Noetic Now

About Noetic Now »

From Issue Nineteen, February 2012 Next Article »

Hands-On Miracles: More Questions Than Answers

  • Comments (32)
  • Bookmark and Share

Ed. Note: In the following dialogue, excerpted and edited from the Institute of Noetic Sciences’ “Mysteries of Consciousness” teleseminar series, Bill Bengston, a professor of sociology at St. Joseph’s College in New York City, discusses some remarkable results from a series of hands-on healing sessions with mice. He has written two books on this work: The Energy Cure: Unraveling the Mystery of Hands-On Healing and Hands-On Healing: A Training Course in the Energy Cure (both from Sounds True, 2010).


Dean Radin: Bill, you’ve distinguished yourself through stellar work in animal model studies—in which a mouse is given a disease like cancer and then hands-on healing is performed to see if the disease will be ameliorated or even cured. I think what you’ve done is unique within the annals of healing research because your work shows not just a small statistical effect but a full-blown cure. Anyone familiar with the literature in this area knows that such results seem impossible, and they would have valid cause to be skeptical. But you are a specialist in research methods and statistics and it’s clear you’ve done everything correctly. So, we’re left with a major anomaly. How did you come to do this work?

Bill Bengston: I never intended to be a researcher of anomalous healing. I’m guessing that many of the people who are drawn to this field come to it after some kind of personal experience. Something weird happens, a spontaneous case of clairvoyance or a precognitive dream or something like that, and then they scratch their head and wonder about it.

For me it began when I was introduced to some pioneering research data on the laying on of hands by Bernard Grad at McGill University. I was fascinated, read a couple of his papers, but then didn’t pay much attention after that. I graduated from college in 1971 and was lifeguarding when I met a guy, Bennett Mayrick, who claimed he was a psychic. A natural-born skeptic, I decided to put his psychic abilities to the test. I was sure that if I designed a stringent enough test, any psychic effect would go away—but, to the contrary, I couldn’t make the effect go away, which really annoyed me. It also turned out that Bennett’s psychic readings turned into psychometric readings, meaning he’d get physical impressions on his body. He would hold an object that belonged to someone else and start to get aches, pains, or visions. I started to design the studies to make this effect go away, figuring that there was some delusion somewhere in this phenomenon. Maybe somebody was pulling the wool over somebody’s eyes. I did some double-blind studies, but I couldn’t make the effect go away. And then, for the kicker, while Bennett was doing his psychic readings, the people he was reading began to report that whatever conditions they suffered from were going away. Both Bennett and I drew the line at that point and said that this was just nutty.

How could it be that you pick up someone’s watch, and then not only do you pick up the symptoms that person has but also that person experiences those symptoms going away?

I suffered from a bad back for quite some time—in fact, I had to give up a swimming scholarship because I couldn’t arch my back after about a hundred meters of butterfly. So I asked Bennett to put his hands on my back, to which he responded, “And do what?” I said, “Well, fix it.” So, Bennett put his hands on my back, and although he didn’t believe anything and I didn’t believe anything, lo and behold, my back pain went away.

Radin: At that point, had Bennett done any kind of hands-on healing?

Bengston: No, I was the first person.

Radin: And when your back pain went away, did he get it?

Bengston: No. What happened was that Bennett experienced my back pain before he knew it was my pain. We were in a kitchen, talking about one of my failed double-blind attempts. I was sitting on the counter, hunching my back over to stretch it out—people with lower back pain will understand. At that point, Bennett says, “Ow! Someone’s got back pain,” and he starts to look through his wallet and pockets to see if he’s carrying anything that would account for the pain. When I told him it was me, he said, “Please keep your pain to yourself.” I said, “I have a better idea: fix it!” He asked how, and all I knew to do then was to lean over the kitchen table and have him put his hands on my back. The annoying thing for both of us was that it worked. I wanted to prove that this effect wasn’t real and Bennett wanted to live a normal life, but we didn’t get what we wanted. I haven’t had any pain since. We stared at each other that day in the kitchen, wondering what to do next.

I could have said, Well, that was interesting, gotta go, but instead, I watched a few hundred healings. Some ailments responded very quickly; others responded very slowly. Some ailments didn’t respond at all. I watched and watched and watched, trying to get a clinical sense of what was going on. I learned that I don’t have much of a mind for clinical practice because I get frustrated. First of all, with my own healing, there was the possibility that time fixed my back. In other words, when someone comes in with pain and you put your hands on them and they come back repeatedly, the pain gradually goes away because pain sometimes does that. So, could I say it was Bennett’s laying on of hands that cured my back, or was it time, or was it a change in posture? I don’t know how people go through life figuring out what clinically works and what doesn’t work.

I observed, among other things, that some ailments responded very, very quickly to hands-on healing—in particular, cancer. The more aggressive the cancer, the faster it went away. But some ailments didn’t respond well at all, such as chronic benign tumors and warts. Malignant tumors, however, responded right away. This was curious. Also curious was that Bennett couldn’t help anyone with a cancerous tumor who had received conventional treatment. If chemotherapy was going on, people didn’t respond to Bennett. But if no such treatment was going on, the cancer responded very quickly. I watched a few dozen cancer cases go into spontaneous remissions—and as far as we know, not a single one of them ever returned.

After watching this happen over and over again, we invited physicians to take a look. They found it interesting and said they’d heard about such things, but when we invited them to take a closer look, they declined. So as a card-carrying skeptic, I decided to take this stuff into the lab. The short version is that we found a mouse model with a 100 percent fatality and tested hands-on healing under very controlled conditions. The model we started with was a mammary cancer; no mouse had ever lived 28 days after being injected with this cancer. We set up a traditional experiment—an experimental group, a control group, and all that—in a conventional biology lab with conventional biologists who didn’t believe any of this stuff, and we treated the mice. To our absolute astonishment, the mice that were treated were cured.

Radin: At this point, were you the healer or was your psychic friend, Bennett, the healer?

