Tig, try widening your reading. Perhaps even go as far as questioning your own assumptions and look at the overall picture. I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
Research Findings
''Although the claims of applied kinesiology are so far removed from scientific reality that testing them might seem a waste of time, competent researchers have subjected the muscle-testing procedures to several well-designed controlled tests and demonstrated what should be obvious to rational persons. Some have found no difference in muscle response from one substance to another, while others have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos.
Three practitioners testing eleven subjects made significantly different assessments; their diagnoses of nutritional deficiencies did not correspond to the nutrient levels obtain by blood serum analysis; and that the responses to nutrient substances did not significantly differ from responses to placebos [10].
Another study found no effect from administering the nutrients “expected” to strengthen a muscle diagnosed as “weak” by AK practitioners.” [11]
Researchers who conducted an elaborate double-blind trial concluded that “muscle response appeared to be a random phenomenon.” [12]
Another study showed that suggestion can influence the outcome of muscle-testing. During part of this experiment, college students were told that chewing M&M candies would give them instant energy that would probably make them test stronger. Five out of nine did so [13].
Four AK practitioners tested seven patients who were extremely sensitive to wasp venom. Altogether, 140 muscle tests were done to see how the patients responded to preparations of venom or salt water in a bottle. If the test were valid, the venom bottles should result in “strong” reactions and the salt-water bottles should produce “weak” test reactions. However, the practitioners were unable to identify which bottles contained which [14].
Several chiropractors were tested at a medical office while under unblinded and blinded conditions. During the volunteers could resist downward pressure when a drop of glucose was placed on their tongue but could resist when fructose was administered. The arm tests were repeated using substances in coded test tubes so that the volunteer, the chiropractors, and the onlookers could not tell which solution being applied to the volunteer’s tongue. When the code was revealed, There was no connection between ability to resist and whether the volunteer was given the “good” or the “bad” sugar [15].
Some people who undergo AK muscle-testing report that although they resisted as hard as they could, the practitioner was still able to pull down their arm. Differences from one test to another may be due to suggestibility; variations in the amount of force, leverage, or follow-through involved; and/or muscle fatigue. Distraction can also play a role. (Touching another part of the body just before pulling down the arm may cause the patient to focus less on resisting.) But trickery (deliberate or unconscious) may also be a factor. A sudden slight upward movement can cause a “set” muscle to relax so that it can be immediately pulled downward. I have found that when this is done quickly, the person being tested is unlikely to detect the upward motion. Try this on a friend.'' The Bottom Line
The concepts of applied kinesiology do not conform to scientific facts about the causes or treatment of disease. Controlled studies have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos. Differences from one test to another may be due to suggestibility, distraction, variations in the amount of force or leverage involved, and/or muscle fatigue.''
As for your Swiss report on homeopathy:
From the Swiss Medical Weekly;
''In 2011 the Swiss government published a report on homeopathy [1]. The report was commissioned following a 2009 referendum in which the Swiss electorate decided that homeopathy and other alternative therapies should be covered by private medical insurance. Before implementing this decision, the government wished to establish whether homeopathy actually works.
In February 2012 the report was published in English and was immediately proclaimed by proponents of homeopathy to offer conclusive proof that homeopathy is effective.
This paper analyses the report and concludes that it is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed. Specifically, it contains no new evidence and misinterprets studies previously exposed as weak; creates a new standard of evidence designed to make homeopathy appear effective; and attempts to discredit randomized controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence.
Most importantly, almost all the authors have conflicts of interest, despite their claim that none exist. If anything, the report proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs, and its authors appear to have breached Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences principles governing scientific integrity.''
''The fact that individual randomized controlled trials have given positive results is not in contradiction with an overall lack of statistical evidence of efficacy. A small proportion of randomized controlled trials inevitably provide false-positive outcomes due to the play of chance: a statistically significant positive outcome is commonly adjudicated when the probability of it being due to chance rather than a real effect is no more than 5%―a level at which about 1 in 20 tests can be expected to show a positive result in the absence of any therapeutic effect.[57] Furthermore, trials of low methodological quality (i.e. ones that have been inappropriately designed, conducted or reported) are prone to give misleading results. In a systematic review of the methodological quality of randomized trials in three branches of alternative medicine, Linde et al. highlighted major weaknesses in the homeopathy sector, including poor randomization.[58] A separate 2001 systematic review that assessed the quality of clinical trials of homeopathy found that such trials were generally of lower quality than trials of conventional medicine.[59]''
