Garret Yount, Shrikant Patil, Umang Dave, Leonardo Alves-dos-Santos, Kimberly Gon, Robert Arauz, and Kenneth Rachlin. (2013) Evaluation of Biofield Treatment Dose and Distance in a Model of Cancer Cell Death. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 19:2, 124-127.
Objective: This study assessed the potential inﬂuence of bioﬁeld treatment on cultured human cancer cells and whether such inﬂuence was affected by varying the duration of the treatment (dose) or the distance between the bioﬁeld practitioner and the target cells. Design: Bioﬁeld treatment dosage was assessed from a short distance (0.25 meters) in three independent experiments involving 1, 2, or 5 treatments, along with another set of three independent and comparable mock experiments. Bioﬁeld treatment distance was assessed at 0.25, 25, and * 2000 meters involving two treatments in three independent experiments along with another set of three mock experiments. Intervention: Bioﬁeld treatments were delivered by a highly acclaimed bioﬁeld practitioner with the intention of diminishing growth of the cells or inducing cancer-cell death. Outcome measure: Cell viability was quantiﬁed 20 hours after treatments, using a spectrophotometric assay for live-cell counting. The dependent measure for each experiment was the log ratio of the cell viability values of treated samples (bioﬁeld or mock) over the values of untreated control samples.
Results: A trend of decreasing cell viability with increasing bioﬁeld dose was evident in the ﬁrst set of experiments assessing dose–response; however, no such effect was evident in the second set of experiments evaluating bioﬁeld treatment distance. Mock experiments yielded relatively stable viability ratios in both sets of experiments. Linear regression analysis and hypothesis testing of the data taken as a whole did not yield statistical signiﬁcance at p < 0.05.
Conclusions: These results represent the ﬁrst indication of a bioﬁeld treatment dose–response in a controlled laboratory setting. The data are inconclusive because of the inability of reproduce the cellular response in a replicate experiment.