Bengston: Bennett was supposed to be but backed out at the very last second. It would be a gross understatement to say I threw a fit. It had taken awhile, a lot of strings and a lot of favors, to set up a conventional bio lab with the City University of New York, and by the time we set it all in place, my friend backs out. So we were left with no healer. Another buddy of mine, Dave Krinsley, said to me, “You need to be the healer; you’ve been around Bennett the longest.” I never considered myself a healer, but in the first experiment, I became the healer.

If this thing was going to work, I expected something along the lines of a radiation model: we get the mice soon after they’re injected, I go zap-zap-zap, and then it kills the cancer. I thought that if we got to the mice soon after injection, we’d be introducing something closer to a preventative. Well, what happened instead is that the cancer grew. I thought the experiment was failing and kept trying to call it off. If the thing were working, cancer shouldn’t be growing. As it turned out, the tumors were growing, but after a couple of weeks of growth, they got to a particular size, developed a blackened area, ulcerated, and then imploded—and the mice lived a normal life span. [For more on this particular study, go here.]

Radin: Has that ever happened under ordinary circumstances?

Bengston: Not a single case, according to biologists who tell me that at least several thousand experiments have been done on these mice. At that time, biologists had spent twenty years on this one mouse model.

Radin: Did they have any explanation for what was happening?

Bengston: Absolutely none.

Radin: Were they curious about this?

Bengston: They were very curious. The chair of the Biology Department at the time wasn’t really a mouse guy; he was doing this as a favor. He didn’t know what to do with the outcome, so he suggested we do one replication. Since I’m not a healer, I wanted to see what would happen if someone else did it. I got the head of the Biology Department, who thought this whole thing was nuts, as well as another faculty member, Dave Krinsley. I also got two of my students who were skeptical about all this. In fact, that was my criterion for selection: you had to actually audibly laugh in my face. I wanted completely inexperienced, nonbelieving skeptics.

Radin: What instructions did you give to them to heal the mice?

Bengston: For about six weeks, I trained them in a variety of mental imaging techniques, which require a lot of practice in rapid mental imaging. It’s a faithless, belief-free system; to a great extent, it’s simply a mechanical system. They practiced and practiced these techniques, and then they did the laying-on hand techniques around the cages of the mice. They never touched the mice. They would go into the lab for an hour a day—or I tried to get them to go into the lab for an hour a day—and put their hands around a cage. To give you an idea of how little they believed in this stuff, in their logs, both students noted that they thought they were actually participating in a study on gullibility.

Radin: How did you know they were actually using the imaging method you had assigned?

Bengston: We met as a group once a week for a couple of hours and practiced the techniques together. Then I asked them to go home and to practice and keep blogs about it. The faculty members kept sparse logs, with one claiming he had no sense of mastery of this whatsoever. The students kept expressing skepticism about the work, their ability to master these techniques, and that any of this had anything to do with healing, much less that healing was even possible.

And the bottom line is that all the mice were cured.

Radin: How did you develop this technique? Presumably, when you did the first experiment, you were using the same technique?

Bengston: Yes, I was.

Radin: And so where does that technique come from?

Bengston: Well, Bennett had no teacher. Though he was skeptical, he simply discovered he could do psychometry, and then he discovered that he could take symptoms away from people. He ended up putting his hands on people and taking away painful conditions. I hung around him for hours at a time and would pump him with question after question. He would spout out an answer, but, as he described it, he was learning as he was speaking. Sometimes I would ask him a question, he would respond, and then we’d both look at each other and wonder, What does that mean? Basically, it turns out that the reproduction of this healing technique is a faith-free, belief-free, relatively mechanical process. My suspicion is that it might have something to do with increasing healing efficacy, but I don’t have any pre and post tests.

So could people have done it before? How widespread is this ability to begin with? Maybe I’m the only person silly enough to try and to come up with these mental imaging techniques. The reality is that I don’t know which of them work or for what reason. I can talk about what happens afterward, but I don’t know what is kicking in to produce these remissions. I don’t have a value added pre/post kind of a thing.

Radin: So the method might be a way of focusing the mind. Because skeptics were involved in a number of the experiments and the results were still the same, though it seems unlikely that skeptics would be practicing with great diligence. They would probably prefer to sit there and read a book or something. So they’re not likely to become masters of the technique because of their inherent bias—especially if they haven’t yet done the experiment and discovered that they can produce a positive outcome. I wonder whether something else is going on, like you were hanging around a healer for a long time and being healed by that healer. Maybe you picked up the Midas touch, and now you can impart it?

Bengston: It’s possible. I can’t rule that out; maybe there’s some sort of attunement that occurred and can be passed on. A way to rule that out is to take this down a couple of generations removed from anyone who has been successfully healing this way, to see if a mechanical reproduction of the techniques would produce the same kind of cures.

Another problem is that I don’t know if every individual was able to do this. We had a tremendous problem with the control mice because when anyone who knew the techniques came into contact with the control mice, the control mice also remitted.

Also, let me be clear what I mean by remission. The way the mice would normally die is that a tumor would get increasingly larger, and then the mice would die from malnutrition or the tumor becoming too big to sustain life or both. When we applied our healing techniques, however, the tumors seemed to hit something akin to a critical mass in size, and then they would blacken, ulcerate, and implode. The blackening, ulceration, and implosion had never been seen before. I’ve taken these findings to people who have worked on these mice at Jackson Labs, and they wonder what’s going on as well. We’ve also done histology on the mice at various stages in their remission, and it turns out that the mice are cancerous until they’re fully cured—meaning that even when some cancer cells are ulcerating and shrinking, other viable cancer cells are still there. So we have a shrinking cancerous system rather than an expansive cancerous system, but it goes through a natural life cycle.

