Analysis of the Biofield Energy Based Test Formulation on Vital Organ Health Specific Biomarkers Using Cell Based Assay

, , , , , ,

Advances in Complementary & Alternative medicine, 4(4) (2019) .


Abstract

Vital organs dysfunction is one of the major concerns now-a-day, which results in high mortality rate in health care centers. Thus, growth and normal functioning of the vital organs is the major concern for better health. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the Biofield Energy on the test formulation and the cell line media for the function of vital organs such as bones, heart, liver, lungs, and brain using cell-based assays. Different organ-based cell lines were used in the study for testing the effects of test formulation. The test item (TI) and specific cell line media (Med) was divided into two parts; one untreated (UT-TI) and other part received the Biofield Energy Treatment remotely by a renowned Biofield Energy Healer, Maria Isabel Aguilar Tiraboschi, Uruguay and were labeled as the Biofield Energy Treated (BT) test formulation. Cell viability data suggested that the test formulation was safe and non-toxic in nature in the tested cell lines. Cytoprotective action of the test formulation showed a significant maximum restoration of cell viability by 23.7% (at 25.5µg/mL), 54.1% (at 10µg/mL), and 81.6% (at 63.75µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group in human cardiac fibroblasts cells (HCF) cells, while 53.4% (at 63.75µg/mL), 20.2% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 43.9% (at 10µg/mL) improved cellular protection of human hepatoma cells (HepG2) cells in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. In addition, cytoprotective activity in adenocarcinoma human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549) showed improved cell viability by 121.9% (at 1µg/mL), 416% (at 25.5µg/mL), and 323% (at 25.5µg/mL) in the UT-Med+BT-TI, BT-Med+UT-TI, and BT-Med+BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. ALP activity in MG-63 cells was maximum increased by 78.2% at 50µg/mL in the BT-Med + BT-TI group, while in Ishikawa cells showed maximum increased ALP activity by 67.5% at 50µg/mL in the BT-Med + UT-TI group as compared to the untreated group. The maximum percent cellular protection of HCF (heart) cells (decreased of LDH activity) was significantly increased by 26.6% (at 25.5µg/mL), 37.9% (at 10µg/mL), and 76.5% (at 25.5µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI group, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. Alanine amino transferase (ALT) in terms of percent protection of HepG2 (liver) cells (decreased of ALT activity) was reported by 21.1% (at 10µg/mL), 93.9% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 51.4% (at 63.75µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. Cellular protection of A549 (lungs) cells (increased of SOD activity) in terms of percentage was increased by 57.2% (at 25.5µg/mL), 176.9% (at 10µg/mL), and 184.2% (at 10µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively as compared to untreated group. Serotonin level was significantly increased by 34.8% (at 63.75µg/mL), 65.4% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 398.7% (at 1µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med+BT-TI groups, respectively compared to the untreated test group in human neuroblastoma cells (SH-SY5Y). However, the relative quantification (RQ) of vitamin D receptor (VDR) was significantly increased by 207.9% (at 0.1µg/mL), 37.1% (at 10µg/mL), and 141% (at 10µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively as compared to the untreated in MG-63 cells. Thus, Biofield Energy Treated test formulation (The Trivedi Effect®) would be significantly useful for multiple organ health that can be used against coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathy, cirrhosis, liver cancer, hemochromatosis, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cystic fibrosis, osteoporosis, 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