Designing the ultimate healing technique (Part 1: Occam’s Razor)

How do you develop the ultimate instant healing technique?  Where do you even start?  By peeling away the layers of existing techniques to see what makes them tick.  How? Using Occam’s Razor.  Today I take a peek under the bonnet of several leading techniques, and show explain how this helped us develop our new method, to be launched in 2012.

I think the most important things in a healing technique are effectiveness and simplicity, in that order.  More than anything, a technique must work.  Secondly, it should be simple enough that anyone can do it and get results.

Unfortunately the healing techniques available today tend to fail one or the other of these.  Either they don’t work, or they do work but they are far too complicated.

Today I am going to have a no-holds-barred discussion about some of the world’s leading healing techniques: whether they work and more importantly WHY they work.

I’m going to introduce you to Occam’s Razor, a vital tool for peeling away the layers to find the hidden truths.  We’ll discover that most of the healing techniques you have heard of do work (at least as well as a placebo) but none of them work for the reasons you’ve been told.  (And in case you think I’m biased, I’m exposing my own technique, RPT, as well.)

My friend Occam

Occam’s Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, is a guiding philosophy behind the development of any good scientific theory.  In short, science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time.  (See Occam’s Razor on Wikipedia)

The opposite to Occam’s Razor might be what’s called “smoke and mirrors.”  [Click for definition]  Stage magicians and conjurors use smoke and mirrors to distract the audience from their trick.  All healers do this too (usually unconsciously).  We all use some sort of “prop” to distract the client whilst the healing takes place.  The prop might be muscle testing, crystal waving, affirmations, tapping, needles or regression therapy.  So how do we tell the difference between the real healing and the prop?  Simple, we apply Occam’s Razor.

Simplicity rules

Let’s start with simple examples of the Razor. Let’s say that a person goes to hospital with three seemingly unrelated symptoms.  The doctors must decide whether the correct diagnosis is one diseases causing three different symptoms or whether the patient could have contracted three unrelated diseases.  The most likely answer is one disease causing all three symptoms.  [If this example seems familiar it is because it’s been acted out on my favourite TV show, House MD.  Occam’s Razor is even the name of a House episode.]

Occam’s Razor is really important in metaphysics and spirituality.  In a way it replaces common sense in those that lack it.  For example, I heard someone say that her crystal went missing because either (a) the fairies took it; or (b) the crystal had completed its purpose with her and had decided to move on.  [These are common New Age beliefs.]  Occam’s Razor would ask: “what is the simplest explanation – thieving fairies or slippery (human) fingers?”  In other words, don’t go for a complicated or magical explanation when a simpler one suffices.

What’s this got to do with healing?

Suppose I present you with an explanation for how or why healing works.  If you can come up with a simpler explanation that still works (gets the same results), then I should immediately abandon my explanation and adopt your simpler one.  That’s Occam’s Razor.

Sound reasonable?

Suppose I told you that the only way to heal your disease was to drink a special herb brew, then dance naked under the moonlight, and come back and see me in a week.  This might actually work!  However, Occam might suggest “do nothing and come back in a week.”  There’s a good chance that “do nothing” will get the same result as the prescribed treatment.  That is because most non-fatal medical conditions improve in a week anyway (and every sly healer knows this).  So Occam’s Razer suggests that the underlying healing mechanism is time, not magic.

We can apply a similar logic to every single healing technique, including the RPT.

What’s the point to this exercise?

There is a really important point to this exercise.  The question is not “does healing work?”  The real question is WHY do people believe that they work?  And the scientific question is “do healing techniques work for the reason they claim or for some other reason entirely?”

I want to apply Occam’s Razor to the healing world.


Let’s say that I’m a homeopath.  You come to me with a complaint.  I listen to you, acknowledge your situation and give you a homeopathic remedy.  You get better.  Now imagine an identical client comes to me.  I listen and acknowledge.  This time instead of a homeopathic remedy I give a sugar pill.  The patient still gets better.  [This has been scientifically proved many times.  Homeopathy works – whether or not the client really gets the remedy.]

A sceptical doctor would say that science proves that homeopathy is a placebo.  I disagree.  I think it proves that homeopathy really works, but that the remedy (pill) is not the active ingredient.  Something else is happening here.  The client gets better whether or not they take the pill.  What does this prove?  I think it proves that the remedy is not really the “active ingredient” in the healing.  Occam’s Razor suggests that there must be a simpler explanation.  [I believe it is in the consultation itself, the way in which the practitioner acknowledges the client.]

Energy healing

Next example: I used to practice Pranic Healing (and Reiki).  It’s a technique that involves waving crystals around and projecting energy at a person’s energy centres, called chakras.  Does it help people?  I believe that it does.  Now, take away the crystals and energy and do the same ritual and procedure.  What happens?  The success rate stays the same!  The same percentage of people get better.

There have been many scientific studies of energy healing and crystal healing.  Doctors claim that these studies prove that healing is a placebo.  They are wrong (or at least using the wrong definition of placebo).  The real answer is that energy healing works, it helps people, but not because of anything to do with crystals, “qi” or chakras .