Here is another complicating factor. In the first experiment, we didn’t know what was going on. We watched our mice get more and more ugly as the tumors got larger and larger, and we didn’t know what to expect. I thought the experiment was failing. When one of the control mice died, ours still didn’t look like they were about to die. When a second control mouse died, we broke protocol and went to the different building where the control mice were being kept because we were curious to see them. There were four mice sitting there, huddled together, barely breathing, and they were obviously on their last leg. We stared at them for ten minutes and determined that maybe there was a difference. Our mice were ugly because they had these ulcerations and such, but they didn’t look as sick as the control mice. A couple of days after we looked at the control mice, they developed blackened areas, ulcerations, and remitted! And that turns out to be the pattern in all of our experiments.

Radin: Again, to remit in this context means they show no sign of cancer at all.

Bengston: No sign—they’re cured for life. We keep them for their entire life span. In fact, we reinject them.

Radin: And they’re still cured?

Bengston: They’re still cured. They’re immune to the cancer for life.

Radin: But only that cancer?

Bengston: We haven’t tried others. I’m working on some immunological questions right now. Among the questions is whether we can take an obvious lifetime immunity, find out what’s going on, and transfer that immunity from one organism to another.

Radin: So to bring us up to date, you’ve done twelve experiments in something like five different university labs.

Bengston: Right.

Radin: They all show the same basic result, whether you are the healer or the people you’ve trained are the healers.

Bengston: Right.

Radin: There are peculiarities with the controls: if anybody gets near the controls, then their cancer goes away too.

Bengston: Right.

Radin: You are sitting on this remarkable body of highly repeatable, astonishing results. Now what?

Bengston: I’m trying to design some experiments to see if we can identify the underlying mechanism. I have a bet with an immunologist who doesn’t think this is immunological. All of the evidence in my non-immunological mind points to an immunological response. Then there is the question you asked earlier: Is this an immunity to other kinds of cancers as well, a global immunity, or is it specific to one cancer? I’m trying to get to some rather expensive tests to try to isolate what might be going on and to see if this can be transferred from one organism to another. Do we have at least a metaphorical vaccine? I don’t know the form that would actually take or whether it would follow traditional vaccine models. Is it possible to make something from the tissue, from the blood, from something in the animals that will reproduce a healing without what we would call at this point “the normal process” of healing through me—to separate it from me and keep it in perpetuity for multiple generations?

Radin: Do you imagine that there may be a genetic change to the mice that are cured, given that they can’t get that same cancer?

Bengston: I don’t know if it’s a genetic change or something that’s been stimulated in the immune system.

Radin: Fascinating work.


For more information, go to www.bengstonresearch.com.

Moon Icon
  • 32 Comments
  • Anonymous Icon

    barbarapettibone Feb 01, 2012

    This article is fantastic! Although I've heard much about it, this article really seems to provide proof of hands on healing. I want to learn how to do it!

  • herbybell Feb 02, 2012

    Although I'm enthusiastic about Dean and Bill elaborating upon the power of compassion, empathy and presence–along with what the original chiropractors called, "that extra something"...what about the mice for GOD's sake? In NEVER ceases to amaze me how contemporary wo/man props up something that has been around for millennia, at least, only at the expense of the suffering and death of another species. What's up with that guys? Perhaps the next study can be how you compartmentalize healing and killing? How do you do it?!

  • Anonymous Icon

    eftwendy Feb 02, 2012

    I liked the article - until the end. Why try to develop a vaccine or even discuss a vaccine? Hands on healing is healthy by itself. Why not just educate people about the validity of the process? You trained skeptics. Keep it simsple when that works! Use this opportunity to teach the public that this is valid. It works and anyone can learn to do it. Our culture has taught the public to abdicate any and all health care to professionals to the point that people are not aware of what they could, and ought to, do for themselves and their families.

  • Pat Martinez Feb 02, 2012

    As a trained research scientist in molecular biology, I used to think this type of stuff was bunk until I had my own "noetic" experience back in 2006. This opened up a vast doorway of new possibilities and thinking for me. William, your research and thinking on Hands-on healing is fantastic. Has this work been published in a notable peer-reviewed journal? I'm hoping the answer is YES!

  • Anonymous Icon

    nbtruthman Feb 02, 2012

    The biggest and most obvious question is whether this technique works with human cancers. Unfortunately chemotherapy (and radiation?) apparently prevents the healing from taking effect, so there would be a big problem in using with human volunteers. A patient would have to already have complete faith in the treatment and be willing to forego chemo and radiation. That's tough, except maybe for cases of cancers that are already known to have a very poor response to conventional treatment. Has Dr. Bengston ever been contacted by people wanting to do this?

    Stimulation of the immune system specifically to fight the cancer cells might be the mechanism, since it is known that chemotherapy and radiation suppress and damage the immune system.

    Of course orthodox medicine would scoff at the technique as humbug. I don't see it likely that any medical institution would be interested in investigating this, for a lot of reasons. Not just rigid reductionist materialist skepticism, but economic and political factors. There is little money in a laying on of hands mental or spiritual treatment method, and even more important, development of such a treatment would threaten the profits and careers of a huge cancer treatment and research industry. Too bad, since it could potentially lead to a breakthrough in cancer treatment.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Humble Feb 02, 2012

    The same with me... in a sort of spontaneous way... It just happens, and every time it does, I can never believe it. It has happened long before I even heard or was interested in Meditation... My own cure of "sore throat", which I suffered from since childhood...and then, have had "sinusitis" for a long time...It all went away since the day I decided to breath the "breeze" which I used and still do feel around my face..."It" moves...That day, I sort of got a bit annoyed not knowing what to do to "It", as "It" used to distract me from the readings (newspapers/magazines) I wanted to do...nothing to do with these matters. I was actually a bit fearful when I decide to try and breath "It"...and got a real surprise ...the sore throat disappeared! The "breeze" was so pure, so light...It was like breathing at the top of a mountain. From that day on, I started to search for answers...I did not have the Internet then. No one could tell me, and everyone thought I was ...mad! Then, going to bookshops, I found Reiki and the answer! But long before that day, I had my first cure: my youngest son was only a week old and had a bad cold. Just in thoughts, I approached his face and pretending but very willing I'd cure him by breathing the air he was breathing. I remember using my mouth and sucking that air from him with the thought:"give me all that cold". The result was so instant I could not even dare telling anyone, and did not know what to think...It scared me a bit. He was cured, no blocked nose...And I had his cold ! But it stayed with me for only that day. I have no answers! I have so many other stories...but I still have difficulty in believing... I now do TM which I learnt last year, and on my first day, I managed to Transcend...The feeling ? I cannot describe it! I never thought that there was such place ...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Humble Feb 02, 2012

