A cartography of energy medicine: From subtle anatomy to energy physiology

Special Tribute to Larry Dossey on his retirement from Explore

Biofield therapies have gained popularity and are being explored as possible treatments for cancer. In some cases, devices have been developed that mimic the electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are emitted from people delivering biofield therapies. However, it is not clear if EMFs are the mechanism of action. We previously reported that biofield therapy significantly inhibited the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro and their relevant animal model mediated through inflammatory and immune pathways. We expanded this research to examine the effects of human biofield therapy on the growth of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) cells and explored relevant mechanisms. Cell viability of human pancreatic cancer Panc-1 and mouse pancreatic cancer Panc02 cells was measured by PrestoBlue assay. Cell cycle was measured by PI staining and cell voltage potentials were assessed using DiBAC4 staining. It is well-established that cancer cells have distinct bioelectrical properties and most have depolarized cell voltage potentials that support cell proliferation. Expression of cell signaling proteins was determined by Western blot. We found that Panc-1 and Panc02 cells exposed to biofield treatment for 15 and 30 mins, respectively, resulted in significantly lower viability compared to that of sham control. These experiments were replicated 12 times for Panc-1 cells and 6 times for Panc02 cells. We further observed that the experimental exposure significantly increased G1 phase population of Panc-1 cells (sham control=43.7% (0.8) vs treatment=55.0% (0.8%), p<0.001). In contrast, Panc02 cells exposed to biofield therapy had significantly higher population of G2/M cells than that of sham control group (sham control=22.5% (0.5) vs treatment=27.7% (1.1), p<0.001). We found that biofield therapy resulted in a 36.7% reduction in cell voltage potentials as measured by the intensity of DiBAC4 staining in Panc-1 cells compared to that of sham controls (p<0.01). Finally, the treatment down-regulated pAkt expression and the pAkt/Akt ratio by 45.3% and 43.8%, respectively, in Panc-1 cells in comparison with the sham control group. The effect of biofield therapy on cell signaling proteins measured by Reverse Phase Proteomic Array in Panc-1 cells and the growth of human Panc-1 mouse orthotopic model is ongoing and the results will be presented at the meeting. Together, these findings suggest that exposure to biofield therapy results in reduced growth of pancreatic cancer cells which might be in part mediated through modification of the cell cycle - differentially for different cell types, reductions in cell voltage potentials suggesting hyperpolarization of cells, and down regulation of PI3K/Akt pathways. Citation Format: Peiying Yang, Sharmistha Chakraborty, Phuong Nguyen, Meng Cui, Andrew Cusimano, Daoyan Wei, Sarah Prinsloo, Lorenzo Cohen. Biofield therapy suppressed the growth of human pancreatic cancer cells by modulation of cell cycle and cell voltage potentials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5382.

BackgroundDespite the lack of scientific studies on biofield therapies, they are widely acclaimed by patients. The mechanisms of action are not explained by current allopathic medical approaches. Warts are common and contagious viral lesions that may be refractory to standard dermatologic treatments such as cryotherapy, laser therapy, and keratolytic ointments. Biofield therapies are efficient in various pathologies. Their ability to treat warts has never been demonstrated in a scientific study with a robust methodology. Patients with refractory warts often place their trust in these alternative therapies because of the poor results obtained from traditional medicine. We propose a prospective, randomized, single-blind, assessor-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy of treatment of warts by biofield therapy.Methods/designSubjects with warts on their feet or hands will be randomized into two groups: real biofield therapy versus sham therapy. The diagnosis will be made at the time of inclusion, and follow-up will take place in week 3. Comparison of pictures of the warts at baseline and after 3 weeks will be used as the primary outcome measure. The hypothesis is that the extent of the disappearance of the original wart in the group treated by real biofield therapy will be 70% and that it will be 30% in the group treated by sham therapy. Using 90% power and an alpha risk of 5%, 31 subjects are required in each group for a two-tailed proportion comparison test.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of biofield therapy on warts. Therefore, the aim of this study is to extend knowledge of biofield therapy to another area of medicine such as dermatology and to propose complementary or alternative practices to improve patient well-being. The main strength of the study is that it is a randomized, single-blind, assessor-blind, placebo-controlled study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02773719. Registered on 22 April 2016.

