Research: Individuals vs Averages

In a world obsessed with "evidence-based medicine," we have overlooked a glaring logical fallacy: the average result of a population study has almost zero relevance to the individual sitting in your treatment chair. While an engineer can provide a money-back guarantee because they work with identical subjects and controls, a clinician is faced with a chaotic "software" system shaped by genetics, trauma, and a lifetime of unique afferent inputs.

To find the truth in healing, we must move away from the "panel-beating" model of statistical averages and embrace the gold standard of clinical evidence: the patient as their own control.

The Noise in the System: Why Randomization Isn't Enough

Good science requires a control that is identical to the subject. This is why your mechanic can diagnose a fuel issue with certainty—they can compare your car’s performance against a known factory standard. In medicine, however, we don't have ten identical copies of any patient.

Traditional medical research tries to solve this by using large numbers and randomization. The hope is that by diluting the "noise" of individual variables—past injuries, adverse childhood experiences, or hidden "nails in the foot"—the average outcome will reveal a universal truth. But numbers only increase statistical power; they don't increase clinical accuracy for the individual.

Consider the widespread use of statins or antihypertensives. Many reach "statistical significance," yet the absolute benefit often applies to less than one percent of the population. This means 99% of people are altering their body chemistry for no personal benefit, all because they were treated as an "average" that simply does not exist.

The Fallacy of the "Average" Individual

Statistically, the "average" human has one breast and one testicle. While that data point is mathematically accurate, it describes no one. In any treatment group, some patients improve, some stay the same, and some regress. When a doctor claims to know the right treatment for you "based on the science," they are often applying a population-based generalization to a specific, unique neurological system.

In Afferentology, we argue that if results are not specifically applicable to the individual, the science is incomplete. We must prioritize the hardware vs. software distinction: your bones and muscles might look like the textbook, but your neurological output is entirely your own.

The Gold Standard: The Patient as Their Own Control

If we want to achieve true clinical certainty, we must improve the quality of the control. The only truly identical control for a patient is the patient themselves.

N-of-1: The Afferentology Approach

Is it better to give a treatment to 20 different people and measure the average, or to give it to one person 20 times? By using Precision Muscle Testing, an Afferentologist establishes a baseline of the patient's current neurological state—their "50Hz resting tone."

• The Baseline: We identify an inhibited muscle (a "software" glitch).
• The Intervention: We introduce a specific afferent stimulus (e.g., correcting a dental irritant or a scar).
• The Control: We immediately retest the same muscle in the same patient.

This creates a real-time, closed-loop experiment. When the results are consistent within that individual, we have moved past "statistical probability" and arrived at clinical truth. This is the only way to ensure we aren't just treating a diagnosis, but the person standing in front of us.

To demonstrate this principle, let me show you this patient who had a headache for 27 years and watch as we use the patient as their own control. We can do this as many times as we need, to be sure that the treatment we are proposing will have the desired effect – which it did. Her headache vanished and never returned when the tooth problem was sorted.

Or this

Conclusion: Mastery Over Generalization

Practitioners must strip away the belief that "average" outcomes are a substitute for individual observation. Mastery in health comes from understanding that the individual is the only variable that matters. By using the patient as their own control, we identify the hidden neurological errors—the specific "nails"—that population studies will always miss.