The Potential of the Biofield Energy Treated Novel Proprietary Test Formulation on Organs Specific Biomarkers

, , , , , ,

Current Trends in Pharmacology and Clinical Trials, 2(3) (2019) .


Abstract

The study was investigated to find out the impact of the Biofield Energy Treated test formulation on the function of vital organs viz. bones, heart, liver, lungs, and brain in various cell-based assays. The test formulation and the cell media was divided into two parts; one untreated (UT) and other part received the Biofield Energy Treatment remotely by a renowned Biofield Energy Healer, Inthirani Arul, Canada and was labeled as the Biofield Energy Treated (BT) test formulation/media. Cell viability data suggested that the test formulation was safe and non-toxic in nature in six different cells. The Biofield Energy Treated medium (BT-Med) + untreated test item (UT-TI) group showed 97.9% and 88.9% restoration of cell viability at 10 and 25 µg/mL, respectively as compared to the UT-Med + UT-TI group in human cardiac fibroblasts cells (HCF). Moreover, BT-Med + BT-TI group showed 62.8% and 86.2% restoration of cell viability at 1 and 63 µg/mL, respectively in human hepatoma cells (HepG2) compared to untreated. Furthermore, 125.6% (at 0.1 µg/mL) and 94.8% (at 63 µg/mL) restoration of cell viability was observed in adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549) by UT-Med + BT-TI and BT-Med + UT-TI groups, respectively compared to the untreated.

The alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level was significantly increased by 81.8%, 83.9%, and 83.2% in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively at 50 µg/mL in human bone osteosarcoma cells (MG-63) compared to the untreated. Additionally, the level of ALP was significantly increased by 1430% (at 0.1 µg/mL), 332.6% (at 1 µg/mL), and 265% (at 0.1 µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively in human endometrial adenocarcinoma cells (Ishikawa) compared to the untreated. The percent protection of HCF (heart) cells (decreased of LDH activity) was significantly increased by 69% (at 1 µg/mL), 100.9% (at 0.1 µg/mL), and 76.9% (at 25 µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively compared to the untreated in HCF cells. The percent protection of HepG2 (liver) cells (decreased of ALT activity) was significantly increased by 44.4% (at 0.1 µg/mL), 63.9% (at 10 µg/mL), and 84.9% (at 1 µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively compared to untreated in HepG2 cells. The percent protection of A549 (lungs) cells (increased of SOD activity) was significantly increased by 35.1% and 78.3% in the UT-Med + BT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively at 1 µg/mL compared to untreated in A549 cells.

Serotonin level was significantly increased by 71.6%, 82.8%, and 104.8% in the BT-Med + BT-TI group at 1, 10, and 25 µg/mL, respectively as compared to untreated in human neuroblastoma cells (SH-SY5Y). The relative quantification (RQ) of vitamin D receptor (VDR) was significantly increased by 253.5% (at 1 µg/mL) and 270.3% (at 50 µg/mL) in the BT-Med + BT-TI group; while 235.2% at 10 µg/mL in the BT-Med + UT-TI group as compared to the untreated in MG-63 cells. Overall, these results suggest that Biofield Treated test formulation significantly improved the relevant bones, heart, liver, lungs, and brain-related biomarkers. Altogether data suggest that the Biofield Energy Treatment (The Trivedi Effect®) can be useful to protect and maintain the normal function of each vital organ such as lungs, liver, heart, brain, and bones. Therefore, The Trivedi Effect® can be used as a complementary and alternative therapy against several disorders such as coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure, arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, liver cancer, Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, pneumonia, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, osteoporosis, cystic fibrosis, etc.



Add your rating and review

If all scientific publications that you have read were ranked according to their scientific quality and importance from 0% (worst) to 100% (best), where would you place this publication? Please rate by selecting a range.


0% - 100%

This publication ranks between % and % of publications that I have read in terms of scientific quality and importance.


Keep my rating and review anonymous
Show publicly that I gave the rating and I wrote the review



Notice: Undefined index: publicationsCaching in /www/html/epistemio/application/controllers/PublicationController.php on line 2240