Since it works even without sending energy, it must be something in the exchange between the client and the healer other than energy.  [I believe that it’s the acknowledgement of the client.]  Occam’s Razor favours the simplest explanation.

EFT / TFT / tapping and acupuncture

acupunctureMany of you would be familiar with the Emotional Freedom Technique and other similar therapies that involve tapping on key points in the body described in Chinese medicine.  These techniques, like acupuncture, have been scientifically tested.  There is scientific evidence that tapping, or putting a needle into a special point described by the Chinese thousands of years ago really does help to heal from various conditions and clear emotional blockages.

These techniques often work.  The question is why?

We could start with the Chinese or New Age answer: that energy runs through invisible meridians and that blockages in the energy flow make you sick.  Tapping, or inserting needles into these points frees the energy flow and promotes healing.

OK that sounds plausible to me.  I’ve tried EFT, TFT and acupuncture and had positive results with all three.  But what would Occam say?  Well Occam would ask whether a placebo got the same results?  It’s a little hard to do a placebo needle (though it’s been done).  An easier thing is to tap or insert needles randomly.  Forget the meridians, just tap away.

The results: scientific studies have consistently shown that tapping and needle therapies DO work, but work NO better than a random placebo.  Fake needles get the same results as real needles.  Tapping on the meridian points is no better than tapping in random places.  It works the same regardless.

I reiterate that the techniques do work.  But they don’t work for anything to do with acupuncture points or meridians.  They work even with “sham needles.”  In other words, whatever is causing the healing, it has nothing to do with meridians and energy blocks.

I personally think that the reason why these techniques work has to do with the properties of connective tissue.  This is way beyond today’s blog, but in our Level 3 course we teach how to acknowledge connective tissue (without physical contact) which triggers a physical release in every organ of the body.

Occam’s Razor asks which is the simpler explanation for why tapping the body works?  Invisible meridians or the idea that connective tissue holds trauma?  I think the placebo test proves it’s the latter.

For those doubting that these techniques are a placebo, there are hundreds of scientific studies.  These websites are a good start:


Theta Healing

I used to teach a technique called Theta.  I had some great results and helped many people.  Later, I asked the question “why does it work?” or “does it work for the reasons taught in the manual?”  Let’s see what Occam’s Razor would say.

According to Theta, if you send your consciousness up through the top of your head you enter a special brainwave state which allows you to talk to god.  In that “theta” state you can ask god to make all sorts of changes to a person’s unconscious mind, you can heal instantly and manifest, etc etc.

Some of these things seem true.  People’s beliefs do seem to change, at least measured by a called muscle testing.  But the stated reason (god works for you provided you ask for it in this precise way) is too complicated.

Occam asks “what if you drop the god stuff out?”  Guess what – it works just as well.  Then you take it a bit further, “what if you drop the whole command/wording out?”  Still no change in the results.  Finally Occam asks, “what if you (the healer) just sit there and chat to the client about their issues for the hour?”  Funnily enough, I got exactly the same great results whether I just chatted to the client or whether I used the complicated technique.

This doesn’t “prove” that the technique doesn’t work, but it is very strong proof that the reason WHY it works has nothing at all to do with special meditations, brain wave state, invisible gods and precise wording.  All of that is “smoke and mirrors.”  What works is really being present with a client.  In fact this realisation is what lead to the first version of Reference Point Therapy.

Prayer healing and invoking to a higher power

prayerBefore there was such a thing as “alternative healing,” there was prayer.  Prayer is the original healing. It’s not hard to see why that was the case. In a pre-scientific world, the idea that you could connect with a powerful higher source to bring order into chaos must have had HUGE appeal. It’s no real surprise that prayer maintains this appeal today. Many atheists, confronted by things they can’t control, turn to prayer.

But does prayer actually EXPLAIN healing? The short answer is no. (This is not really a problem, because “my” God follows the laws of nature anyway.)

The issue here is not about God but about healers using the God “label” to camouflage what’s really going on in a healing process. Occam’s Razor objects to convoluted explanations when simple ones suffice.

I’m just as guilty of smoke and mirrors as the next healing teacher.  For example, when I first launched the very first idea of RPT in January 2009 with a wonderful video on my blog of my friend Linda’s shoulder healing instantly, I was still using smoke and mirrors.  I don’t recall exactly but watching the video I’m pretty sure I realised that I was doing it to – using spiritual language to distract from what was really going on (which was that I could heal her shoulder through conversation alone).

Some of you might remember that demo?  [Click here to see demo on 2009 blog.]  It’s a powerful instant healing demonstration, fantastic proof that healing works.  But it’s full of smoke.

For example, when I wanted to make a change, I referred to “Creator” doing the healing.  By this point I knew (or should have known) that healing works just as well whether I used that bit or not.  But I thought that either Linda or my audience needed that spiritual bit, so I added it in.

I don’t disrespect anyone’s belief in God.  I’m just saying that it makes absolutely zero difference to whether or not healings work.  Prayer healing has been scientifically tested thousands of times, and there has never been a skerrick of evidence to support the idea that prayer or invocation to god improves the chances of healing.  This does not disprove God.  It just means that God is not the reason why healing works.  We need to find a better reason.

