I used to compare resulting scans to ave BPM. For example if I grade EBV and if none of the results are over my ave BPM, then I do not have EBV in my body. How do I know then if I have or do not have a specific pathogen with 0 ave BPM in Grade Scan?

Grade scanning is best used when you feed it a lot of information to reduce it in size.

For instance if you have 500 frequencies from 25 frequency programs which you want to run, for which 500 frequencies is too much. Grade it and take the top 20-80 frequencies.

It can not be used to diagnose.

The one who had a good experience with grading everything and used this to support the methods shared, would have gotten the same results had he simply ran the sets as they were.

In fact there is a chance that the efficacy rates could have been better.

In my opinion he got lucky that he ran them long enough.

I'm not trying to be brutal here, nor am I trying to be to technical.

I'm trying to help everyone realize how to use the tools to the best that they can be used, and to demystify false premises.

I don't sell fairy tells and I don't take a single isolated event and spread it as truth. I won't build false hope.

I am very methodical and analytical. I have to be in my profession of choice, so I get a lot of practice analyzing complex systems and technology. I'm also very good at identifying patterns.

The presets you find that are published in my name were not just assembled on theory alone. By the time they are published, they have been field tested enough to know that they have value.

I am not a white paper architect as my profession likes to call them. I am an applied architect, still happy to get dirty doing the work to prove and back the theory.

I hate stating something from something I read alone. I have to go out and test it and verify with my own eyes that it does in fact actually behave the way I state.

With that said, I'm very careful to qualify my statements, and if I'm not 100% sure on the spot, I will pause and reconfirm. If I am not able to re-confirm, then I will state as such the uncertainty factor of my statement.

Now that I feel less humble... the reason I state this is that I also respect free will, but will counter any detail or advise that can lead another to either harm or failure.

Where is the harm in using grade scanning?

The harm is when users think they can use it to diagnose and use the tool on the false premise that they either have an issue, or stop using it on the false premise that they no longer have an issue.

The harm is when they run a full biofeedback scan and get the very frequencies they need, but then use it to do a reverse lookup, find sets in the database, and then grade them into a half hearted set of frequencies that will not address what the full scan originally indicated to use -- essentially wasting their time.

The harm is when a user spends more time trying to grade scan sets that may or may not apply than just realizing a full biofeedback scan takes less time and is more applicable.

You no longer have a data point that you used to do analysis. I can't fix that for you. However, trust me in that how you were using it is flawed.

For more details,please check:

Have more questions? Submit a request


Please sign in to leave a comment.