Assessment of the Biofield Energy Healing Based Test Formulation on Human Organ Health Specific Biomarkers In Vitro Assays

, , , , , ,

Journal of Biotechnology & Bioresearch, 2(1) (2019) .


Abstract

Herbal based test formulations have been used in most of the healthcare settings since time immemorial. The present experimental cell line study was designed to evaluate the impact of the Biofield Energy Treatment on test formulation and different cell line mediums related with vital organs functioning. Cell lines that were specific to different organ systems were used in the study using standard protocols. 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, Eileen Mary Meagher, USA and were labeled as the Biofield Energy Treated (BT) test formulation/media. MTT assay was used for cell viability assay, and the results showed that the test item was found non-toxic. Cytoprotective action of the test formulation showed a significant maximum restoration of cell viability by 56.8% (at 63.75µg/mL), 57.5% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 124.8% (at 1µg/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 83.2% (at 63.75µg/mL), 93.8% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 20.6% (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 11.3% (at 25.5µg/mL), 82.7% (at 63.75µg/mL), and 113.9% (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. MG-63 cells were used for estimation of ALP activity, which was highly increased by 59.8% (at 0.1µg/mL), 269.7% (at 0.1µg/mL), and 105.7% (at 0.1µg/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. Besides, Ishikawa cells showed maximum increased ALP activity by 94.8% at 10µg/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 48.8% (at 1µg/mL), 62.9% (at 10µg/mL), and 103% (at 1µg/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 at 63.75µg/mL by 74.9% and 84.9% in the BT-Med+UT-TI and 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 21.7% (at 25.5µg/mL), 83.2% (at 0.1µg/mL), and 40% (at 25.5µg/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 50.8% (at 63.75µg/mL), 35.9% (at 10µg/mL), and 49.9% (at 10µg/mL) in the UT-Med+BT-TI, BT-Med+UT-TI, and BT-Med+BT-TI groups, respectively compared to untreated test group in human neuroblastoma cells (SH-SY5Y). However, the Relative Quantification (RQ) of Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) was significantly increased by 135.2%, 291.4%, and 248.3% at 50µg/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