    I no longer suffer from "sinusitis" either. And I would never dare charge anyone for helping them... I still think it is all so mysterious...The lump in the armpit of that lady who was worried sick the day she had the appointment with the Doc. about it. I touched it and to try and make her feel calm, I told her:"It is nothing!" Well, a few hours later, the Doc., could not find it! One year later, no signs of it...And the open ulcer with pus I found on an elderly lady's leg...The next day, the nurse arrived...and I was so embarrassed: it was still there, but it was closed and dried! I felt so awkward... I just wish I indeed could make miracles happen, and then, I'd secretly do it to everyone...
    I hear that when the cure does not happen it is because time has come for that person to leave this life...No one is going to live forever...and we just have to learn to let go, accept what God wants...After all, Death is not but like a door to Eternity...a new beginning ! About time we learn/teach ourselves to look at it with a different approach... without fear...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Humble Feb 02, 2012

    About the article, and it is what I should have said something... Yes, I agree it is faith-free, believe-free. But I know of at least one healer who says he can never cure himself...So, this is indeed a very mysterious matter. Some say/think not everyone "has it", and it is like one of those things where some are born with a talent for music...or any art. It's all there with them ! We all can learn or try, some will achieve...others won't be any near...And if achieving, it means that that talent was only dormant... Why having a go is a must, But, then, some others think that one must change one's feelings, become compassionate, plus. Rid of bad feelings like hate, plus...Be more spiritual ...? It is marvellous to hear about this type of research. We all need to open our minds more if we want to reach far, and never assume that we know it all , and then, discard these matters as pure nonsense - just because one has not experienced it. Be curious!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Rindor Feb 02, 2012

    To Bill Bengston: You're looking for the "underlying mechanism" as to why healing occurs in your trials. There are two elements involved that make it work. The first is well within our realm. The second is outside of our realm and yet within us and neither is physical which is why your instruments can’t measure them. Together they make healing possible. When we do our part well with the first element, the second element can do its part. But it’s this first element that so many would be healers have trouble with. What’s the first? "Neutrality". The particular state of attachment/non-attachment of the healer will affect the outcome and I believe this is the case in your trials. On the spectrum of possible states of mind one can be in when offering healing to another, at one end of the spectrum you have people who are attached to a particular outcome in the healing exchange. In this case, often (always?) the ego is involved and when this is the case, they fail most, if not all the time because the underlying or hidden concern is really for themselves. They want to be the hero or prove their "way" is the best. At the other end of the spectrum you have people who are willing to try, but are afraid it won't work which again means the ego is involved and they fear failure and looking silly because they sort of believed and yet it didn't work. And this again means they're more concerned about themselves than the one they're supposed to be healing. In the case of your healers, none of them were attached to a particular outcome. According to your description, they were curious or perplexed or felt silly about being in your trial or whatever, but they were not attached to either end of the spectrum. Whether they knew it or not, they were in the best mental state for healing which is the state of Neutrality or a child like state of mind when it comes to the actual healing itself. None of their concerns were for or against their talent to heal or the results of their efforts. They weren't looking to be the hero and they weren't afraid to fail. Their concerns were about anything but. This is just more proof that one does not have to believe in this kind of healing to be a successful healer. It works as long as one can stay out of any attachment to the outcome. Why? To be continued... (ran out of space here)

  • Anonymous Icon

    Rindor Feb 02, 2012

    Continued from above - Any healing of this sort is inviting a “second element” into the mix. Call it whatever you want... Energy, The Universe, Spirit, God , Eddie - whatever. It is intelligent and knows what to do. If you go in with your own ideas of what's supposed to happen, this intelligence will not fight you. It will wait and allow you to try your best. And where the ego is concerned, it always wants to think it "knows best" and doesn't need any help or is afraid of looking stupid when the healing effort doesn't work. This thought is not necessarily conscious, but it's there and is always a dead end road. But as long as one is in a Neutral state of mind with no attachment to the outcome, this makes room for Infinite Intelligence to work which loves to work "through" it's own agents... which is us. Investigate the state of mind and the level of expectation your healers have when they participate. See if they are attached to any particular outcome concerning the healing itself. The greatest healing success will come from a mental state of Neutrality. If your description is correct, they didn't care one way or the other about the outcome of the healing. They were thinking of other things. The healing "Intention" in the background of all this mental chatter and Non-Attachment... a Neutral state of mind about the actual healing process itself and about the outcome was all that was needed to bring the actual healing “Agent” into the picture. This is the mechanism you’re looking for. An effective collaboration between the finite and the Infinite. Works every time.

  • Anonymous Icon

    cougarB2010 Feb 02, 2012

    I'm very happy that you're doing this work, and that you're using the standard double-blind methodologies, starting with animal studies. This is the best way to begin to make inroads into the skepticism that Dean Radin has been addressing for years. I would suggest that you expand your research to other illnesses that can be tested with mice--such as multiple sclerosis.

    The research in multiple sclerosis has not yet reached a place where any commercial drug is more powerful than having a vitamin D blood serum level of around 75 ng/ML. So the ethics of starting a human trial with a control group is less daunting--though I might add, there is a drug trial on the horizon that will involve remyelinating the nerve cells, so that option may not lost forever.

    However, there are already people who choose controversial therapies for cancer, such as Gerson's raw juice therapy, instead of the standard options. There may be people who would choose this option over conventional therapy. Unfortunately, such a study could not ethically involve an untreated control group, which would immediately call all results into question. Your control group could be people on conventional therapy, however.