The NIH categorizes Biofield Therapy (BT) as therapeutic approaches within energy medicine that involve using the body's energy field (biofield) for therapeutic benefit. Although controversial, in some cases devices have been developed that mimic the electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are emitted from people when delivering BTs. We previously reported that BT significantly inhibited the growth of pancreatic cancer cells and liver metastasis in their relevant animal models mediated in part through modification of the cell cycle, reductions in cell voltage potentials, and down regulation of PI3K/Akt pathways. We expanded this research to examine the potential role of BT in anti-invasiveness in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) cells and animal models. We found that PANC-1 cells treated with BT (15 min) displayed 55% less invading cells than that of untreated incubator control and sham control cells (P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in human PDAC L3.7 cells and mouse pancreatic cancer KPCY cells. These experiments were replicated 8 times for Panc-1 cells and 4 times for L3.7 cells. Additionally, migration capacity was tested using the transwell migration and scratch assays. Consistent with the result of cell invasion assays, BT treatment also led to significant reduction of migration of PANC-1 and L3.7 cells by 34% and 41%, respectively, compared to sham controls. Two additional therapists independently replicated the anti-invasiveness and anti-migratory effects of BT on these PDAC cells. This suggests the replicability of these findings across studies and therapists. In a repeated PANC-1 mouse orthotopic model, we found that only a third of BT treated mice had visible liver nodules whereas liver metastasis was observed in more than half of mice in the untreated colony control and sham control groups. Furthermore, BT treatment significantly reduced liver tumor burden by 73% compared to that of the sham control group (p < 0.05), which was similar to that observed in the previous study. Similar to the prior PANC-1 mouse model, in the current study BT treatment had only a moderate impact on the growth of primary pancreatic tumor. We assessed certain markers indicative of cell status as well as pathways associated with migration and invasion and these will be presented at the meeting. Our findings suggest that exposure to BT reduced cellular invasion and migration processes and profoundly reduced metastasis of pancreatic tumor in an animal model. This study is in part supported by Emerald Gate Charitable Trust. Citation Format: Peiying Yang, Sharmistha Chakraborty, Phuong Nguyen, Defeng Deng, Andrew Cusimano, Daoyan Wei, Lorenzo Cohen. Biofield therapy suppressed invasion and metastases of human pancreatic cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4128.

Biofield Therapies: Energy Medicine and Primary Care

Described by its author as the third in a “trilogy” of books pertaining to complementary and alternative medicine, Future Medicine contemplates the emerging regulatory and ethical implications of spirituality in health and healing. As a religious scholar and director of legal programs at Harvard Medical School’s Division for Research and Education in Complementary and Integrative Medical Therapies, Michael Cohen demonstrates in Future Medicine his expertise, passion, and courage to address this delicate and timely topic.

Client experiences of virtual energy healing

Energy medicine (EM), is a type of complementary and alternative medicine, which encompasses a range of practices aimed at promoting holistic well-being through the manipulation of energy fields within the body. EM has immense potential in delivering valuable support in a wide range of health conditions. It is imperative for healthcare professionals to be aware of EM, its safety and efficacy in the management of various conditions. Despite its growing popularity, EM remains controversial and encounters several barriers to its recognition and acceptance by the medical fraternity. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the concept and practice of EM including its history, various types, mechanism of action, applications, driving factors for its practice, current status and future prospects. Putative types of EM modalities are the focus of this paper. Additionally, we examine the challenges to its widespread recognition and acceptance and discuss the importance of further rigorous scientific research to establish its efficacy and safety and bridge the gap between conventional and energy medicine.

Richard Hammerschlag: This discussion will be among the participants of a symposium on clinical and basic science research on the biofield, held as part of the International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Portland, Oregon in May 2012. The 7 of us are conventional biomedical researchers in physiology, clinical psychology, cell biology, biophysics, and neurobiology, who through various paths have expanded our research interests to include performing preclinical studies, clinical trials, and systematic reviews of biofield therapies, as well as basic research and reviews on what we call biofield physiology. We should begin with a few definitions. Biofield therapies, which most commonly include external Qigong, Healing Touch, Johrei, Reconnective Healing, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch, are a family of health care practices that involve either, or both, hands-on and hands-off treatment. We infer that such healing can occur since living systems coexist within and co-contribute to a biofield, which we define in terms of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields as well as subtle energies (energies that appear to exist but have not yet been measured). I’d like to ask Jim to provide us with a brief overview of how the concept of the biofield has evolved.

Exploring client's experiences of a new energy healing modality: Magdalena energy session(s)

