Biological Significance of the Biofield Energy Treatment Based Test Formulation on Various Biomarkers Using Cell-Based Assays

, , , , , ,

Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutics, 6(1), 49-58 (2019) .


Abstract

The aim of the present study determined the impact of the Biofield Energy Treated test formulation using cell lines related with vital organs functioning. Different cells based assay were used based on the vital organs function of bones, heart, liver, lungs, and brain. The test formulation and cells media was divided into two parts; one untreated (UT) and other part received the Biofield Energy Treatment remotely by a renowned Biofield Energy Healer, Dimitrius Anagnos, USA and were labeled as the Biofield Energy Treated (BT) test formulation / media. The test formulation was tested against various activities using cell line assay in their specific medium (Med). The test formulation was tested for cell viability, and the results showed that the test formulation at tested concentrations was found non-toxic against all the cell line. Cytoprotective action of the test formulation showed a significant maximum restoration of cell viability by 25.6% (at 63.75 µg/mL), 46.7% (at 0.1 µg/mL), and 109.5% (at 63.75 µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group in human cardiac fibroblasts cells (HCF) cells, while 41.3%, 22.8%, and 34.8% at 63.75 µg/mL in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. However, cyto-protective activity in human hepatoma cells (HepG2) showed improved cell viability by 117.7% (at 0.1 µg/mL), 61.3% (at 25.5 µg/mL), and 104% (at 0.1 µg/mL) in the UT-Med + BT-TI, BT-Med + UT-TI, BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated test group. ALP activity in MG-63 cells was significantly increased by 105.7% at 10 µg/mL in the UT-Med + BT-TI group, while in Ishikawa cells showed maximum increased ALP activity by 368% and 602% at 0.1 µg/mL in the UT-Med + BT-TI and BT-Med + BT-TI groups respectively, as compared to the untreated group. The maximum percent cellular protection of HCF (heart) cells (decreased of LDH activity) was significantly increased by 58.8% at 1 µg/mL in the UT-Med + BT-TI group, while BT-Med + UT-TI group showed increased protection by 32.6% at 25 µg/mL, and improved cellular protection by 60.4% and 109.5% at 25 and 63.75 µg/mL respectively, in the BT-Med + BT-TI group 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 35.9% (at 10 µg/mL), 84.2% (at 25.5 µg/mL), and 87.6% (at 10 µg/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 35.2% (at 0.1 µg/mL), 35.2% (at 0.1 µg/mL), and 79.7% (at 1 µg/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 at 25 µg/mL by 30.6%, 107.7%, and 89.1% 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 at 50 µg/mL by 156.1%, 158.7%, and 68.1% 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. In conclusion, 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