Antibiogram Typing and Biochemical Characterization of Klebsiella pneumoniae after Biofield Treatment

, ,

Journal of Tropical Diseases, 03(04) (2015) .


Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae) is a common nosocomial pathogen causing respiratory tract (pneumoniae) and blood stream infections. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates of K. pneumoniae infections are difficult to treat in patients in health care settings. Aim of the present study was to determine the impact of Mr. Trivedi’s biofield treatment on four MDR clinical lab isolates (LS) of K. pneumoniae (LS 2, LS 6, LS 7, and LS 14). Samples were divided into two groups i.e. control and biofield treated. Control and treated groups were analyzed for antimicrobial susceptibility pattern, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), biochemical study and biotype number using MicroScan Walk-Away® system. The analysis was done on day 10 after biofield treatment as compared with control group. Antimicrobial sensitivity assay showed that there was 46.42% alteration in sensitivity of tested antimicrobials in treated group of MDR K. pneumonia isolates. MIC results showed an alteration in 30% of tested antimicrobials out of thirty after biofield treatment in clinical isolates of K. pneumoniae. An increase in antimicrobial sensitivity and decrease in MIC value was reported (in LS 6) in case of piperacillin/tazobactam and piperacillin. Biochemical study showed a 15.15% change in biochemical reactions as compared to control. A significant change in biotype numbers were reported in all four clinical isolates of MDR K. pneumoniae after biofield treatment as compared to control group. On the basis of changed biotype number after biofield treatment, new organism was identified as Enterobacter aerogenes in LS 2 and LS 14. These results suggest that biofield treatment has a significant effect on altering the antimicrobial sensitivity, MIC values, biochemical reactions and biotype number of multidrug-resistant isolates of K. pneumoniae.

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