By Dr. Glaros
We use materials that are free of metals and are most inclined to use testing of a highly skilled practitioner of EAV. The testing doctor does not know what material is being tested, nor is attention given during the test to the results of the material being tested. These conditions assist in minimizing the bias possible in EAV testing.
The perfect dental material for each individual is the enamel and dentin with which we were born and which we grew the first 12 or 13 years of our lives. Unfortunately, the ravages of heredity, nutrition and life have taken their toll and are still doing the same.
Our goal is to work with each patient/client to determine which restorative material will function best while providing the least burden. Because of each individual’s unique physical, energetic and chemical footprint, there is no single material that is ideal for everyone. That leaves the challenge of determining which material will be best for each role as a substitute for our God-given material.
The first material testing technique, which we used in the early 80s, was Applied Kinesiology, also called “muscle testing.” For those who believed in the technique and the skilled practitioner who used it, this technique was quite satisfactory. Duplication of results was not 100%, but that was true of other techniques, too. Detractors would say – then and now – that the technique is too operator sensitive, that there is too much room for subjectivity. Granted, but remember the goal is to find the material that appears to be the least burden. The very sophisticated Omura O-ring Test would be included in this category.
In the same year, we learned of the work of Dr. Hal Huggins and Dr. Jess Clifford in developing a serum compatibility test. This effective test is still available today from two independent sources and requires that blood be drawn by a professional lab, that the serum be spun from the whole blood, chilled and mailed to either DrHuggins.net or ccrlab.org. This technique requires an up-to-date knowledge of which components are in a dental material and assumes that a reaction to a separate component would be the same as the whole material with the component in it. It also is testing only an antigen/antibody response, which may not be the type of reaction that a client would have to a tested material. It’s not perfect either, but it is a helpful protocol.
At roughly the same time, we learned of a compatibility technique that used EAV (Electronic Acupuncture According to Voll). This technique has taken on other names through the years, such as “MSA” (Meridian Stress Assessment). Sometimes this technique takes on the name of the manufacturer and may be called Avitar, Best or something else. When testing is performed by an exceptional practitioner who has no vested interest in which material is being tested, EAV is the material testing procedure we believe to be most effective. It does not require that we know of changes in material formulation and can even be dose-related to a patient/client.
Through the years, we have worked with clients/patients who have been comfortable with testing done by pendulum or other dousing devices, patient-receptive techniques and sending clients home with materials to test by oral temperature measurements or allergy response.
Of interest to us is the fact that, with one reported exception, every client tested has become more tolerant of dental materials in general after removal of apparently offensive mercury “silver” fillings and non-precious metals.