I think we need a fine balance between being a healthy skeptic and willing to try things for ourselves and finding our own truths.

Ken Adachi at Educate Yourself makes very good, dependable devices as well.

Perhaps the two best books on the market describing bioenergy medicine from a strictly scientific perspective, indeed making all the right connections between numerous researchers in the 'hard' sciences, are both written by James Oschman, one called Energy Science. the Scientific basis, and the other Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance.
They are expensive books but well worth the cost, especially if you have a client who 'wants the facts on the ground.'

James' site is here:

http://www.energyresearch.bizland.com/

He has a number of articles archived at the Journal of Bodywork and MOvement Therapies, as for example:

www.harcourt-international.com/ journals/suppfile/flat/JBMT-Oschman.pdf

As for Patrick Flanagan, while I don't have any personal experience with any of his products, I would stay clear of the guy.

He is a spook research scientist, for whatever that's worth.

What was it he first invented at the age of 16 or so, back in the '60s? A neurophone or something-- a device to enables you to 'hear' a 'voice' projected inside you cranium, bypassing your auditory conduit altogether.

For the hearing impaired. It was going to open up the world of sound to the deaf.
Yeah, right.

Are you're asking about subtle energy therapy? Or other alternative therapies like electromedicine as well?

when i asked the question i was primarily focussed on BIT and EAV, but I am also interested in any other alternative electro avenues that seem to give good results. Preferably with a bit of reliable research behind them..

Good point. A talked to someone on the phone about it, she did a pancake reading for me (funny i ching or tarot reading alternative) once and she explained it's not always the form that has the effect but it could also be an acausal process. It's funny that according to this thought a device like BICOM as advertised as doing something which it is clearly not doing, but sometimes still having an effect (beyond placebo) because of acausal factors.

The more thorough and thus credible a study, the greater the funding required - and questionable sources of funding can lower the credibility back to zero. Is there a source of funding we can trust? Maybe identifying those would lead to a treasure trove of reliable studies. Otherwise we're limited to putting pieces together ourselves from smaller studies and annecdotes instead of scientific/corporate authorities with vested interests.

Here's a good article though about double blind studies, their importance and potential pitfalls:
http://www.mendosa.com/bratman.htm

On the one hand, double blind studies check for physically causal processes, which if lacking can indicate the presence of subjectivity and wishful thinking. On the other hand, lack of physical causal factors does not necessarily prove it must be subjective or wishful thinking because there can be acausal and non-material processes at work. Sometimes the placebo effect is purely imagined and not in accord with reality, other times it may be metaphysical in the sense of consciousness affecting reality on the quantum level beneath the classical/causal/material threshold. The quest for objectivity, if rooted in falsely limiting assumptions, can disqualify evidence originating from higher realms of objectivity.

does anyone have some definite *positive* pointers to experimental results, and give the skeptic in me a rest?