I don't usually think of the skin (or a portion of it) as being a potential interference field. But last winter I had an otherwise healthy 37-year old dairy farmer present with an allergic dermatitis that turned out to be caused by not one, but by two interference fields in the skin.
His problem had begun a year previously when he sustained a blunt injury to his right thumb which subsequently became infected. He was prescribed an oral antibiotic and another medication, to which he reacted with severe swelling of his eyelids, swelling and blistering of both arms and eventually a rash which spread to involve most of the upper half of his body.
Skin patch testing identified allergy to black rubber (as in tires) and diesel fuel. Although his symptoms settled with time, even very slight exposure to these chemicals provoked a skin rash beginning at the anterior surface of his right wrist (not at the thumb).
This hypersensitivity was a major inconvenience to him as a farmer. Even during milking he had to wear protective gloves because of the black rubber hosing on the milking machines. Despite these precautions, "flares" of skin reaction occurred from time to time affecting his right arm and other parts of his upper body.
His past history was unremarkable, except for intermittent mild eczema from childhood, a right inguinal hernia repair in infancy, pneumonia at age 14 and wisdom teeth extractions at age 23. Five years previously his right arm had "swelled up" from a reaction to a "fake tattoo" on his right upper lateral arm.
Physical examination revealed a vigorous, healthy man with an unremarkable general medical examination. His musculoskeletal system showed no asymmetry, unrestricted range of motion of all major joints and at all spinal levels and good muscle balance. Autonomic response testing showed blocked regulation and an interference field at his right anterior wrist. The response was reversed with the presence of procaine and DMSO. (DMSO or dimethylsulfoxide is considered the "universal solvent" in autonomic response testing.)
A response to the presence of DMSO indicates that the body "sees" DMSO or some other organic solvent to be a threat, past or present. It could mean that the patient had a toxic exposure or allergic reaction in the past, or is currently (at the time of examination) reacting to an organic solvent. Because the reaction to the presence of DMSO was only at the wrist, and not over the liver or the umbilicus, it was likely that the threat was local, i.e. where the interference field was found. However, the interference field also reacted to the presence of procaine. This meant that neural therapy was indicated. The interference field was therefore treated with the Tenscam device. (Quaddles of procaine would have been equally effective.)
No skin lesions were present at the time of treatment, so the effect on the patient's skin reactivity could only be gauged with the passage of time. At a return visit 9 weeks later, he had had only one small "breakout" 3 weeks before and no interference field was present at the wrist. However at 5 months a generalized "breakout" occurred, while under a period of personal stress. The interference field at the wrist reappeared and was treated as before. A month later, the skin was much improved, but a small area of rash persisted on the wrist.
This time the right upper arm was checked (for the first time) and an interference field was found at the location where the fake tattoo had caused so much trouble 6 years before. It also reacted to the presence of DMSO. Now the whole case was making sense!
The fake tattoo was of a henna type which I learned (after some research) often contains phenylenediamine, an organic solvent with allergenic potential. This was the "tissue memory" that played out when the skin in the arm was injured by a second trauma ("the second blow" of Speransky). Although the second injury was blunt trauma and had nothing to do with organic solvents, the tissue memory can be triggered by any sort of trauma, anywhere in the body.
This pattern is identical to that elicited in the famous tetanus and rabies experiments of Speransky in the 1930s where the pattern of a past infectious disease could be provoked by stimulating the nervous system at any point with a non‐infectious irritant.
Speransky's theory (yet to be disproved!) was that all illness is under the control of the nervous system. This case demonstrates that this holds true for the skin as much as any other organ system.
Robert F. Kidd, MD, CM