    I would also suggest expanding your research to other needs, rather than just physical illness, because then you can measure the results without the same ethical concerns. The IONS Intentional Chocolate study comes to mind, which demonstrated measurable results on a variety standardized psychological tests.

    In the Clarity Community, we've begun doing energy healing rituals by teleconference, attended by people throughout the world, but we're focusing entirely on a person's global needs, and we haven't yet had any request for help in physical healing. The results we are observing are clearly subjective reports, but truth does occur in the wild, even when not surrounded by statistics and research design.

    Nonetheless, what we're observing, I believe that you could test. However, what we're doing brings up another possibility.

    That possibility is crowd-sourced energy healing, which, I believe suggests another avenue for you. What if you measured the effect of a group of healers working on addressing the cancer simultaneously? What if you could achieve quicker results, and in this way, create the possibility for a human trial that did not involve such a high degree of risk?

    (Hello, Dean. The Global Wisdom System lives--in the Clarity Community. Contact me for an update if you wish.)

  • Anonymous Icon

    Rhedaya Feb 02, 2012

    I wonder if the difference between the control mice and the test mice was statistically significant, since you had so much 'trouble with the controls'. And why do you continue to go in to the controls-shouldnt they just be fed and cared for by someone who is not part of the study (after injection)?

    Is this published anywhere?
    rhedayamd@yahoo.com

  • Anonymous Icon

    Sandrou Feb 02, 2012

    Like Herbybell I too feel sorry for the poor mice. And the tragedy is that in most cases the stuff that works on them, after hundreds of them are sacrificed, turns out to be a lot less effective on people. Transplanted human cancers in mice are different from spontaneously occurring human cancers -- it shouldn't take that big of an oomph to make the mouse's immune system go "hey, what's that?" I would like to see human trials -- people who have nothing to lose and everything to gain should be allowed to volunteer.

  • Anonymous Icon

    TumuloJack Feb 03, 2012

    I know this works. 30+ years ago, with a group attending The Wall Training in Seattle, we formed a circle of linked hands and "beamed" energy to a fatally ill person hemorrhaging in a Salem, OR hospital. She walked out, that night, healed. tj

  • jmysin1 Feb 05, 2012

    I hope this energy will expand throughout the universe. So many suffer who could benefit from this. I am a bit puzzled by the natural implication of this healing energy. One writer touched on a solution but let me state my puzzlement. If such healing were to become widespread how would people die? We could heal cancer, heart disease, dementia, etc.. Put another way, if I am 90 and have a newly diagnosed cancer what do I do?

  • Anonymous Icon

    JudithK Feb 05, 2012

    jmysin1, read Anita Moorjani's new book, "Dying to be me". Anita had stage 4b lymphoma, passed over, had a near death experience, and returned not only to live but also to see her cancer disappear within days. She can also be found by googling Anita Moorjani NDE. It's amazing story. She says cancer is in the energy field, and if it can be removed from the energy field, it will also be healed in the body. That's probably how energy healing works. She, like many other people who had NDEs, came back from her experience saying that the feeling of love and acceptance on the other side was so powerful that it was difficult to return.

  • Anonymous Icon

    marialaing Feb 05, 2012

    Yes, JudithK, I am familiar with Anita Moorjani and her story, but I have not read her book. I saw her You-Tube. As a licensed massage therapist I have given a lot of thought to the experience of "laying on of hands". I know that I have exchanged massage with other therapists at continuing education seminars and that there is a big difference of "touch" from one individual to another. Some have "it" and others go through the motions. There is something to be said regarding the mind/spirit connection. I have experienced "it" in my practice. I am 65 and now retired frommy practice due to health issues of my own (wounded healer). I really miss my work with people. If there ever arises a need for research using a massage therapist, let me know. I'll be there.

  • KYRANI Feb 08, 2012

    I have read this blog and listened to Dr Bengston’s lectures and I can only say that I have grave doubts about the findings. I strongly suspect that some person(s) is tampering with his experiments and for the following reasons. 1. from my own experience, I have recovered from cancer many times and I have never gone through any stages of deterioration before healing. 2. thousands of people with cancer remission, many of them documented have likewise not reported deterioration before healing. And thirdly no biological system works in this fashion! This is based on the idea that a disease goes through a cycle and that is true in many cases but that is not the case here. Leisons and damaged areas do not deteriorate and ulcerate as a prelude to healing. The mice are injected with cancer cells and normally would die within 14 to 27 days. In these experiments the affected area on the mice first became blackened, then ulcerated and finally imploded and healed. I would suggest that the blackening is due to damage of some sort, irradiation, dry-ice or chemical??? The ulceration is really in the same vein as allergies, the immune system is over-activated and there are ways of doing that. The implosion sounds as the sort of thing that would happen if an irritation suddenly ended and healing began.
    From my own findings, cancer is all about stem-cell mediated immunity erroneously ignited owing to ideas ("energy fields" ) indicating some area of the body is under attack. What I have observed is that stem cells modify their genetic expression so that they become de-specialized and act as shields. The cancer mass is the body's desperate response to protect itself. Such an attack in the body is created by ideas under real potential conditions that support these ideas. The attack depends on the person’s or animal’s reaction, owing to the action of mirror neurons. Such an attack in the mice is created more directly because they are injected with cancer tissues but I would say it is not the cancer tissues that adversely affect the mice, but the ideas in the researcher’s minds that the action that they are taking in injecting the mice with cancer tissues is harmful to the mice.

