A practitioner asks: “It would be good to know – from Creator – what is the difference between the most recent multi-issue version of the DSC-TR using a channeler and this newest version you are calling the DSMR where a channeler is not used? This would be particularly valuable to get this answer from Creator where Creator is looking at it from the client’s perspective.” What can we tell him?

The protocol using a two-person approach, where one is channeling and the other serving as a facilitator, has a clear advantage in providing a combined intention of both individuals versus a single person launching the protocol unilaterally with only their energy involved as an advocate for the healing. In addition, more time is spent conducting the steps, particularly when getting feedback, if that is added in any way. That is an option of the practitioners themselves, whether to take time to do so, but every interaction with the client, in setting that intention, will add some additional fuel as well as feeling more personally involved and compassionate in being privy to some of the suffering of the client, as revealed by the client's mind along the way, in the case of receiving feedback. But you are asking about the multi-issue version in which particular details are not solicited. So there is a time function in making the connection through the channeler and the expectation building within the facilitator, and then the earnest desire of both parties to aid the client and the recognition they are both involved in something wondrous, and even magical. This will summon forth a higher level of intention than a single individual would typically generate, depending on who that individual is and to what extent there is time spent listing the client and the issues or a list of clients and their issues, and doing it from the heart as opposed to a mechanical, matter-of-fact, businesslike fashion. So these are variables in play, but any good healer using the protocol in earnest on their own can do fine work, so we are not talking about success versus failure, only a difference in degree of the energetic fuel being offered from the human side. But keep in mind that this protocol is much more like a high-level prayer than the LHP, in that it is simply requesting Creator to do a series of steps and carry them out, much like an ordinary prayer listing a series of desired outcomes. The key intention will be coming from the client in working with Creator directly, so that replaces the need for a high level of intention from the human side to enable a connection, and to maintain it, and to fuel Creator's efforts along the way. Much of the routine aspect will be satisfactorily supplied by a practitioner simply reading the protocol or following along with an audio prompt. The key then supplied, with respect to intention, is the focus on the preamble, all of the goals and objectives and components of the protocol that are listed and requests made for Creator to carry out the enterprise. When that is done with conviction, keen interest, and a heartfelt concern for the client, that will be sufficient for Creator to carry out the work intended to be launched successfully and reach the same level of attention to detail and thoroughness needed to accomplish what is intended to happen. In either protocol, the conditions are specified not only as to all the steps needed but a safe maximum effort defined in a clear enough fashion to make the outings comparable in what can be achieved. In most cases, the deep subconscious mind has the wherewithal to do what is asked with dispatch and effectiveness because it is a true workhorse and is used to a grueling schedule with many, many demands placed on it to function at a high level. It takes its role seriously, so there will rarely be a need for any extraordinary intention from the human side that would be needed to enable Creator to do some extra hand-holding and guidance and reassurance, and so on. So, in most cases, the response of the deep subconscious, in agreeing to work with Creator, will apply itself diligently and along with that the intention from the human side to carry out the complete protocol effectively. So the advantage of having a duo, including a channeler, is primarily when feedback is requested in some form and that will be seen as quite valuable many times by clients. It is a nice validation and evidence something profound took place and is proof of the pudding you can do what you claim to do. We have explained before that it has a potential downside in revealing disturbing information that will be hard for the client to handle, so there are risks with that approach as well as benefits.