The Legitimacy of Energy Medicine

The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately 70% of the world’s population relies on traditional ethnomedical systems of healing [1]. In the United States, such traditional methods are commonly referred to as “alternative health care,” or “holistic healing.” In light of recent trends reconciling traditional practices with orthodox allopathic medicine, this has become known as “collaborative” health care, and includes many new technologies such as biofeedback, electrostimulators, and various electromagnetic devices.

Collaborative Health Care is quickly becoming favored by health care providers, and even adopted by some major HMOs [2]. Leading HMOs such as Oxford Health Plans, Inc., are turning to chiropractice, acupuncture and herbal medicine to treat illnesses which orthodox medicine cannot, responding to overwhelming public demand. A 1993 Harvard Medical School study showed that 33% of all Americans extensively use “alternative” treatments, spending a total of $14 billion per year [3]. A 1994 US Congressional Study found that approximately 130,000,000 Americans – nearly half the population of the U.S. – regularly use “alternative” and “holistic” health products [4,5]. A 1990 survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine established that about 1 percent of the US population, which is approximately 2,600,000 people, use bioenergy therapies which operate on bioenergyinformatic principles. The same survey also established that more Americans use bioenergy healing techniques than even homeopathy or acupuncture [6]. Estimates suggest that in the US alone, over 50,000 practitioners of biofield therapeutics (energy healing with hands) provide over 120 million sessions annually [7].

These modern trends have made traditional medicine an enormous worldwide industry, providing infinite commercial and investment possibilities, and opportunities for orthodox allopathic medical doctors to considerably increase their patient clientele by expanding their practices.

Bioenergyinformatic Science

Bioenergyinformatic Science is the empirical study of different forms of quantifiable energy, including electrical field energy, torsion fields, brain waves, neurological emanations, and cellular and atomic radiations. This discipline focuses on how various tangible and subtle energies interact within, among and between biological systems and physical matter, and how information exchange drives certain healing functions and anomalous phenomena. As such, this is the official discipline of science which is essential to the professional study and clinical use of all traditional, holistic and collaborative healing methods.

The related practice of Bioenergy Therapy includes medical hypnotherapy, neurolinguistic programming, psychic healing such as Reiki, acupressure, electric acupuncture, laser, light, sound and color therapy, herbal medicine, biofeedback, tesla coil, psychotronic and radionic devices, magnetic treatments, and electro-neuro-muscular stimulation.

Bioenergyinformatic Science and Bioenergy Medicine is an internationally accepted university science. Even the conservative Moscow State Technical University named after Bauman, the “M.I.T.” of Russia, has its own Bioenergy Department, complete with a Bioenergy Laboratory of specialized instrumentation.

These specialized disciplines of Bioenergyinformatic Science and Bioenergy Therapy are the unique – but certainly not exclusive – subject matter of the Institute of Technical Energy Medicine, Inc. (ITEM) products and services.

On October 18, 1994, the US Congress established a special department of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), called the Office of Alternative Medicine [8]. The Federal budget for 1995 granted $5.4 Million for this program, to conduct clinical studies of collaborate health methods and technologies used in diagnosis and treatment. The National Institutes of Health classifies bioenergy and energyinformation technologies in a category officially called “bioelectromagnetics.”

Contrary to popular misconception, a significant amount of scientific and clinical research, including double-blind studies, have been successfully conducted in the field of bioenergyinformatic science.

For example, antennae emitting amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields have been proven to effect the central nervous system, and pilot clinical studies reveal positive results in treating insomnia [9] and hypertension [10]. In Russia, low intensity sinusoidal electrofield radiation has successfully
treated arthritis, ulcers, esophagitis, hypertension, chronic pain, cerebral palsy, neurological disorders, and side effects of cancer chemotherapy [11]. Pulsed electromagnetic fields proved to accelerate soft tissue wound healing by increasing the rate of formation of epithelial cells [12]. Alternating current electromagnetic fields successfully repaired injured vascular networks [13]. In a clinical trial with osteoarthritis patients using double-blind, randomized protocol with placebo control, pulsed electromagnetic fields proved to cause substantially more improvements than in the placebo group [14]. Related clinical studies show that applied magnetic fields effectively suppress cell membrane inflammatory responses [15]. Research with rats has proved that electrostimulation at acupuncture points can enhance peripheral motor nerve regeneration [16], sensory nerve sprouting [17], and spinal cord regeneration [18].

Other studies have clearly established the clinical effectiveness of techniques such as hypnotherapy, and biofield therapeutics (energy healing with hands). Medical hypnotherapy caused a 113 percent increase in pain tolerance of chronic illness patients versus a control group who did not receive hypnotherapy [19]. Hypnotherapy has also proven to enhance immune system function by raising immunoglobulin levels [20], and increasing white blood cell activity [21]. Biofield therapeutics has been shown to cause significant reduction of suppressor T cells in emotional trauma patients, compared to the control group [22], and white cell decrease in chemotherapy patients was reversed and rose significantly after single biofield treatments at the thymus gland [23]. It was also successful for symptom control in AIDS patients [24].

Accredited scientific studies have also established the reality and legitimacy of more metaphysical phenomena. In 1997, professors Andrey Geim and Jan Maan of Nijmegen University in the Netherlands succeeded in causing true levitation of a live frog using bioenergyinformatic science. The Saint Petersburg Institute of Fine Mechanics and Optics in Russia conducted double blind controlled studies of the quantifiable bioenergy effects of conscious efforts of extrasenses (psychic healers and telepaths). This study proved that the trained extrasenses could reliably remotely influence an electrofield sensor at a distance of 200-3000 meters, causing detectible signal changes of at least 30%, which were highly correlated with the periods when the operator exerted willful influence upon the sensors [25].

References

[1] Mahler, H. The Staff of Aesculapius. World Health, November 1977, p. 3.

[2] Black, D. Behold! Mind Body Medicine. Psychology Today, Sept/Oct 1994, pp. 14-15.
[3] Sakson, S. HMOs Covering Alternative Medicine. The Patriot News, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, October 7, 1996.

[4] Citizens for Health Report, Vol. 2:2, Spring/Summer 1994, p. 4.

[5] Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, Senate Bill S.784, Sec. 2(a)(9), (1994).

[6] Eisenberg, D.M., et al. 1993. Unconventional Medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. New England Journal Med. 328:246-252.

[7] Pavek, R.R. 1994. Personal communication to the NIH editorial review board. A compilation of estimates obtained from several sources.

[8] Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, Senate Bill S.784, Sec. 2(a)(9), (1994).

[9] Hajdukovic, R., M. Mitler, B. Pasche, and M. Erman. 1992. Effects of low-energy emission therapy (LEET) on sleep structure (abstract). Sleep Research 21:206.

[10] Pasche, B., T.P. Lebet, A. Barbault, C. Rossel, and N. Kuster. 1989. Electroencephalographic changes and blood pressure lowering effect of low energy emission therapy (abstract). Bioelectromagnetics Society Proceedings, F-3-5.

[11] Devyatkov, N.D., Y.V. Gulyaev, et al. 1991. Digest of Papers. International Symposium on Millimiter Waves of Non-Thermal Intensity in Medicine. Cosponsored by Research and Development Association “ISTOK” and Research Institute of U.S.S.R. Ministry of Electronic Industry (“ORION”). Moscow, October 3-6. (In Russian.)

[12] Mertz, P.M., S.C. Davis, and W.H. Eaglstein. 1988. Pulsed electrical stimulation increases the rate of epithelialization in partial thickness wounds. Transactions of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectrical Repair and Growth Society, Washington, D.C., October 9-12.

[13] Herbst, E., B.F. Sisken, and H.Z. Wang. 1988. Assessment of vascular network in rat skin flaps subjected to sinusoidal EMFs using image analysis techniques. Transactions of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectrical Repair and Growth Society. Washington, D.C., October 9-12.

[14] Trockm D.H., A.J. Bollet, R.H. Dyer, Jr., L.P. Fielding, W.K. Miner, and R. Markoll. 1993. A double-blind trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 20:456-460.

[15] O’Connor, M.E., R.H.C. Bentall, and J.C. Monahan, eds. 1990. Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine conference proceedings. Springer-Verlag, New York.

[16] McDevitt, L., P. Fortner, and B. Pomeranz. 1987. Application of weak electrical field to the hindpaw enhances sciatic motor-nerve regeneration in the adult rat. Brain Research, 416:308-314.

[17] Pomeranz, B., M. Mullen, and H. Markus. 1984. Effect of applied electrical fields on sprouting of intact saphenous nerve in adult rat. Brain Res. 303:331-336.

[18] Fehlings, M.G., R.J. Hurlbert, and C.H. Tator. 1992. An examination of direct current fields for the treatment of spinal cord injury. Paper presented at the 1st World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Orlando, Fla., June 14-19.
[19] Debenedittis, G., A.A. Panerai, and M.A. Villamira. 1989. Effects of hypnotic analgesia and hypnotizability on experimental ischemic pain. Int. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 37:55-69.

[20] Olness, K., T. Culbert and D. Uden. 1989. Self-regulation of salivary immunoglobin A by children. Pediatrics, 83:66-71.

[21] Hall, H. 1982-83. Hypnosis and the immune system. Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 25:92-93.

[22] Kramer, N.A. 1990. Comparison of therapeutic touch and casual touch in stress reduction of hospitalized children. Pediatric Nursing, 16:483-485.

[23] Pavek, unpublished, 1984, 1985, 1986. Unpublished pilot studies. The SHEN Therapy Institute, Sausalito, Calif.

[24] Newshan, G. 1989. Therapeutic touch for symptom control in persons with AIDS. Holistic Nursing Practice, 3(4):45-51.

[25] Korotkov, Konstantin. 1996, Kirlian Effect Development in Russia: Results, Ideas, Equipment. St. Petersburg Institute of Fine Mechanics and Optics (SPIFMO).