  • KYRANI Feb 08, 2012

    Healing comes about when these harmful ideas are seen as valueless and/or they no longer occur in mind. And in that case the stem cells will gradually revert back to normal cells ie regain their specialization and any excesses die by apoptosis, normal cell death. This is remission and I have experience normal remission of cancer twice and both times I had taken no action with respect to the cancer masses but in one case I distanced myself from the attackers and in the other I addressed the issues that the attackers were using to underpin the presented ideas. In subsequent occasion I have used mental prescriptions, by which the process of remission can be hurried up significantly. In my formulation of these prescriptions, it is the body’s normal processes that I utilize but with direction and it works every time. I have found over and over again that cancer cells do not normally get attacked by the immune system. I have had cancer many times and the products (cancer cell copies) are stored in my lymph glands. They do not act as immunity in the normal sense, quite the contrary in fact. They swing into action very rapidly in subsequent attacks. However the body can be paced through a conditioning program as to not develop cancer masses anymore and I have realized this so even with the cancer cells in the lymphatic system.
    The other matter that I would like to raise is the preference for skeptics in choosing those students to use as healers in the experiments. Skeptics were considered to be superior to non-skeptics. Why? And more to the point why not run experiments side by side using both? Is a skeptic even a legitimate choice? If you had to have an operation to get well and you had three surgeons to choose from who would you choose, the guy that gave you the greatest amount of reassurance and compassion through his or her belief/confidence, the guy that looked straight through you muttering "I'm totally indifferent as to whether your surgery will be a success or failure or the guy that laughs out loud at the very notion of the surgery being successful? I recall once a surgeon had said to me that if the patient did not have confidence in the surgeon and was afraid going into surgery then the result would not be favorable and indeed could easily be catastrophic. Thus he said he would express all of his belief/confidence to the patient, reassuring them that the surgery would be successful. I won’t name him but he is a highly successful and well liked surgeon. Yes we are talking about mice and not humans, however they are still life and they still respond to warmth, coldness and malice with the same sort of reactions to other forms of life including humans.

  • Anonymous Icon

    JudithK Feb 12, 2012

    You make very interesting points, Kiryani. Of course someone is "tampering" with the mice, but not the way that you mean -- Dr. Bengston is tampering with them mentally, healing them :) I personally am not sure how much difference it makes whether the volunteers are skeptical or not -- as you say, that would require another experiment. In the interview Dr. Radin says "They [the mice] all show the same basic result, whether you are the healer or the people you’ve trained are the healers," to which Dr. Bengston replies "yes". Your suggestion of "tampering" raises an interesting angle, which Dr. Bengston himself has flagged. He says that resonance means that you cannot know who healed the mice. The mice are resonantly bonded, so a healing given to any one mouse is given to all the mice. That's why the controls remit. Their skeptical healers, whom Dr. Bengston spent quite a bit of time training, are resonantly bonded, so the healing given by any one of them is given by all of them. So how is Dr. Bengston not part of this equation? Could we not say also that the healing given by any one of the skeptical students is in fact also given by Dr. Bengston? He raises this point in his book by asking whether it was possible that he healed all the mice himself. The answer to that is yes. So really what is needed is another experiment from which Dr. Bengston's _mind_ is definitively excluded. Now good luck designing something like that :)

  • KYRANI Feb 12, 2012

    @JudithK
    You miss my point. I am not talking about Dr Bengston and his mental action of healing when I suspect there is tampering. And I doubt that Dr Bengston is involved as he appears genuine in the videos and sincere. My point is that the biological progression is not consistent with healing, not for mice, not for humans or any other animals! That is why I suspect the experiments /mice are tampered.

    As for the value of skepticism as a preferred trait for the healers, I am in doubt about that too. To help another heal you have to be able to resonate/ be entangled with in a positive way. I can't see that skeptical students that laugh in your face about the mice being healed would be the students I'd choose to train for the healers. These students would at best be indifferent. There has to be a sympathetic connection between the healer and the patient to get healing, at least from my own experiences. I have helped people heal but only when they and I have been able to connect positively and where there is permission from the patient. In the case of the mice the permission is not relevant. But there still needs to be a good feeling in the mice for the healers, for the healing to be effected.

  • Anonymous Icon

    JudithK Feb 12, 2012

    I think there was a sympathetic connection between the students and the mice. From what I read in the book they were very upset when the mice grew tumours! As to "tampering", the reason I put it into quotes was because the whole point of the initial experiments WAS to tamper with the mice mentally to heal them. As to the other experiments, if Dr. Bengston was indeed resonantly bonded with the skeptical healers, all he had to do was innocently wish that the experiment be successful to affect it with his mind. In fact it would be very difficult for him NOT to affect it, whether he wants to or not. In one experiment people included a batch of mice about which Dr. Bengston did not know -- and those mice were also cured.

  • Anonymous Icon

    JudithK Feb 12, 2012

    PS: There were too many experiments (10+) in too many different places (5) conducted by too many different scientists for all of them to have been tampered with in the same way. Also, the odd progression of tumour + ulceration + implosion did not happen in all the experiments. I think it only happened in the early ones, but don't quote me on that, because I don't have the information at hand. I am just vaguely remembering something Dr. Bengston said in one of his talks.

