Mod+ 252. BERNADETTE DORAN ON ENERGY HEALING

#83
. . . and it's these sorts of thing being rejected for things such as chemo and radiation . . . I know a girl who just died (almost certainly) as a result of "treatment," although, on paper her cause of death was cancer. I'm not sure how correct this is, but allegedly reported in JAMA, even, amongst other places, it's said that people who do nothing whatsoever for cancer fair better statistically in terms of living longer (and probably quality of life, too). . . .
I'm frustrated that Bengston's cancer cure rate isn't being talked about on the streets and in the press, but at the same time, I think he's been very very fortunate about that. Imagine the financial shock to the western world if a virtually free, fast, reliable, painless cure for cancer (and other dread diseases) became common knowledge overnight, something you might be able to learn yourself in a couple of weeks, or some device you could put together for a hundred bucks. Beyond the loss of profits, think about the effects of extending the lives of that many older people. Imagine the pressure from the system to discredit that so they could get back to obscene profits as usual, or get out from other all the extra social welfare payments. Anyone promoting that treatment - energy cure or otherwise - would likely be in for a world of hurt. Think raided laboratory, arrests, seized files, midnight disappearances, so forth, as has happened repeatedly in the past when some brilliant innovator got too far beyond society's envelope of comfort and attracted the wrong kind of attention.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
#84
I'm frustrated that Bengston's cancer cure rate isn't being talked about on the streets and in the press, but at the same time, I think he's been very very fortunate about that. Imagine the financial shock to the western world if a virtually free, fast, reliable, painless cure for cancer (and other dread diseases) became common knowledge overnight, something you might be able to learn yourself in a couple of weeks, or some device you could put together for a hundred bucks. Beyond the loss of profits, think about the effects of extending the lives of that many older people. Imagine the pressure from the system to discredit that so they could get back to obscene profits as usual, or get out from other all the extra social welfare payments. Anyone promoting that treatment - energy cure or otherwise - would likely be in for a world of hurt. Think raided laboratory, arrests, seized files, midnight disappearances, so forth, as has happened repeatedly in the past when some brilliant innovator got too far beyond society's envelope of comfort and attracted the wrong kind of attention.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
What is Bengston's cancer cure rate in humans?
 
#85
I'm frustrated that Bengston's cancer cure rate isn't being talked about on the streets and in the press, but at the same time, I think he's been very very fortunate about that. Imagine the financial shock to the western world if a virtually free, fast, reliable, painless cure for cancer (and other dread diseases) became common knowledge overnight, something you might be able to learn yourself in a couple of weeks, or some device you could put together for a hundred bucks. Beyond the loss of profits, think about the effects of extending the lives of that many older people. Imagine the pressure from the system to discredit that so they could get back to obscene profits as usual, or get out from other all the extra social welfare payments. Anyone promoting that treatment - energy cure or otherwise - would likely be in for a world of hurt. Think raided laboratory, arrests, seized files, midnight disappearances, so forth, as has happened repeatedly in the past when some brilliant innovator got too far beyond society's envelope of comfort and attracted the wrong kind of attention.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Modern society is just one lie on top of another. People think we have made progress since the dark ages, but we have only replaced one type of superstition with another. In the dark ages, the elite abused religious belief to maintain power. Today it is the same, just a different religion, Scientism. It's just another ism.
 
Last edited:
#86
What is Bengston's cancer cure rate in humans?
He hasn't got an exact figure but estimates around 80% based on the information he has, last I heard. That figure is based on cases where he learned the outcomes. The problem is, his treatments have been done on a very informal basis, at no charge or pay-what-you like. If someone didn't return, he had no way of knowing why. Over the years he also noted a number of people who, when their conditions began to improve, freaked out from the threat to their worldviews and fled the scene before the course of treatment had concluded.

A note on human nature: One woman whom Bill cured of cancer gave him a bottle of water in payment that had been treated by a different healer, one who had been ineffective in curing her cancer when he treated her!:eek:
 
#87
He hasn't got an exact figure but estimates around 80% based on the information he has, last I heard. That figure is based on cases where he learned the outcomes. The problem is, his treatments have been done on a very informal basis, at no charge or pay-what-you like. If someone didn't return, he had no way of knowing why. Over the years he also noted a number of people who, when their conditions began to improve, freaked out from the threat to their worldviews and fled the scene before the course of treatment had concluded.

A note on human nature: One woman whom Bill cured of cancer gave him a bottle of water in payment that had been treated by a different healer, one who had been ineffective in curing her cancer when he treated her!:eek:
Where the patients also getting conventional treatments at the same time?

Does the 80% include other healers using his method or just people Bengston treated?

Given the field effect he believes influenced his controls that were too close to the experimental mice, I wonder what would happen if he spent time in the lobby of a hospital sending healing to everyone there. If the administrators found out, they'd probably kick him out like someone caught counting cards at a casino.
 