For the record, within a week of filming that demo with Linda I had deleted all references to god from all my manuals.  From March 2009 onwards my courses were attended by both spiritual teachers and atheists, because I didn’t rely on God as the reason for why the therapy worked.  But Occam still needed to apply his Razor to RPT.

Reference Point Therapy

RPTRPT was based on the idea of clearing trauma. Not just any trauma; we taught that you had to go back and find the original trauma, the earliest ancestral reference point.  This was so important that you had to trace back through all the generations to find it even if the client was disconnected from their intuition and it took hours to do so.

Guess what? Smoke and mirrors!  It isn’t necessary at all to do this.  RPT works brilliantly (I had well over 90% success with it), but the success had nothing to do with ancestral trauma or “earliest reference points.”

In the last six months I’ve demonstrated how you can delete all the key points of RPT: Beingness, trauma, ancestral reference points, etc, and get the same results.  Occam’s Razor says that the reason why RPT worked had nothing at all to do with regression and trauma.  There has to be something else.


Occam’s Razor has shaped my life in many ways.  I am dedicated to finding the simplest truth that is consistent with all the available evidence.  Occam’s Razor has changed my beliefs about God, evolution, healing and all aspects of spirituality.

When I founded RPT, I thought that I was applying Occam’s Razor to simplify all that had come before me.  Now I realise that we must apply the Razor to RPT as well.  It’s time to make the cut.

So what next?

After applying Occam’s Razor to RPT we realised that we could get the same success rate (about 90%) by just sitting and talking to people.  The technique was “no technique.”

But remember the start of this article?  The goal isn’t simplicity, it’s Effectiveness + Simplicity, in that order.

So we have found the simplest and most effective psychological theories to combine with our conversational approach in order to get close to 100% results.

What sort of results do we get?  Well you’ll have to read the next blog article to learn more about this new technique.

Comments / questions

Did you agree/disagree with anything I said today?  Have I challenged or sacrificed your sacred cows?  If you use any of the techniques I discussed, what are your views about how Occam’s Razor applies? (remember I am not saying that these techniques don’t work.  They DO work.  I challenge WHY they work.)

I would love to hear from you.



December 8, 2011 in Logic and skeptical thinking, Placebo effect, RPT theory and teachings
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses

  1. Looking forward to your next article. What I’m particularly interested in is a technique that works well for self-healing. RPT has been great for me when someone else has done it but not so great when using it on myself. I suspect the reason for this is that it’s hard to get away from yourself when you’re stuck inside your problem and you have to get outside your problem and approach it from a more objective perspective.

    I’ve used EFT on myself and had great results but, with one exception that was quite life-changing, nothing as dramatic as a couple of RPT / Theta sessions. I’ve also used the Sedona Method, NLP and recently the Lefkoe Method (named after Morty Lefkoe). The Lefkoe Method is essentially a talk therapy based on identifying beliefs, tracing their origins back to childhood and identifying that the events had no inherent meaning but were just interpreted in a certain way. It gets you to acknowledge that you didn’t actually see “I’m inadequate, not good enough” etc. but just interpreted it that way and that there could have just as easily been other interpretations made. It’s been extremely effective for me but it’s also somewhat complicated and takes about 20-30 minutes per belief. The brilliant thing about the Lefkoe Method is that it facilitates getting outside your problem and seeing it from a different perspective. However, I’ve only just been using the videos that are customised for 19 core beliefs and talk you through the technique. I don’t know what it’s like to use on myself for any beliefs outside the curriculum that don’t have the facilitator talking you through it. They even say themselves that it’s more effective if done with a trained therapist talking you through it.

    When I look at all of the various alternative modalities, I can see that the common thread is that they create a cognitive shift of some sort whereby the layers that “life” has added on top of the underlying perfection are stripped away (like the diamond layered with dirt an mud metaphor you’ve used) to allow the body to heal itself without interference (or, in the case of mental/behavioural issues, to deprogram the false meanings and associations given to things). In fact the Sedona Method is literally that – the art of “letting go” and letting things just be as they are.

    Modalities are often attacked on the basis of the interpretation given to why they work rather than whether they work. For example, EFT is usually attacked on the basis of Gary Craig’s theory that the tapping releases energy blockages and its effectiveness is ignored. I’ve always thought that was a dumb approach. There are still competing theories for what gravity actually is but that doesn’t stop us from accepting the real effect that gravity exerts on the world.

    I agree that there’s ultimately a common reason for why these various modalities work and it would be nice to strip it all back an eliminate some the rituals we use to access that underlying common reason.

    One thing I will disagree with you on is your comment that “non-fatal medical conditions improve in a week anyway”. That may be true for simple illnesses or injuries but it’s certainly not true for more serious conditions. Then again, if most of the medical conditions out there are only minor illnesses/injuries that take a week to heal then it’s probably true, by definition, that “most” non-fatal medical conditions heal in a week. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant but, in any event, most people wouldn’t go rushing off to their alternative healing practitioner for minor illnesses an injuries anyway. It’s normally the more chronic conditions that people seek alternative remedies for because western medicine/time hasn’t done the job. I’ve never heard of anyone having a heart attack and then calling out to see if there’s an “aromatherapist in the house”.

    Anyway, certainly looking forward to reading more and seeing where it leads to. It’s clear you’ve put a lot of work into this article and the thinking/research behind it. Thanks :)



    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi buddy and congrats on being the first to comment again (don’t mention RSS feed, sssh!).

    As always, thanks for your words of wisdom.

    I think there were two issues you raised for me to reply to.

    The first: self-healing. I’ll be frank, this is an issue with any technique, because it is about human nature, not the technique.

    I’d like to tell you that with our New Technique (that’s its name till we come up with one) that self-healing is easier. The truth is, it’s easiER. But you know I had some issues recently that I really didn’t want to look at, and it was only when our Russian promoter/translator Dmitry pretty much sat me down and forced me to work on it, that I did. He didn’t even have to do much, just sit next to me and stop me weaselling out of it… but that was enough for me to get there. My point is that we all bury painful feelings, and it’s natural to need a push to find the thing we’ve buried.

    There is no shame in asking for/needing help. I honestly don’t believe that there is a modality which is so simple that it replaces the need for intimacy, in the sense of “in to ME I see.” No matter how simple our techniques become, there will always be the need for introspection. Given that our response to trauma is usually to suppress it, there will always be that desire not to go there. Hence the benefit of having a friend to turn to for help.

    I am proud of the fact that I have a weekly healing swap with my friend Ken Klee. There is no shame in having a friend twist your arm till you clear your stuff!

    OK second issue, our apparent disagreement:

    > One thing I will disagree with you on is your comment
    > that “non-fatal medical conditions improve in a
    > week anyway”.

    OK there’s a huge spectrum of non-fatal diseases. If you are thinking of the hernia that you wrote about in a testimonial, you are correct. That doesn’t usually heal itself and it was a “miracle” (for lack of a better word) how it healed in class.

    The generalisation is not only valid, it’s probably the most common argument I’ve heard against alternative healing. Here are 2 references that came from a 2 second Google search.


    Many diseases are self-limiting — providing the condition is not chronic or fatal, the body’s own recuperative processes usually restore the sufferer to health.



    Many diseases are self-limiting. For instance, the common cold usually runs a course of approximately five to seven days before it is cured by the body’s own defence mechanisms.


    Back to your argument:

    >most people wouldn’t go rushing off to their
    >alternative healing practitioner for minor illnesses
    >an injuries anyway. It’s normally the more chronic
    >conditions that people seek alternative remedies for
    >because western medicine/time hasn’t done the job.

    My experience is the exact opposite. I’ve worked as an alternative healing practitioner for approaching 10 years and I’ve worked on a LOT more sore throats than cancers. I’ve worked on a lot more chest infections, recent car accident trauma, sprained ankles and minor injuries than life-threatening ones. And my success rate with the minor stuff was pretty much 100% – at which point we debate was it the healing or the body’s own process. [Now that I've got the results down from 2 days to about 10 minutes, I'd say it's the healing.]

    There are people who believe in healings and those that don’t. Those that do believe will see a healer at the drop of a hat (or prick of a finger). Those that don’t (like me when I first had a brain tumor) need something really major to compel them to see a healer.

    With respect, you are forgetting the majority of our client base. Perhaps you wouldn’t think to see a healer for a cold. But the success of modalities like Reiki are built on the fact that millions of people around the world think nothing of seeking healing for their colds, burns and scratches. And that is why the number one scientific argument against healing (see my above sources) is “these conditions get better anyway.”

    At the end of the day it’s all about Occam’s Razor. If you Reiki’d your cold and 2 days later you feel great, was it the ki or your immune system doing what it would have done anyway? As much as I enjoy Reiki; Occam votes for the latter.

    But when my student’s hernia repairs itself in my classroom… Occam drops his Razor and asks “WTF?”. At least, that was my reaction when you told me. :-) I still have no simpler explanation to offer Occam.

    Always great to exchange ideas with you.

    best wishes


  2. Simply you are my man :) I agree with all of your words.. and interestingly I did this Occam’s razor for six months (synchronicity) ;) and I cleared many of redundance in my mind.. Clear, simple and sweet approach :) I am looking forward your next article.. Thank you Simon.. your articles are like a gem.. I always enjoy very much to read them..


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Bulent, I always enjoy your contributions and I hope we’ll meet one day. We would love to teach in Turkey!

    (Evette saw a photo of Pammukale recently and wants to go, though I explained it doesn’t really look like those photos since they opened the resorts! I’d prefer to return to Cappadocia.)



  3. This removal of the smoke and mirrors is what I love about this technique – the simplicity and the honesty of it. And of course, that it works (in my direct experience too – with many hundreds of clients) over 90% of the time.

    I love talking to clients later and seeing / hearing their astonishment at the lightning fast results. I am also astonished constantly, like I just can’t seem to get used to it. But it works, and although you use the word ‘miraculous’ in heavy quote marks… for me it really is a miracle (even if it can be explained!)

    Also looking forward to your next post.