  • KYRANI Feb 13, 2012

    “Tampering”.. makes me wonder. Do you go to the doctor for him or her to tamper with your body? The word tamper, (in Oxford dictionary) means “to interfere with (something) without authority or so as to cause damage. An act or method of healing cannot be called tampering.
    You say the students were empathetic and compassionate but there is a big problem here with the frame of mind of the researchers/ student healers. Dr Bengston says he chose a skeptic as preferable because as he says he has a problem with belief and faith. However belief is fundamental for healing. It is the one common feature of all healing methods and all healers. There is conflict in scientists between faith verses reason. Scientists are prejudiced about this issue and prejudiced in the face of stark evidence to the contrary might I say. Most of them are atheists or at least secular/agnostic and they seem to think that reason is superior to faith. Faith healing is for them not only a taboo subject but an anathema. I don’t know if you have a scientific background or not so I will tell you about “faith based” healing in mainstream allopathic medicine! It’s called a placebo effect! In clinical practice 1/3 of patients given a placebo (considered fake medicine) get well, another 1/3 see no result and a further 1/3 may see a negative result, ie they may get sicker or develop more symptoms. Why?
    Firstly let me say a placebo is not fake medicine. It is not a drug in the conventional sense, i.e., it’s “active ingredients” are chemicals. The pill given, usually of sugar or flour, is only an anchor. The active ingredient is an idea! And it is every bit faith based medicine as shamanism, wicca, voodoo etc., because a placebo is the faith in / belief in getting well and that faith or belief is what helps bring about healing. And that belief must be in the healers. In clinical practice what the doctor is thinking and not just what he says and does is highly influential. If he thinks “this will do the trick –I’m sure of it” and holds the idea with confidence then the patient will get well. The problema here for the medicos is that the thought is perceived by the patient by.. ouuu.. yuk.. that awful thing.. ESP! Next, the self-doubting doctor who thinks “am I doing the right thing? This stuff does nothing.. it’s just sugar.” Again perceived by the patient (ESP) and influential so they don’t get well.. no result. Then you got greedy doctors who think “hmm makes you want to spew giving this” of course this one is thinking about the loss of kickbacks from the drug companies. The patient perceives this too and may well spew. All of it is faith based, belief based. It is not just 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 doctor/patient experiments. Since the early part of the 20th century doctors have issued placebos to thousands upon thousands of patients -yeah “faith based medicine”, stuff they claim has no reason for working. And if you take away ESP as they do, then there is no reason for the results.

  • KYRANI Feb 13, 2012

    So now back to Dr Bengston’s experiments. He says the mental methods he uses, which he won’t disclose in the video or talk, is not faith or belief based. This means there is no belief in healing! If there is no idea in the mind related to healing the body and which is not upheld with confidence (a belief) then there is no healing.. not in mice.. not in animals of any kind and not in humans either. The students who you say were compassionate to be upset about the mice growing tumors, acted as doctors who are full of doubt at best or at worse like the “greedy for the kickbacks” ones –what compassion?
    Now as you brought up the matter of the 10+ experiments in 5 different locations, I will say something about that too. Cancer is at least a $1,000,000,000,000 industry. There is a lot of money on the table. It constitutes about one quarter or there about of the total revenue of the medical industry. And you are going to tell me that 10 experiments in 5 different location is a problem……..WOW!
    I have been attacked under ferocious conditions to induce cancer and in the early days, the first 5-6 years, they saw spectacular result.. indeed they gloated. Unfortunately for them (toxic doctors included) I was able to perceive what was done and I was able to use the information to help me get well.. to heal.. remiss the cancers every time! And the experiments that I have devised one day are peer-reviewed, i.e., repeated, considered and reported by humane lay people. And I do have evidence of my cancers. I have cancer cells in my lymph glands precisely because cancer is an immune response and the body always keeps copies of all immune responses. This is checkable. In the last 5 years or so all of the attacks, which have reached fever pitch, fail because I can “stage-manage” the body’s responses regardless of the conditions I am forced to live under, so I do not develop any cancer. I can tell you that without belief a person has no chance of getting well. This is not just something I can do but something everybody can do.
    And as we got to here let me go on and make yet another point and that is that the narrative of the medical industry, that cancer is about mutant, rogue cells out of control is not true. There has to be an ongoing brutal attack of vile ideas under severe danger/ fear-inducing conditions for cancer to develop and proliferate in the body; without such ongoing attacks any cancer cells that may have formed remiss. And I would say that any cancer cells introduced into the body would also remiss. So from my experience and discoveries, I would say no matter what you inject into the mice, without mental attacks, they do not develop cancer and they surely do not experience conditions where the cancer grows rapidly and kills them in 2-3 weeks! So what is going on in the labs full of mice between Dr Bengston’s lab and the controls that he said were in another distant location. I ask you, what about all those mice?

  • Anonymous Icon

    JudithK Feb 15, 2012

    I was not aware of "harm" being a part of the meaning of "tamper". I stand corrected. You raise some more interesting points. Do you mean to say that when scientists give mice cancer in order to experiment on them, it is not the substance they are injecting them with that causes the cancer but their intention? And to take that to the human level, that the so-called cancer epidemic is not due to genetics or increased pollution, but thought forms? That would mean that our very fear of cancer, the constant screening for it, the search for a cure, the bombardment with appeals to contribute to this or that cancer charity, all cause cancer. Is that what you are suggesting? That's a revolutionary thought. And actually you would be supported in it by Anita Moorjani, author of "Dying to be me". So essentially scientists gave Bill's mice cancer through thought forms, and Bill cured them with other thought forms, but the mice grew tumours because of his uncertainty in treating them?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Eldridge Huntington Feb 15, 2012

    I have been a healer all of my life, without training. Once you understand that everyone can heal, you can accomplish a much. Ma any people that medicine has given up on can and are being saved.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Eldridge Huntington Feb 15, 2012

    I have been a healer all of my life, without training. Once you understand that everyone can heal, you can accomplish much. Many people that medicine has given up on can and are being saved.

  • KYRANI Feb 16, 2012

    It is easy to see how the mice in the lab are affected but firstly let me say that thoughts /thought forms alone cannot cause cancer, not even in mice. They must be accompanied by several factors but two of them are significant here.
    1. The students are injecting something into the mice, which they believe will cause them harm (cancer) so we don’t just have thoughts but also some action, something that backs up those thoughts. And from the mice’s point of view they are perceptive of the danger both in the thoughts /intentions of the students and the fact of their fate, ie being injected with foreign material.
    2. The problem for the mice is ongoing because the students are waiting around watching them but as they do so they are entertaining ideas that the health of the mice will deteriorate owing to the injected material and they expect them to die.
    This can be checked out easily because the mice can be tricked into believing that they are subjected to harm so as to generate cancer in their bodies even without the injection. Indeed this can be done at the tissue culture level!
    The cure is where I see problems. Thoughts do not act on material matter, so a thought is not going to act on tissue. Thoughts always act, as far as I have observed, in creating beliefs or in other words mental conditions in which the person has confidence. This will also apply to the mice because though they have no language they are still capable of perceiving meaning. Language is only our human vehicle to convey meaning to one another. Animals can do this without words, on the mental level. So for instance the thoughts of the mice having something that will kill them is perceived at the meaning level by the mice as being exposed to harm and something deadly. That is why their bodies then react. One way surely is to relinquish the thoughts so the mice are no longer perceptive of danger and harm to their bodies. This can happen even when the students believe “nothing can happen”, and even though it is meant for the healing, in that form it may equally apply to anything to do with the mice. If this is what happened then no mental “whatever his technique is” is going to do anything. It’s superfluous. Why did the mice develop the blackening, the ulceration and the implosion? Now you see why I see the experiments with suspicion. It doesn’t sit right with me.
    You can bring about healing by countering the harmful ideas that change the dynamic but that incurs belief and faith and he claims these are absent.

