The Balancing Center does not perform double-blind cross-over controlled studies with placebos, single-nutrient deprivation, or animal experiments. However, we have come across a few useful nutritional discoveries that we have verified on an individual basis, in our clinical practice. We have designed the Meridianlink Conference Circle as an interactive forum to explore this information. Every now and then we will present a different article describing something we have observed that may be of interest to nutritional counselors, supplement suppliers, and researchers in the field of nutritional biochemistry.

• #1 Rubidium
• #2 Fluoride
• #3 Autoimmune Disease: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
• #4 Shifting Sands of Time: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
• #5 Allergies: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
• #6 Menopause
• #7 Osteoporosis
• #8 Breast Cancer
• #9 Cholesterol
• #10 Pancreatic Stress
• #11 Mycoplasma
• Tell us what you think! We'll post your comments through our e-mail forum.

About the Meridianlink Conference Circle

This is a series of articles that I have written, to describe some of the discoveries and clinical observations we have made at the Bioenergy Balancing Center.When I first started this, we had a message board for people to write in and talk about the articles, in an interactive Open Forum.

Instead of the Open Forum, I am inviting you, the reader, to tell us what you think by e-mail, meridianlink@earthlink.net. I will post your remarks at the end of the article you commented upon, and then I will answer you. If other readers want to answer you too, they can e-mail me, and I'll post their replies in sequence. This will give an interactive arena for people to share, without the spam that our open forum message board used to receive.

The information presented in these articles has been clinically verified, but it should be known that it has not been subjected to the rigors of physical scientific testing. Our form of inquiry is vibrational rather than physical, and although a change in the etheric field is usually translated into physical change, our approach is clearly not accepted in mainstream circles as the way to establish "truth." Truth is tricky. Often it is in the eye of the person doing the studies, and at times it is in the eye of the company who funds the studies.

Our reference for validating our discoveries is our client's personal account of health effects. We are also guided by their observation of changes in their ability to make more conscious choices, to use better skills for effective conflict resolution, and to feel more relaxed and at peace within themselves.

Anecdotal information, ridiculed and dismissed by medical researchers, for us is the most useful resource. When the client says what happened, that is true for that person. It may be true for many. As the individual evidence accumulates we begin to make correlations, and this gives us something more to work with when other clients come in with similar challenges. Personal experiences describing health changes give us essential information, in our arena of individual inquiry.

Not to dismiss the more acceptable sources, we like hearing about the statistics and averages and percentages of this and that. This information is useful, since statistical information gives us additional possibilities to work with when we are sleuthing out a biochemical process, and figuring out how to best facilitate metabolic self-correction.

Clinical experience is one of the most valuble resources that the medical people draw upon. It is ironical that in spite of their preference for prestigious double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over statistical studies, "clinical experience" is really just accumulated anecdotal evidence. Information about what works, and what doesn't work, is gathered from clinical experience for everyone who works with clients and patients in the health field. When we find that specific results repeatedly correlate with our remedies, then we assume that what we suggested was valid. However, for us, these options must still be tested with each client. Well-established solutions that we have come to depend upon don't always work every time, for every person. One size fits only the one it fits.

One of my favorite teachers said that if you are never surprised, you're probably doing it wrong! (i.e. self-validating) As we work, we continually re-focus ourselves, to maintain our objectivity. With vibrational testing, which is by nature subjective, it is all too easy to validate one's own theories, and to slightly fudge the testing (without realizing it) to confirm predetermined expectations. This work requires impeccable clarity, and the intention to be open to unexpected answers. It has to be OK to be wrong about what we assumed the client's biofield response was going to be, or was "supposed" to be. Every surprise offers the opportunity to expand our knowledge.

Many people who come to us are also engaged in other forms of therapy, and receiving vibrational as well as physical input from a variety of sources. We can validate the efficacy of any of these modalities by muscle testing, and in this way we find out whether our specific input was significant, marginal, or ineffective. Perhaps what we did was synergistic, or perhaps in conflict with something else they are also doing. We assume that all of this is useful data. It gives us a chance to learn something interesting that we hadn't expected.

The intention in writing these articles is to provide our readers with a fresh look at a few health issues. Some of this has been discovered here, and is not known beyond the practitioners and client-outreach of the Balancing Center. We hope that our articles will introduce empowering possibilities for people seeking assistance, and give practitioners in related fields a few more ideas to weave into the work they are already doing.