    ‘ But when my student’s hernia repairs itself in my classroom… Occam drops his Razor and asks “WTF?”. ‘

    Hehehe :)


  4. Hi Simon, This was a really great article, having been in the hearling arts now since 1972. I would agree that it is about an energy that takes place between the client and practitioner. As one of my teachers once told me that anything can heal anything and yet nothing heals anything. So I believe that it is all about intention. My intention is to make a difference when I am with someone for the better and so I do. I will say that taking your class 2 years ago really opened my mind up to new possibilities and I know that I am better for having studied with you.
    I find for myself that unworthiness comes up for me and to accept myself with the gifts that I have. I am indeed humbled by some of what I accomplish with others. and yet still seem to struggle within myself. Any thoughts about that???
    I know that I have been blessed by you and by the work you have shown me. I believe that your calling is to help uncover those final mysteries that seem to plague us so that we can all live a life that is full of the best their is for each of us.
    Many BLESSINGS to you, With much love and admiration for your continued efforts on behalf of all the peoples. Mark Blair


  5. Yes, the hernia was certainly a WTF moment :) Not only was it healed instantly but it’s never come back!

    I’ll bow to your greater experience as I’m don’t practice alternative healing professionally. I’ll admit I sometimes do a variety of alternative healing work on myself when I have a minor illness but it’s only ever to see if it can speed up my body’s own healing process or to relieve symptoms. It’s more just a bit of experimentation than a belief that I need such things or that I’m not going to get better regardless of what I do. Sometimes it works but then, technically, I can never be sure as I’ll never know what would have happened if I’d left my body to its own devices. If it’s something more than minor illness or injury, I’ll go straight to a doctor. Otherwise I have total faith in my body’s ability to heal itself.

    Where it goes awry is when people think they absolutely need a particular ritual or modality to get better. Ironically that then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! To that end you could throw western medicine in as well, particularly medication.

    I technically agree with what you say about self-healing. There’s definitely introspection required and that seems to be the main difficulty with self-healing. To be introspective you have to be willing to go there (and all the way, not just half way before aborting or losing focus). I also find a conflict between being fully immersed in feeling into the issue (on the client side) and feeling expansive and intuitive (on the practitioner side). It’s hard to be immersed in the issue and be detached and expansive at the same time.

    I suppose another possible approach is to do a remote healing on yourself as if your “client self” was somebody else. That way you could stay in “practitioner mode” and not have to chop and change between detached “practitioner mode” and immersed “client mode”. Then again some of the same self-sabotage and loss of focus may come up if it was an issue you weren’t willing to delve deeply into.

    I said I “technically” agreed with you there’s something inside me that says there’s got to be a way around the immersed/detached problem. Yes, it’s human nature to bury and suppress the things we don’t want to deal with but I guess that’s what all healing modalities are essentially seeking to do – to break through the barriers of human nature and reverse engineer the problem so the core of the problem is exposed and can then be changed. Once the core is exposed and acknowledged, it dissolves. This is actually one of the Sedona Method techniques – to dive “into the core” of the problem and have it dissolve.

    The practitioner/client model works on the basis that human nature seems to have built into it a degree of self-dishonesty / self-blindness. This is a spin on the ol’ reticular activating system theory whereby we only notice the things we already agree or resonate with and so it takes someone else with a more objective perspective to see the things we’re not willing to see.

    Whilst I understand the problem, I still have a feeling there’s a way around it as it’s really just a state of mind issue. I don’t know what that way is but every time I come across something new, it seems to add another piece of the puzzle so I’m looking forward to your “New Technique” :)




    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Shane, thanks for your comments.

    I agree with your comments about self-healing.

    I just want to be clear though, that it is NOT my to have a magic wand that heals people or let’s them heal themselves. In fact that could be the worst possible thing for people.

    I think that taking personal responsibility and being honest with yourself is the corner stone of healing. Imagine if you could heal your disease without finding the cause. That would not be a healing, it would a tragedy.

    I am personally satisfied that we have found a technique that gives instant results to people who are willing to take personal responsibility for their journey. It’s simple enough and it does work for self-healing provided that willingness is there. And, as I said before, sometimes we all need a kick up the butt to work on our stuff.

    Kind regards


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    Just to clarify – when I said I feel there’s a way around it, I didn’t mean there’s a way around having to take responsibility. I was referring to a way to break through the tendency to suppress and recognize self-dishonesty ie. self-butt kicking. I guess it’s just a matter of looking at the results and if they’re not what you’d like then it’s the clue that something’s been missed or overlooked.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    no need to clarify, I understood what you meant (almost by definition, there is no way around taking responsibility anyway).

    If I can re-phrase what I said using your language; yes we CAN break through the tendency to suppress and recognize self-dishonesty. But it still requires that real drive of self responsibility. Some people (like you) have it. Many people (like me) need that kick up the backside from a friend.


  6. As an Energy Healing Therapist one of the modalities I use is Seemorg Matrix Work (SMW). SMW uses muscle testing of the client to identify the client’s dysfunctional core beliefs.

    SMW uses prepared matrices (I use 89). A matrix is a collection of negative and positive statements (core beliefs) pertaining to a specific label such as Abandonment, Abuse, Cancwe, Despair, Future, Money, etc.

    I muscle test my client through the complete matrix and show them the results. Any dysfunctional core beliefs that my client wants to change are corrected using a chakra based approach. The corrected core beliefs are again muscle tested to verify a correction has actually been made.