  • KYRANI Feb 16, 2012

    In humans a lot more is involved and you have to cunningly obtain “permission” to attack, but the basic scenario is still true. You are right in saying the “epidemic is not due to genetics or increased pollution, but thought forms” but again the ideas alone are not enough. Thoughts do not have an effect on tissue in the body. The subject is not simple. Cancer is the resulting reaction of an unsuspecting person to ongoing mental attacks, in which hateful ideas are the weapons. However to betray the person in this way they have to trick that person into believing that they are under attack and that that attack is taking place somewhere in the body. The key thing to understand here is that “evil work” as it is called is all about treachery and deception. They have NO power of whatever sort. To trick the person in this way a number of conditions are needed. The most important ones are:-

    1. To be able to engage the person mentally. This is usually done through a seeming “internal dialogue”. For this to be possible you need people very close to the victim, people often that are trusted, and people who know the victim intimately, so for instance they know how they think and what issues will engage them and even what feelings they have in responding to a subject. The aim of engagement is to create a stream of ideas into which can be slotted hateful images. We are aware in parallel but thoughts are serially processed in the mind. And furthermore attention can be anchored on what is engaging and diverted away from what is unpleasant (owing to comfort zones).

    2. an easy and continual flow of hateful ideas in the mind of the criminals is possible by 3 basic vehicles. One is the chief offender who is very close to the victim. They act as a bridge between the criminals and the victim in the mind. However the criminals also need to be related so the victim is relationally entangled with them and there are cunning ways of doing that. (I believe toxic doctors are involved in some instances). A continual flow of hate images is achieved utilizing hate video. Hate video, which is edited video of a real hate crime or a medical procedure, is edited with images of the targeted person/victim slotted in so that any viewer sees the action as happening to the victim.

    3. Organ /tissue reactivity is needed to create the illusion that the images of the hate video are real. This is mainly achieved by some form of emotional reactivity in the body, so issues have to be created and used to achieve such reactivity. Emotional reactivity involves organs and tissues and depending on the emotion different organs/tissues are stimulated. Depression & despair for instance stimulate the large intestine, while sadness involves the lungs & skin. Anger stimulates the liver and so on. So the organ that is going to be targeted is stimulated and the person/person’s body mistakes the stimulation as being due to attack as indicated by mental images.

  • KYRANI Feb 16, 2012

    4. The evil people also need an “open access” in the mind of the victim or in other words permission. This can be obtain if the victim can be tricked into accepting that the attack is taking place. The organ reactivity & the mental images can then be mistakenly taken as real. To gain an open access a belief in an attack is needed and this can be achieved by another deception. General statements are used, which unwittingly the victim upholds in mind as valid. General statements are gleaned out of the person’s life/environment. Ideas presented and perceived (thru ESP) (which seem like the person’s own thinking) depict real events/conditions. So for instance if the person had some floor gutted and rebuilt, then the statements “it’s been gutted” and “it’s been filled in / built” can be made. The person treats this statement as valid but the “it” in them is general. What’s the “it”? If the person treats it as depicting reality then the toxic people can use it, as for instance to depict the “it” as the bowel in a hate video and subsequently their own reaction of building a shield of cells.

    5. And to achieve strong mental perception and low discrimination, the person needs to be made fearful. And ironically enough without being aware that their bodily reactivity is fear. (except in cases where fear is the emotion of choice to attack the kidneys, urinary bladder and the bones). To create an issue of danger (ie potential harm) enough to make the victim fearful, but not enough to make them aware, the criminals are given potential access to the victim. A simple way is for the chief offender (close to the victim) having given a copy of their house key to the criminals. They need to be in the vicinity of the victim so for instance in the neighborhood/ apartment block etc.

    To get all of that and to create an ongoing attack strategy requires a toxic mob of at least 8-10 people or more to be involved. The cancer epidemic, (and not only cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes and mental disorders are also spiraling out of control), is directly proportional to the proliferation of toxic people in modern societies the world over, but most predominantly in the West and Westernizing nations and peoples. It is a huge social problem and at present, as it appears to me at least, the medical industry is covering the means (condemning ESP primarily) in order to capitalize on treatments, both through the sale of drugs and medical procedures. Cancer can be cured easily with mental prescriptions. I have done it repeatedly and now can remain cancer free regardless of the attacks and their ferocity precisely because I know they are only a deception. A person needs no drugs, nor medical procedures, they don’t need doctors. The truth threatens the cancer industry so they will never do the experiments that matter, lay humane people have to get involved.

  • KYRANI Feb 16, 2012

    @ Eldridge Huntington
    I agree with you, everyone can be healed. I have seen even people born with ailments that the doctors claimed couldn't be cured and Chinese herbalists cured them. I saw this first hand. BUT to do all that the healer has to have faith, belief in healing. And it is preferable if they can encourage the patient to believe it too. If the patient believes it the healing is faster. However the best result is obtained when the ailment is understood at its most fundamental level and that is in the mind. What ideas are there? What issues do they depict? And how are these ideas causing the person's body to react? When you can address these you can work miracles.

  • Log In or Sign Up to Post a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS