Conventional science, especially medical science, does not accept techniques and processes that are not repeatable, which is a problem for most bioenergetic devices. What conventional science is not able to grasp is that these devices may be working on a quantum level, so the entire framework of how to evaluate them must be different. The human body-field is dynamic, so it is ever-changing. Yet patterns can be detected over time. What is undeniable is that these devices have been used by thousands of clients to good effect, especially if there is a time lapse of a few days between tests.

Each time a scan is run, the computer is interfacing with the client’s formational (or energetic) biofield. The test itself subtly alters that field, or, if you like, you could say that the test information is actually imprinting in a certain way on that person’s biofield. Therefore, if another scan is conducted too soon after the first, the information interference from the first test may alter what will be picked up in the person’s biofield during the second test. That’s why it is best to wait a few days for the biofield to “quiet down” or for that information interference to dissipate before running another bioenergetic test.

Some biotechnology developers and manufacturers make claims that their tests are repeatable, but we have run basic tests on every device available and can say categorically that not one of them gives a repeatable result. It’s easy to test this for yourself:

·        Enter your name and run a test (different methods on different systems)

·        Store the results

·        Then close the program and reopen it, entering your name in a slightly different form or using another name

·        Run the second test

You won’t get the same results. Depending on how radically or not you alter your name the second time, you might get similar results, for some systems use a bit of code that recognizes similar names and simply takes existing data and alters it a little before displaying new results. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the first scan is the most accurate one. However, companies make various claims about the accuracy on the first scan. What matters in accuracy is both the quality of the test items and the intention of both practitioner and client.. What may matter most are the number of people getting well from using the system. To this effect, the best method of evaluating a system is very simply to speak to practitioners of that system. What’s even better is to speak to those practitioners who are getting the best results!

The NES - Professional System® stands out in both how it uses a pseudo random event generator and in its clinical success, as explained on the next page.