    Over the last couple of years I have noticed that I may only have time to muscle test my client through a complete matrix, but not enough time to make any corrections.

    Now here is the interesting part. When my client has their next session almost ALL (and sometimes ALL) of the dysfunctional core beliefs that needed correcting have already corrected themselves!!!

    Ok what’s happening?


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Gary

    Welcome to the blog, thanks for commenting.

    I’m happy to answer your question, but I’m pretty sure you already know the answer!

    The short answer is: You are what’s happening here. The wonderful results you are getting have everything to do with the clarity of your consciousness. As you became clearer, your presence has a much more powerful impact on the client. It’s not the SMV doing the healing, it’s You. Good job Gary!

    I’ve written about this before, about how it’s the practitioner and their clarity that heals people, not a technique. I called it “the healing world’s dirty little secret”:

    OK now to the longer answer to “what’s happening here?”

    It has to do with kinesiology and Acknowledgment.

    When you really acknowledge a person and their issues, it allows the issues to resolve. In other words what people really desperately want is acknowledgment. The way I explain it in class is that acknowledgment is the opposite of resistance. What you resist, persists. What you acknowledge, disappears.

    In my view the reason why placebo modalities (like those mentioned in this article) have great success is because the practitioner is sitting with the client and acknowledging them. Many studies of homeopathy have identified “being listened to by a caring practitioner” as a significant factor in why homeopathy works.

    What we find in RPT is this: the deeper you acknowledge, the more profound the results. You can test this using a simple experiment, as we do in class.

    First we acknowledge a symptom (e.g. pain, headache). Just acknowledging it clears about 70% of it for at least a few days. It isn’t permanent. Then we can acknowledge it on a deeper level, like acknowledging core beliefs (as you do with SMW, or what I used to do with Theta). This increases the success rate, but it’s still temporary (could be months or years, but it’s temporary because beliefs are a symptom, they are caused by trauma). Then you could test acknowledgment on a deeper level. In the old RPT we acknowledged trauma and what we called “tones.” In the New Technique we acknowledge instincts. We now get 100% success and apparently permanent results.

    The point is simple – the deeper you acknowledge, the more profound and permanent the results.

    What’s this to do with kinesiology? Simple. Muscle testing is a form of acknowledgment. When you challenge the muscle for a response on an issue, you are bringing the issue to consciousness. When this is done by a practitioner with a high level of clarity and consciousness (like you), then this alone is enough to heal the issue on the level you are operating at (belief work in this case).

    What this means is that there is no need to do the actual SMW (or Theta etc) method. The method only exists for practitioners who aren’t clear. As soon as you have clarity, the technique becomes irrelevant.

    Let me be clear that this isn’t meant as a criticism of any of the techniques I’ve mentioned. All that I’m saying is Occam’s Razor applies. These techniques work NOT because of the claimed magical reasons (vibrations, god, etc). Rather they work for a very different reason, a mix of placebo and practitioner consciousness.

    So when we launch a New Technique next year, I promise to be really 100% honest about WHY and HOW it works.

    Looking back over my blog, here are some other links relevant to answering your question. These relate to old RPT not New Technique, but are still interesting.
    * Acknowledgment:
    * The clarity of the practitioner:
    * and

    thanks again for your great question

    Best wishes



  7. Simon, how does Occam’s razor explain homeopathic remedies that work without the talk – just the pill? Placebo? Do you know what are the success rates for such remedies versus the success rate of homeopathic treatment that includes a talk with the homeopath?
    Also, what about homeopathy for children – again, without the talk? If it is the acknowledgement that is doing the healing, then you would expect the success rate of the pill only approach to be the same as a placebo, right? Any data for that that you are aware of?

    Reason I ask is because a student asked me this weekend.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Ben,
    Firstly let me clarify that Occam’s Razor and the Placebo Effect are different things, even though I have thrown them in together in this article. I know that it would cause some confusion. I will iron out the distinction before this article (or its ideas) work their way into my book.

    What does the Placebo Effect say about homeopathy? Simply that someone has to believe in it, not necessarily the client. The client in this case could be the child or pet. The “someone” could be the practitioner, parent or pet owner. There’s no real mystery here.

    I believe that Occam’s Razor says homeopathy is about acknowledgment. But if you take that away and it still works, then all that’s left is the placebo.

    I prefer to believe in acknowledgement because otherwise we are saying that the entire industry is just a placebo. Whilst it might be true, it doesn’t look good for us or anyone… :-)

    Also yes, there are scientific studies of homeopathy that take the consultation away and just have the remedy. These studies all show that it’s 100% placebo. It’s only the studies with the consultation in which there is a significant healing effect (hence why I believe it’s acknowledgment that’s doing the healing).



    Simon Rose Reply:

    I feel like I might be in danger of offending some homeopaths. I hope not. That’s not my intention.

    Let me say that I that Evette and I both personally use homeopathy from time to time. For instance I had a sore throat whilst teaching last year, I wasn’t really up for finding the underlying cause in the middle of class, so I took a homeopathic remedy. It worked great.

    As I took it I said “I know it’s a placebo and I believe it works.”

