Science-Based Evidence for Muscle Testing as a Diagnostic Tool
A Brief Web Review of Contact Reflex Analysis®
As a practitioner of Integrative Assessment TechniqueTM, which has its origins in CRA®, or Contact Reflex Analysis®, I think it is important to briefly review the information on the web of this discipline. After all, if IAT has its origins in CRA®, and CRA® is proven to be a valid method of testing nutritional reflexes, then the inference should be positive for IAT as well.
As of the writing of this article, a google search currently returns 624,000 separate entries for the search terms "Contact Reflex Analysis". Interestingly, the top four search returns contain two sites that support the discipline, and two sites that lionize it. So, the technique is certainly controversial, if nothing else. While it is certainly unrealistic for any single person to review all of the web literature, we should at least examine the first two.
Contact Reflex Analysis and Quackwatch.com
One might think that Dr. Versendaal - the creator of CRA - might have done a better job of search engine optimization, as his sight - crawellness.com - is not even the first site to come up. The first site to come up is in fact quackwatch.com, which features an article by the site's creator, Stephen Barrett, MD. Dr. Barrett's article pretty decisively refutes CRA as a reliable method of assessing anything, other than perhaps how much money one dishonest doctor can squeeze from unsuspecting patients.
Stephen Barrett, MD, Creator of Quackwatch.com
Dr. Barrett has a very strong biography on his website, and I was impressed by his body of work. Furthermore, I thought, initially, that he had a genuine belief in what he says. I mentioned him because I wanted to present both sides of the argument, but he doesn't support my case, so I researched him further.
Wikipedia provides some very interesting information about Dr. Barrett. According to wikipedia, Barrett, although an MD (because he is a psychiatrist), "...does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be ‘way outside [his] scope.'[15][24]"
Page: << Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next >>
