 80% of them would get better anyway.

Then I tried to get the patient’s point to test and hold at 50, by changing pressure, angle and to a lesser degree, location. I was giving the point the ‘benefit of the doubt’. If I could not get the point to read normal, I was then convinced that I had a pathological reading. At this point I had to remember the exact location, angle and pressure to repeat the test during medication testing. Using this technique, EAV results improved to about 95% reproducibility.

As fate would have it, just after figuring out how to make EAV testing work this well, along came the Performance 2001 and my electro-dermal screening equipment was relegated to my equipment museum for about two years.

Now I’ve brought it back, to use after the initial Performance 2001 evaluation. A main reason for this is because even though the nanoamperes at a point may be normal, the Performance 2001 cannot tell me the ‘resilience’ of a point – which will show as an Indicator Drop in EAV – although its initial Performance 2001 reading was normal. But, EAV can not tell me if the nanoamperes are in the Low Battery/Focus range. So both is better.

After distinguishing between Category 1 (Low Battery – all points below 400 nA), Category 2 (normal range – most points between 400 to 800 nA), and Category 3 (acute inflammation – all points above 800 nA) with the Performance 2001, if the patient is in Category 2, I find the lowest reading and then switch to EAV to evaluate medications should the point become irritated. When one attempts to take multiple readings with the Performance 2001, the skin will become irritated and the readings will therefore go up and up as the inflammation increases. This is not a major factor with EAV testing. I still like to double check the remedy selection determined by EAV testing with the Performance 2001 after the point has calmed down, or, on the next lowest reading point.

Practical Example:  Point and Ingestion Testing for Heavy Metal and Chemical Detoxification using NDF

NDF (Nanocolloidal Detox Factors) is my remedy of choice for heavy metal and chemical detoxification, because it is an oral dose, and mobilizes safely via the urine. I generally test this remedy first because I find that metal and chemical toxicity both preclude the effectiveness of other therapeutic interventions and can cause the patient to present with a ‘false’ diagnosis (i.e. “MS” and other diseases that mysteriously go away after metal detox).

During testing I have found that if a patient holds an entire half ounce bottle of NDF, it can cause a negative test result (with the Performance 2001) because it represents a massive, intolerable, dose. By putting 1 to 3 drops in several ampules I can determine the exact dose and tolerance by adding ampules until the desired reading is reached. Less is more with nanocolloids. This was learned working with a patient whose points crashed with half an ounce, but all points went to normal when I tested only 5 drops.

After establishing a positive resonance test for NDF, to further confirm dose and tolerance, especially with sensitive patients, you can put a few drops of NDF into a glass of reverse osmosis water and have the patient take a few sips while repeating the point test until the point reading is corrected. Combining the Ingestion Test with point (or muscle) testing gives much more accurate results. For example, they may need (resonate with) the remedy but are not able to use (metabolize) it. If that is the case, I switch to NDF Plus as it contains drainage, support and the electrolyte and enzyme potentiating fulvic acid. However, with Ingestion Testing, you cannot test anything else for about an hour (except in the case of NDF Plus following NDF).

Individualized Remedies:  Potentized and Photonic NDF

If you have a Performance 2001, a MORA, a RITU, or the like, you can potentize NDF with various homeopathics and photonics, most notably Dr. Schimmel’s Resonance Remedies (FM Complexes), and achieve more individualized and remarkable results! NDF absorbs and delivers frequencies like nothing else. Not only does it have sufficient alcohol, chlorella cell wall itself is a known frequency absorber (radiation).

For extremely sensitive patients, I have used the following method prior to ramping the patient up to using regular NDF Plus or NDF:

1. Allow a bottle of NDF Plus (remove the dropper and replace with a solid lid) to sit undisturbed for several days.
2. Take 5 drops off of the top of the liquid (supernatant) and add to 1 ounce of alcohol.
3. Potentize with appropriate drainage remedies.
4. Dosage is same as with complex homeopathics.

This allows you to make spagyric type (NDF Plus is basically a spagyric) individualized detox and drainage combination remedies, with built-in vital force support and nanocolloidal chelation ability. Use either for the Low Battery patient, or as a base to facilitate the effect of nosodes, xenobiotics and other specific detox remedies.

Performance 2001 Technique Troubleshooting Guide

Make sure patients wash their fingertips with an enzyme based and non-oily soap before measurement. If there is any cream, grease or oil on the skin it will produce a false low reading and foul the measurement tip. I’ve had to use 70% alcohol to clean the tip when this happens, but I can likely only do this a total of five times before having to replace the expensive tip.

Pre-moisten the patient’s skin with saline solution. If the skin is too dry, all readings will appear to be below normal. Some patients are so dry that it takes a few seconds for the saline to soak in. These folks are usually dehydrated from not drinking enough water, drinking the wrong kind of water (should be drinking reverse osmosis water) [not distilled!], or drinking too much water at a time (more than 3 ounces). Check electrolyte balance.

Attempting to take multiple readings of the same point will artificially drive the reading up as the skin becomes increasingly irritated. You can take about one to three readings before this happens in most people. When it does, let the point rest for 5 to 10 minutes and come back to it. If it again reads the same as it did on initial testing, you can probably do one or two more test measurements, or switch to EAV testing.

If there is a hangnail near the point location you will get a false high reading. Taking a measurement further up the meridian usually corrects this, but the reading is often still on the high side. I have noticed that hangnails tend to correlate with inflammation in that meridian, but that readings taken directly on the hangnail are misleadingly high (local irritation versus systemic).

In lymphatic and sedentary types, the longer they sit there being tested, the lower the point readings go. They have to stand up every once in a while during testing. This also holds true for them in life … as there is no remedy that replaces physical exercise. Wait for about a minute after they sit back down to resume testing.

People who have had their ‘nails done’ in the last few days generally have very high readings across the board, because the chemicals used in the process are still in the local tissue. You can mix some NDF with clay and apply it as a poultice for twenty minutes to solve the problem.

An exclusive article for Affiliates
From THE BRIDGE Newsletter of OIRF
Published April 3, 2003

Redaction by: Dr. Walter D. Sturm, OIRF

© Copyright 2003, Dr. Timothy Ray, California, USA