Effect of the Biofield Energy Treated Test Formulation on Tissue Specific Biomarkers in Various Human Cells

, , , , , ,

SM Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 5(1) (2019) .


Abstract

Dysfunction of vital organs are the main concern for human health. Therefore, it is necessary to homeostat the normal function of vital organs such as lungs, liver, brain, and heart for better health. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Consciousness Energy Treated test formulation on the function of vital organs such as 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, Jagdish Singh, USA and were labeled as the Biofield Energy Treated (BT) test formulation/media. Cell viability data suggested that the tested formulation was safe and non-toxic in nature in six different cells. The experimental groups like untreated medium (UT-Med) + Biofield Treated Test Item (BT-TI), BT-Med + UT-TI, and BT-Med + BT-TI showed 190.5%, 56.3%, and 73.8% restoration of cell viability at 1µg/mL in human cardiac fibroblasts cells (HCF) compared to the UT-Med + UT-TI group. Moreover, BT-Med + UT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups showed 98.8% and 79.1% restoration of cell viability at 10µg/mL, respectively in human hepatoma cells (HepG2) compared to untreated. Furthermore, 261.7%, 165.8%, and 167.8% restoration of cell viability was observed in adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549) by BT-Med + BT-TI group at 0.1, 1, and 10µg/mL, respectively compared to untreated. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level was significantly increased by 52.5% and 66.1% in the BT-Med + UT-TI group at 10 and 50µg/mL, respectively in human bone osteosarcoma cells (MG-63) compared to the untreated. Additionally, the level of ALP was significantly increased by101% and 170.6%in the BT-Med + UT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively at 50µg/mL 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 191.8% (at 0.01µg/mL) and 141.8% (10µg/mL)in the UT-Med + BT-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 88.1% (at 1µg/mL) and 44.9% (at 63µg/mL) in the BT-Med + UT-TI and UT-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 19.6% and 13.6% in the BT-Med + UT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively at 25µg/mL compared to untreated in A549 cells. Serotonin level was significantly increased by 475.6% (at 0.1µg/mL), 311.9% (at 1µg/mL), 400.5% (at 10µg/mL) and 250.9% (at 63µg/mL) in the BT-Med + BT-TI group compared to the untreated in human neuroblastoma cells (SH-SY5Y). The relative quantification (RQ) of vitamin D receptor (VDR) was significantly increased by 185% and 285.8% in the BT-Med + UT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups, respectively at 10µg/mL compared to the untreated in MG-63 cells. Utterly, these results suggest that Biofield Energy Treated test formulation significantly improved the relevant bones, heart, liver, lungs, and brain-related functional enzyme 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, arrhythmias, heart failure, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathy, cirrhosis, liver cancer, hemochromatosis, Wilson disease, pneumonia, asthma, emphysema, 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