CEDS Computer Electro Dermal Screening
bron">http://www.cedsdirectory.org/ Deze tekst blijkt 09/2012 ontoegankelijk.
En 02/2015 blijkt het domein te koop
YOU CAN GET YOUR LIFE AND HEALTH BACK! YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Here is a very brief overall summary of the Computerized Electro Dermal Screenings process:
• This system and processes are non-invasive and biofeedback-based.
• It involves screening for variations in energy resistance using a machine and done by a professionally trained operator or niche specialist
• This ‘resistance’ is measured by the machine and results decoded by a trained professional.
• Technology enables this process, measures and converts the energy resistance response to a number.
• The range of numbers indicates balance and imbalance.
• Both a print-out and explanation are included with each client's report, following their individual screening, with all relevant information.
CEDS betekent de gewone EAV aan een PC gekoppeld, waarmee mooie overzichten worden vertoond die niets zeggen.
Uit huidweerstandsmetingen valt namelijk weinig meer af te leiden dan dat die huid vochtiger of droger is.
Decoderen door een getrainde professional voegt daar niets aan toe.
Ruis is alles wat de meting oplevert en aan ruis valt niets te decoderen.
Remember the Magic Eight Ball toy? You could ask it a question and shake it and a random answer would float up into a window: yes, no, maybe, definitely, etc. There is even a website where you can ask an Eight Ball questions online.
I have been meaning to write about bogus electrodiagnostic machines for a long time. These devices supposedly diagnose diseases and/or energy imbalances, indicate which remedies will correct the problem(s), and sometimes even treat the imbalances by transmitting a balancing frequency to the patient. I knew they were bogus, but I had never really realized the full extent of the deception until I viewed a set of training videos recently sent to me by a correspondent. I had never realized how similar electrodermal testing was to the Magic Eight Ball. I was further amazed at how they managed to combine every kind of alternative medicine into one incoherent package and to bamboozle patients with an appalling display of pseudoscientific babble.
. . . . .
All the non-atopic participants completed all 3 testing sessions (810 individual tests); 774 (95.5%) of the individual tests conducted on the atopic participants complied with the testing protocol. The results of the electrodermal tests did not correlate with those of the skin prick tests. Electrodermal testing could not distinguish between atopic and non-atopic participants. No operator of the Vegatest device was better than any other, and no single participant's atopic status was consistently correctly diagnosed.
Electrodermal testing cannot be used to diagnose environmental allergies.