In Dr George Goodheart's own words, "Applied Kinesiology had a simple beginning in 1964, based on the concept that antagonist muscle weakness is involved in most muscle spasms and, indeed, is primary." (ref: Walther, 1988).
Basically, Dr Goodheart's discovery of Applied Kinesiology arose out of his observation that basic Chiropractic adjustments often were not providing complete relief for physical disabilities and that the problem seemed to be related to muscle spasms that were not being released. A study of the original methods of testing muscles described by Kendall and Kendall (ref: Kendall, 1949) led to the primary diagnostic tool of muscle testing used in Applied Kinesiology. Also instrumental in the early development of muscle testing techniques was Dr Goodheart's colleague Dr Alan Beardall DC (dec'd). The timing of the muscle testing procedure was changed to provide an evaluation of the control of the muscle by the nervous system rather than an evaluation of the power the muscle could produce.
We need to be realistic about the "Powers that be", "government institutions and international, national, and local law, as well as organized professional institutions and business associations". We have seen that in the U.S.A, the American Medical Association has managed to establish their dogma of Medicine/Science as almost a state religion with the AMA as the high priesthood. We have experienced decades of witch hunts, where "Quack busters" have used their self-referential standards to judge alternative healing models and essentially persecute many healing practices nearly out of existence. However, it is the very magnitude of that success, and the subsequent failing of modern medicine to adequately address the health needs of the people that has resulted in our current resurgence of alternative world views and healing practices, which are now being honestly examined and integrated with the best of allopathic medicine.
One model of science states that "real" science involves testing theories by repeated and independent experiments. This model is spoken of as robust at certain statistical levels, and less robust when there is more "room for chance". This model is very good for certain concrete material objects which our modern technology allows us to build. But when it comes to human beings, there are too many significant variables that cannot be controlled in isolated experiments. We cannot and do not seek to prove that any single aspect of our intervention has any singular effect. We seek to have a highly integrated, and individual, subjective PROCESS, which can be shown to consistently yield positive results while simultaneously having negligible risk of harm.
When we remember wellness with TFH, we recognize that what the person feels (emotion), believes (faith) or thinks (cognition) at the time of the muscle testing makes a difference in the outcome of the testing. None of these factors can be controlled in the (blind, double blind, or triple blind) Random Clinical Trial, the so-called gold standard of "scientific" evidence of efficacy. We must adopt research on the outcomes of what we do. We need to concentrate on what happens in real life situations, rather than trying to control for a single discrete mechanism that is proposed to explain the results of the Kinesiology interventions. We cannot allow ourselves to be pressured into explaining Kinesiology from a solely materialistic point of view.