Gene expression profiling shows that cells generally respond to toxicant stress by repressing genes that guide cell growth and inducing those that govern DNA repair and other protective functions. However, the specific genes repressed or induced vary, depending on the cell type and—according to research presented in this issue—the toxicant to which the cells are exposed [EHP 112:1607–1613]. Melissa Troester of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues note that this study demonstrates the utility of microarrays in predictive toxicology. The current study builds upon previous research showing that separate breast cancer cell lines have distinctive responses to two different chemotherapeutic agents, doxorubicin (DOX) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU). Because DOX and 5FU have different mechanisms of action, the researchers hypothesized that cells treated with one compound would express a different transcription profile compared with cells treated with the other. In establishing support for this hypothesis, the researchers were also able to demonstrate that a profile of expressed genes could serve as a template to predict the mechanism of action for a third cancer drug, etoposide (ETOP). The researchers cultured four breast cell lines for their experiments—two each of basal-like and luminal epithelium—and determined comparable toxic concentrations for DOX, 5FU, and ETOP at 36 hours’ exposure. Next, cell cultures were treated at these concentrations for 12, 24, or 36 hours in order to identify genes that were consistently expressed over time. At the end of the treatment periods, mRNA was extracted from the cells, pooled according to treatment and cell line, and used to create labeled complementary DNA samples. These samples were hybridized to microarrays representing 22,000 genes. Microarray analysis identified which genes had been up- or down-regulated and revealed unique patterns of gene expression in response to DOX and 5FU in each cell type as well as each cell line. In general, luminal epithelial cells responded by regulating a large number of genes—974 in one line, 883 in the other. Basal-like epithelial cells regulated fewer genes (76 and 193) and also exhibited significant differences in gene expression over time. The cells exhibited a distinctly different profile at the 12-hour time point as compared with the 24- and 36-hour points. The difference was great enough that the DOX-treated samples clustered with 5FU-treated samples at 12 hours but not at 24 or 36 hours. This temporal shift blurred the lines between profiles and affected the accuracy of predictions. Further investigation pinpointed 100 genes that could be used to differentiate between DOX- and 5FU-treated samples. This list of genes provided the basis for the final evaluation—testing whether the mechanism of action for ETOP could be accurately classified based upon the genes expressed following exposure. Because ETOP acts by a mechanism similar to that of DOX, it was expected that the gene set expressed by ETOP-treated cells would more closely resemble that of DOX-treated cells as compared to 5FU-treated cells. Indeed, the mechanism of action for ETOP was predicted with 100% accuracy. When the researchers included cell type in the predictive model, the accuracy dropped to 75%, due in part to the temporal variability in gene expression in the basal-like cell lines. With regard to the identity of regulated genes, published reports corroborate this toxicant-specific expression. For example, DOX has previously been shown to impair cellular respiration; the current research reveals that DOX alters mitochondrial gene expression, which provides a plausible explanation for the documented impairment. The findings also show several unanticipated changes in gene expression. For example, 5FU treatment induced the genes ID1 and ID3, an effect that has not been previously noted. Knowledge of Id proteins is incomplete, and the researchers suggest that their pathways warrant attention as potential targets for therapeutic treatments. Many toxicogenomics studies are providing expression data for toxicants that have known mechanisms of action, with the eventual goal of inferring mechanisms of action for novel compounds. Based on the success of their own mechanistic analysis, Troester and colleagues contend that this is feasible.

Studies have demonstrated that purported biofield therapy emitted from humans can inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells and suppress tumor growth in various cancers. We explored the effects of biofield therapy on tumor growth in the Lewis lung carcinoma and expanded mechanistic outcomes. We found biofield therapy did not inhibit tumor growth. However, the experimental (Ex) condition exposed tumors had a significantly higher percentage of necrosis (24.4 ± 6.8%) compared with that of the Control condition (6.5 ± 2.7%; P < .02) and cleaved caspase-3 positive cells were almost 2.3-fold higher (P < .05). Similarly, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes profiling showed that CD8+/CD45+ immune cell population was significantly increased by 2.7-fold in Ex condition (P < .01) whereas the number of intratumoral FoxP3+/CD4+ (T-reg cells) was 30.4% lower than that of the Control group (P = .01), leading to a significant 3.1-fold increase in the ratio of CD8+/T-reg cells (P < .01). Additionally, there was a 51% lower level of strongly stained CD68+ cells (P < .01), 57.9% lower level of F4/80high/CD206+ (M2 macrophages; P < .02) and a significant 1.8-fold increase of the ratio of M1/M2 macrophages (P < .02). Furthermore, Ex exposure resulted in a 15% reduction of stem cell marker CD44 and a significant 33% reduction of SOX2 compared with that of the Controls (P < .02). The Ex group also engaged in almost 50% less movement throughout the session than the Controls. These findings suggest that exposure to purported biofields from a human is capable of enhancing cancer cell death, in part mediated through modification of the tumor microenvironment and stemness of tumor cells in mouse Lewis lung carcinoma model. Future research should focus on defining the optimal treatment duration, replication with different biofield therapists, and exploring the mechanisms of action.

Biofield therapies form a subcategory of the domain of energy therapies, as defined by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Specific biofield therapies addressed in this article include Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, Polarity Therapy, Reiki, and Qigong. This article will identify core concepts in biofield therapies, review controlled trials of the use of biofield therapies with patients with cancer, describe the process of biofield therapies implementation in one cancer center, and suggest research to benefit not only patients with cancer but also family members and oncology professionals.

Energy healing is a therapy said to manipulate and balance the flow of “energies” in the body. One such technique, the Bengston Healing Method (BHM), has shown some success in healing malignant tumors in animals and humans, but the mechanism of action and factors influencing therapeutic success of this method are poorly understood. In this study, we tested in vivo the antitumor potential of magnetic signals recorded during BHM healing. Balb/c mice engrafted with 4T1 breast cancer cells were exposed to this recording for 4 h/d on a weekly or daily basis for 28 days; control mice were not exposed at all. Tumors showed a trend to grow slower in the treatment versus control group during the fourth week of treatment. Elevated leukocyte counts, associated with an increase in blood levels of granulocyte–macrophage colony stimulating factor and interleukin-6, were observed in tumor-bearing mice exposed to the BHM recording but not in healthy animals exposed to the recording. This suggests that exposure to a recording of BHM may induce a biological response in tumor-bearing mice, but limited effects on tumor growth when observed within the predefined end point of 28 days. Studies involving longer end points are recommended to observe the progression of tumor growth.

To put the patient in the best condition: integrating integrative therapies in critical care.