There are a few things that come to mind, but without more detail I'm not sure which angle to cover.
So I'll start out with the following:
Biofeedback is not a diagnostic tool.
As for consistent results. Well let me re-post this for your reading pleasure and then we can go from there. It was in response to back to back scans and correlation, but will highlight some good points.
The act of scanning also provides a brief treatment of all frequencies.
At the start, you will have a lot of loud pathogens all screaming and vying for the #1 hit.
So at the beginning, when you are doing biofeedback, the list will move around a bit.
Let's say your top 30 hits all rank around the same response, but you are only getting a list of the top 20. That's 10 hits that almost made the list.
When you do your first scan via say contact, the one that ranked at the top is wounded, and even though it took the #1 spot on the result list, now on your second scan ranks just below the new top 20.
However, the top 30 hits are still the same just in a different order. You would get a different view of what made the top 20 hits every time, as 10 hits are so close in response but just fall short of making the list.
After some time, when you get rid of the easy to target but noisy pathogens, the stealthy ones, those that are already very good at evading the immune system, and probably the ones causing the most issues, will rise to the top.
Those will be more stable in your scans and make for a good test case to compare between contact and remote based scans.
The accuracy of such a comparison also depends on how well you mirror other aspects.
Did you do the scans back to back so that the body's profile changed as little as possible outside the fact that scanning also effects the pathogenic load?
Did you wear the sensor in the exact same manner, conduct yourself in the same manner?
It may not compare as well if in one scan you were able to lie still, and on the second scan you were trying your best to tune out noises from the kids getting home from school.
In any event, after some time I conducted the very test and given that the scan is composed of 3800 frequencies, filtered down to 20, and that I had previous scan results to look at, I can state that the two back to back scans (remote then contact) were statistically identical.
The numbers were in some cases only one scan step away from each other. In other cases they were in the same region. No results in other sections of the scan came back in either.
Here's a pic of the results (at bottom):
The first was using a white (BN) remote to send the frequencies. The second time around I used TENS to send the frequencies.
As one would expect, the results were nearly identical. I used the same range as above: 76k to 152k, step size 20, single scan.
7/10/2015 12:15 PM - Started Scan 5 - Finished after 01:05:14 (4002 Count) - White (BN) Remote
7/10/2015 1:57 PM - Started Scan 6 - Finished after 01:07:55 (4002 Count) - TENS
Of note, on prior scans I got results that covered frequencies well past 80k -- but those areas were addressed after applying there results for some time.
If you wish to read more see the following post:
Remember, the body is reporting back what it knows and the body doesn't lie. What it prioritizes may not match what you want to prioritize. Also, there is really no quick method to apply a name to what each frequency hit returned is for. Reverse lookup is interesting and with enough scans, may provide you with a way to identify what real diagnostic test to get, to confirm or deny the presence of an issue.
The best way to use Biofeedback is to let the body guide. Take the results, apply for say a week, then re-scan and repeat.
For more details, please check the link: