The billion dollar question:
Why isn't this popular and approved by the medical system
if it works as good as you say it does? Two reasons: 1. The medical
system, which is headed by the FDA which is run by people with
financial interests in the drug companies, would lose billions if these
products were put to good use amongst the populace. 2. The medical
system would lose credibility since they denounced electromedicine with
the Flexnor Report back in 1910 and have been actively against their
sale ever since. They would have to accept "egg on the face" which
isn't going to happen.
Besides, since when has the popular "thing" been the right "thing"? It's so much the opposite way in this world that you can pretty much gauge what is wrong by what is popular. Forces that spin the popularity wheel are things like power, greed, ego, wanting to fit in (sheep mentality). Look at some things that are popular: carbonated and alcoholic beverages which are full of sugar and chemicals and do nothing for your health, high heeled shoes which throw the natural spinal curvature out of whack, gas powered cars which are polluting everything, taking antibiotics instead of increasing your immunity, watching television which robs you of productive time such as healthily relating to your family members or improving your mind or body. The world at large is so bent on wrongness that it always takes a long time before the right thing is finally accepted. Take for example the fact that it took centuries before it was accepted that the world is round and not flat, and it took like 60 years before ship captains finally accepted and allowed the storage of acidic fruits on their ships which prevented scurvy (which is a vitamin C deficiency disease) in the sailors. Now pretty much everyone agrees that the Vietnam war was a great loss of time/energy/lives/dollars whereas it wasn't so 20 or more years ago.
I have heard many times from clients that the product performed a near miracle for them and then when they tried to share the good news with their neighbors or family that they were looked at like they just stepped off of an alien spacecraft. People usually don't have the mindset to be open to new things. The lower unenlightened nature of man is stubborn and stuck in the mud and not wanting to progress. Most of my clients are fairly open minded enlightened people that deserve to have a miracle due to their breaking away from the dead-heads of society.
But skepticism does have its rightful place as long as it doesn't make you too fearful to try something new. A true skeptic is someone who will restrain from stating an opinion until after he has an experience upon which to base his conclusion. I am a skeptic. I had read about Beck technology and heard success stories but refrained my tongue until after I had tried it myself. And I am so glad I did try it. Cleaning out my bloodstream and lymph of microbes is the best thing I ever did for my health. Now I practice motocross which is a young mans sport and no one believes me when I tell them I'm 10 years older than they thought I was.
So the final question remains; Are you a fearful skeptic or a progressive skeptic? I hope the latter because each mans personal progression helps add progressive force to society as a whole to help others make the decision to progress.
How many times have you heard "alternatives are 'unproven, untested.' They haven't been double-blind studied." You've heard that statement often, right? Hold onto your hats, because I want to throw that boomerang back. The truth is that those in authority, without exception, who say that about "alternatives" are the true scam artists intent on deceiving, with intent to damage, the public. Period. It is a criminal, fraudulent act to make such a statement.
Why? For two reasons: (1) Double-blind studies are only one of about 43 different types of ACCEPTED forms of scientific studies, and it IS NOT the type of study that would be used to determine the effectiveness of a "therapy" either conventional or alternative. It is used for the testing of the safety and effectiveness of dangerous drugs. (2) Scientists, involved in the scientific process, are part of the "testing and proving process." The "scientific method" IS the proving process. Scientists "prove" and "test" their subject carefully, using the "scientific method" as they work each and every day.