    That’s the great thing about placebos. The studies show that knowing you have the placebo doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. That’s why you can buy “Placebo” tablets online, they can heal anything (30% success rate)!



  8. The simplest explanation is that we are the creators of our experience. Totally. So the client decides to be ill or not. Then the “healers” task becomes to convince the “client” that you are better of creating health or remember that you are perfect. But the choice is really the clients. The “clients” belief in what will heal them will do it for them by their choice.

    The ability of a “healer” to convince a “client” of the truth are in direct proportion to their clarity of their own consciousness. I think this is what you also said.

    /Infuenced by A course in miracles “Psychotherapy pamphlet – purpose process practice”



    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Thomas, I think that’s great!

    I think that there’s more than a few healers with huge egos that need to be reminded that they have no power, except to help the client to know themselves. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

    [And yes I am saying that healing is basically deception with good intentions. Well, at least I'm honest about it!]



    Paul Reply:

    “The simplest explanation is that we are the creators of our experience. Totally. So the client decides to be ill or not.”

    Apologies for the vernacular, and I don’t mean to offend but I’ve always thought that this particular New Age belief is probably the most ‘bollocks’ of all. Can you honestly say that you create all, or even some of your experience? (Creating your perceptions of events is different to creating your experience.)

    I happen to have injured my right knee. Did I choose that experience? Not that I recall! When you say I create my own experience, who is the I you’re referring to? Do you mean the conscious me? Then I can tell you now that ‘I’ didn’t choose that experience. I totally own my perceptions of the experience, and the circumstances in which the injury occurred (cruciate ligament tear), but ‘I’ did not choose for that injury to occur.

    So what / who created the injury? Unconscious me? Superconscious me? My mind, heart, body or subdivisions thereof? Under what circumstances does Occams Razor support myself causing such an injury as the likeliest / most plausible explanation? The simplest explanation in this circumstance is that I twisted awkwardly and the injury was the straightforward result. To me, stating that I ‘chose’ the experience falls squarely in the mystical category of ‘God did it’, since I don’t have an idea of how I created it in the first place.

    But let’s take it further. Let’s say I do some healing work, and I find I have some secondary gain around work, and needing rest. So lets say I was at some level ‘culpable’. Did ‘I’ really still choose the injury? If I hold a belief that says I need rest, I hate my job, I need some time off, why permanently injure myself as an outcome? The most I can accept on this subject is that we are a composite consciousness and both the conscious and unconscious parts contribute to create ‘my’ experience. Thus, the traumatized parts of our consciousness are more likely to create undesirable experiences.

    Torture victims, rape victims, children who are born deformed – did they all choose their experience? I think they’ll be pretty vehement when they say they didn’t.

    Really, who are you? Who am I.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Paul,
    I’m not seeking to defend or answer for Thomas, as I’m sure he can answer for himself. I would like to share some thoughts.

    My philosophy on the subject of why does stuff happen can be summaries in 2 words: “shit happens.”

    I’ve written about this in great detail here:
    and here

    I wont repeat what I said about law of attraction (LOA).

    What I will add is that there is always a cause, even if we are blind to it. There’s a something, call it an “X” factor. If you could find and clear this X factor, the client heals. That’s the basis of my research.

    > I happen to have injured my right knee. Did I choose that experience? Not that I recall!

    Well clearly it wasn’t a conscious choice. There may be no deeper meaning or life lesson. But that doesn’t mean there’s no reason. There’s some story or explanation as to how and why it happened. When we find and acknowledge the story, it will be much easier to heal.

    > Under what circumstances does Occams Razor support myself causing such an injury as the likeliest / most
    > plausible explanation?

    Well Occam doubts the magical intervention, but I don’t see him having a big issue with finding the story.

    What I know for sure is that there is a reason why we attract certain accidents and injuries. The proof is simple, it’s called the Law of Correspondence (“as above so below… as within so without”). People with shoulder injuries always seem to be carrying/resisting responsibility issues, and when you clear those issues their shoulders heal. People with knee injuries always seem to be resisting change or moving forward, and when you clear these issues, their knees heal. Occam says “makes sense to me.”

    > But let’s take it further. Let’s say I do some healing work, and I find I
    > have some secondary gain around work, and needing rest.
    > So lets say I was at some level ‘culpable’.

    To avoid confusion, injury comes first, secondary gain comes later, often much later. Secondary gain does not make you culpable.

    > Did ‘I’ really still choose the injury?

    No, did you even have a choice? No. Does the world work that way? No.

    > Torture victims, rape victims, children who are born deformed – did they all choose their experience?

    There’s always a “back story.” Why was the person tortured or raped? Was it personal, cultural, racial, etc? There’s a story and it can be healed. Doing this clears the trauma and prevents recurrence.

    As to the deformed children, look past their innocence and find the back story. Did the mother drank/smoke? Did the doctor recommend thalidomide? Heal that back-story. [To be clear, I'm not suggesting the deformity can be healed; I am an emotional healing expert and I don't condone magical thinking.]

    To summarize Paul:
    (a) shit happens; and
    (b) there’s always a causative factor.

    Not blame, just attraction. And I can find that factor, and when I clear it, people heal.

