I have developed a self-regulation system that allows change at the physiological level. Does it have any merit? Please note: I do not hold a degree. This system is based on experience and self-testing.

I developed a self-regulation system that allows for the manipulation of sensations where they occur in the body. I'd love to get my idea out into the public, but was cautioned against potential liability. As such I am wondering whether this system has any scientific merit. Secondly, if the idea has merit, where do I start?

Overview

This system has two main applications: the immediate self-regulation of emotions, and the self-regulation of other bodily sensations, such as pain and other discomforts.

Emotions

We start with the assumption that the brain monitors the body for physiological changes (emotion), and then maps those changes to a specific emotion-related feeling, as noted by neurologist Antonio Damasio in this Scientific American article.

If we can call a specific set of physiological changes that form an emotion an emotional ‘profile’, then the system is used to interrupt one or more physiological features of the profile. This causes the profile to collapse and the emotion-related feeling to dissipate with immediate effect. It is achieved using techniques (e.g. a body-internal micro action) inherent to the system.

In my experience this system does not rely on reasoning or any form of rationale, nor breathing techniques or meditation. It is non-intrusive and less susceptible to self-sabotage since the techniques are largely functional / mechanical in nature. 

A further benefit of this system is that it allows for the generation of a general sense of positivity as well as specific positive emotions without requiring any specific internal or external stimuli.

Applications
I’ve used this system for the past five years to self-regulate emotions. These include run of the mill emotions, such as anger, despondency, sadness, and fear. It has also been used to successfully alleviate / eliminate the physiological features of stress, depression and anxiety. In all instances results are instantaneous.

Health

One accidental discovery associated with this system is its health applications. One aspect of the system is a functional or ‘mechanised’ positivity that can be applied anywhere in the body. When applied to pain or other bodily discomforts, the discomforts tend to lessen in intensity, or immediately vanish. I suspect that it also actively promotes the body’s natural healing ability where it is applied.

Applications

I have successfully used this system to address the following:


Random aches and pains 
Inflammation
Wounds
Flu symptoms
Suspected nerve damage (Morton’s neuroma / metatarsalgia)
Rotator cuff damage
Pulled muscles
Stomach ailments


It should be noted that results in this instance range from immediate to the morning following application. Multiple applications are required with the more serious anomalies, however with marked improvement following each application.

I have also tested this system by allowing an anomaly to progress without any interference – specifically, instances of suspected nerve damage and inflammation. In most cases the discomfort only increased. A sudden application of the functional positivity resulted in alleviated discomfort and a U-turn towards healing.
I'm not going to answer the question I think you want answered: whether your system has merit. Instead, I'm going to answer a related question that I think you actually need answered: How do you determine if a therapeutic approach is effective?

Ultimately, this sort of question can only be answered with a clinical trial. In a clinical trial, your approach will be tested against other approaches or placebo approaches to look for differences in outcomes. In order to do a clinical trial, you need to get the permission of an appropriate regulatory body in order to enroll subjects and continue. Doing anything else is unethical.

In order to get this permission, you need some credibility in the field. For this sort of project, that would probably start with either having some sort of degree or certification as a clinical psychologist or therapist, or recruiting people with those credentials to help you with your study. If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.

On the way to getting this education, you will learn about existing strategies that are used, which will help you to refine and consider your own terminology. Maybe you think you've invented something new but find that it already exists under a term you didn't know. Maybe you find someone else has already studied something similar and found no effect. Maybe you find that your idea is really a novel improvement to something already used in practice. Learning these things will help you to frame your idea. If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.

If you want to go in more depth along this way of thinking, the next step would be a research degree, most likely a PhD. The training for a PhD will teach you how to approach these ideas scientifically, to look through the literature, and just generally to go deeper into a topic than you would in a clinical position. 

Note that there are many many many people that go down this path and put a lot of effort into their work: there aren't really any easy answers left. It's a lot of work to find positive results. You probably won't start researching your own ideas, but rather expanding incrementally on the work of others. At that point, you will have enough credibility and background knowledge to test new hypotheses. You might find that your original thinking makes no sense. You might find new motivations by reading about other peoples' work (and 'standing on the shoulders of giants'). If you don't think your idea is worth this effort, your idea is not worthwhile.