Impact of the Biofield Energy Healing Based Test Formulation on Various Health Biomarkers Using Cell-Based Assays

, , , , , ,

Journal of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 6(2) (209AD) .


Abstract

Various complementary approaches have been used against multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), which is the major contributor in high mortality among the healthcare centers. The aim of the present study was to determine the impact of the Biofield Energy Treatment on test formulation and different cell line medium related with vital organs functioning. 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, Elizabeth Patric, 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 129.7% (at 1 µg/mL), 28.4% (at 63.75 µg/mL), and 44.5% (at 10 µg/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 63.75 µg/mL), 14.5% (at 10 µg/mL), and 22.9% (at 25.5 µg/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 25.6% (at 25.5 µg/mL), 59.8% (at 10 µg/mL), and 26.1% (at 1 µg/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 84.9% at 50 µg/mL in the BT-Med + BT-TI group, while in Ishikawa cells showed maximum increased ALP activity by 308.1% at 0.1 µg/mL in the BT-Med + BT-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 76.7% (at 1 µg/mL), 44.3% (at 1 µg/mL), and 102.6% (at 10 µg/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 63.75 µg/mL by 70.6%, 89.9%, and 76.6% 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 16.2% (at 10 µg/mL), 35.2% (at 63.75 µg/mL), and 17.7% (at 63.75 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 by 14.6% (at 25 µg/mL), 41.2% (at 1 µg/mL), and 70.8% (at 10 µg/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 166.8%, 266.4%, and 153.3% at 0.1 µg/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