    Best wishes


  9. This is something Esther Hicks / Abraham also always says. Whenever a healer gets into the hotseat to ask a question about improving their ability to heal others, the answer is always the same. They always say it’s the client who heals themselves and the healer is just the facilitator of that. One quote goes something along the lines of “no doctor has ever healed a broken bone in the entire history of medicine. Sure they can set the bone to put it in the right place but the healing is always done by the patient.” Same goes for any other modality. It’s not the energy that swirls around and zaps the client – that’s the ritual that helps the client heal themselves.

    An interesting phenomenon (which I’ve told Simon about) is in the area of compensable injuries. Whenever injuries are subject to compensation of some sort (whether it be a civil case, insurance or a statutory compensation scheme), the statistical recovery rates are lower. My area of expertise is in work-related compensable injuries and almost every surgeon that deals with work-related injuries and private injuries will say the same thing. I always get into these sorts of conversations with medical health professionals when they find out what I do for a living and I’ve never come across anyone who’s said anything different.

    Recently I saw one of the top hip surgeons in my city for a condition I have and he was saying the thing he doesn’t like about workers comp isn’t the reports he’s asked to write, the paperwork or being called as an expert witness in court. It’s the fact that his compensable patients just don’t heal as well as his private patients! He also said a lot of his colleagues simply won’t accept compensable patients for that reason. Even my physiotherapist says she hates dealing with compensable patients for the same reason – she just wants to get them in, help them and discharge them ASAP. Of course then there are the known practitioners who specialise in compensable patients because they know repeat business is so good!


  10. Your thoughts command my respect. I recognize a lawyer!


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thankyou Swetlana, yes I admit I still use a lawyer’s approach to analysing problems!
    thanks for visiting the blog


    Swetlana Reply:

    I’m a lawyer too. J


    Azaris Reply:

    Me too :-)

  11. Interesting discussion this, but there is something more to be explored in the realm of the whole acknowledgement / placebo deal. How about pure Hoʻoponopono (thank you Wikipedia for the spelling ;-) without any direct interaction between practitioner and subject? Having said that, I know only of the anecdotal internet evidence that says it’s a possibility.

    One personal example I do have is of some remote healing I tried on my mother after attending a Reiki II course. I called her up all excited and said I wanted to try something out. She sat 15 minutes after I hung up while I ‘sent’ healing. After this I called her back to see if she’d experienced anything. Quite shocked, she asked me ‘what I’d been doing?’ Apparently she’d had neck pain for a few days which wouldn’t go. During the call she felt a distinct buzzing sensation in her neck, and the pain left.

    I suppose in this case, I could be providing a level of attention / acknowledgement that her own consciousness used to shift the condition? I certainly didn’t know she had neck pain. On the other hand, you have an experienced healer such as Dr Kam Yuen, who threw himself in for the James Randi challenge and failed (, though apparently he rated himself close to 100% success rate prior to this.

    Going back to Occam’s Razor – it’s elegance has great logical appeal, but for me it could easily be used as a tool to promote orthodoxy. Who establishes whether one theory or another is the simplest? For instance, in a Grant McFetridge view of the world, that healed hernia would most likely have been due to one or more healed trauma strings. I doubt existing medical theories would incorporate such a viewpoint, so an alternative view of the world might say according to this link ( that “Surgery is the only treatment that can permanently fix a hernia”. Hence the subject didn’t have a hernia in the first place, only hernia like symptoms! I guess the key part of the Occam razor statement is “consistent with all the available evidence”. As we learn to pry deeper into the secrets of the universe, then more evidence is unearthed which begs a different explanation. However, you still bump into very different viewpoints about what constitutes simple!

    Anyway, thanks for another thought provoking discussion. I think it would be useful to distil the possible contributing elements to a successful healing, and see how many of these repeat:

    1) The practitioner’s belief in himself.
    2) A safe / secure environment.
    3) Trust in the practitioner.
    4) Acknowledgement of the presenting symptoms.
    5) A willingness to let potentially painful, unconscious material surface to release and most probably a willingness to let go of any overt secondary gain.

    Looking at that lot, I can’t help but think that a large, strong dose of #1 would suffice in most cases!


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks, I agree with all your comments. And yes, the practitioner’s belief in themselves is important, although that alone is not enough.


  12. When will we get to learn this new technique?


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi John
    thanks for joining our blog. The technique has not officially been launched but already about half the RPT teachers have upgraded and are teaching “RPT 2012″. You can check with your local RPT teacher if they have upgraded yet.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi John, I can confirm that all RPT teachers on our website are upgraded to the new methods.


  13. A very interesting post. I have to admit that when I was taking levels 1 and 2 last year, I kept thinking, “there has to be a faster, more efficient way to do this.” I can’t wait to hear more about the new technique!


  14. Hi Simon! Thank you for sharing this. Learned RPT a few months ago in 2011. Your article is really good. A new way for me to see it… my whole body is singing when I read this, presence is what makes it happen and not the formula. And thats the place and space where the magic unfolds. It’s beautiful. I think the formula is used just to distract the mind, to calm down the mind in a way to make space for the present. Look forward to RPT 2012! Year of simplicity!


    Simon Rose Reply:

    thanks Patrick, I appreciate your comments.


Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>