#88
Given the field effect he believes influenced his controls that were too close to the experimental mice, I wonder what would happen if he spent time in the lobby of a hospital sending healing to everyone there. If the administrators found out, they'd probably kick him out like someone caught counting cards at a casino.
Bill's primary rule is never never never never never treat anyone without their permission, so you'd have to find someone else to try the hospital lobby experiment.:)

Something analogous to that apparently happened though, but not with humans. Bill says that in one of their animal experiments conducted in collaboration with a major university, they shared a large lab with several other ongoing cancer treatment studies using conventional (allopathic) protocols. Inadvertently, his volunteers cured all (or most of - I can't recall) the animals in the room, including those being treated by other protocols. The host institution's personnel were furious, and booted them out. That's all I know about that so I can't supply more details.
 
#89
Over the years he also noted a number of people who, when their conditions began to improve, freaked out from the threat to their worldviews and fled the scene before the course of treatment had concluded.
When these sort of things happen I have a hard time reconciling with what happens in our heads.
I say this because one case similar to what you describe happened to a close relative in my family. The cancer was looking pretty bad, they tried an alternative therapy (not energy healing) while taking a break from chemo. The cancer shrunk 50% and metastasis disappeared at the next CAT scan. When the oncologist learned that a non conventional therapy had been used, he was very resented, acted very arrogantly and pressured my relative to go back to chemo. Which she did, and all the progress done previously was rapidly wasted. One year later my aunt died. Sad story and one that shows how powerful is the authority of medical professionals, even in the face of the lack of progress and crippling side effects of conventional cancer therapy.

Just like with the guy saved by Vitamin C, doctors don't even care to take note of what's going on. If something doesn't fall in their narrow field of view they just don't even see it.
 
#90
. . . . When the oncologist learned that a non conventional therapy had been used, he was very resented, acted very arrogantly and pressured my relative to go back to chemo. . . .
Bill had another sad experience similar to that. A woman came to him immediately following diagnosis and he treated her. After the series of treatments she returned to her oncologist, who reported that there was no sign of the cancer anymore but that it would undoubtedly return. Under pressure from the oncologist and her (the patient's) family, she opted to be treated just to be sure, and the treatments killed her.:(
 
#91
Bill had another sad experience similar to that. A woman came to him immediately following diagnosis and he treated her. After the series of treatments she returned to her oncologist, who reported that there was no sign of the cancer anymore but that it would undoubtedly return. Under pressure from the oncologist and her (the patient's) family, she opted to be treated just to be sure, and the treatments killed her.:(
Treatments are hell. The girl I mentioned knowing above who just died was hardly recognizable after the treatments . . . and she was, before hand, an attractive 30 something woman. The treatments clearly wore her down tremendously.

Again, though I'll need to search around to confirm what I said above, I tend to think it's normally better to do nothing rather than conventional. I of course understand how radical and bold that sounds . . . If I remember correctly, what was implied was that the tumor that's suddenly discovered has likely been there a long, long time . . . and will (normally) remain there a long, long time without necessarily causing major issues. Related: it's also said that after tampering with/doing surgery on a tumor, if it does come back, it does so with a vengence.
 
#93
My own concepts are too unsettled to be helpful here. As to information-based reality from the standpoint of materialist philosophy, search on simulism and Nick Bostrom to get started, but get ready for a heavy intellectual grind.

There is evidence that events are affected by backward causation from the future:eek:,

Edited 2014/09/04 7:50 AM PDT
I have read about a study where a team took old medical records and for half of them did remote healing and when they looked at the outcomes of the patients (which had already occurred) they found that those with the healing had better outcomes. Of course they did controls where no healing was attempted and they found statistically random outcomes. This implies that the healing was not only effective,,, but that (to me even more strangely) the effectiveness was even seen with past outcomes. !?!?!?!

Wish I could place my hands on this information so I could offer a link but I can seem to find it.
 
#94
In Schwart'z "The Energy Healing Experiments" I recall several interesting tests done with Reiki practitioners on plants and rats too? Am I wrong? Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand (which reminds me I've lent it years ago and I should ask it back) and I've read it 5-6 years ago.

Does anyone remember the details?
 
#95
In Schwart'z "The Energy Healing Experiments" I recall several interesting tests done with Reiki practitioners on plants and rats too? Am I wrong? Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand (which reminds me I've lent it years ago and I should ask it back) and I've read it 5-6 years ago.

Does anyone remember the details?
I have that book. Based on the index I find that Schwartz and his co-investigator successfully used Reiki to reduce capillary damage in noise-stressed rats compared with untreated rats and rats given 'sham' treatments that presumably involved the same sort of human interaction but without the intention. Regarding plants, all I see in that book is that energy healers, using unspecified method(s), could alter biophoton emission from plant leaves by up to 10x up or down, as determined by an ultra-sensitive detector.
 
Last edited:
#96
I have read about a study where a team took old medical records and for half of them did remote healing and when they looked at the outcomes of the patients (which had already occurred) they found that those with the healing had better outcomes. Of course they did controls where no healing was attempted and they found statistically random outcomes. This implies that the healing was not only effective,,, but that (to me even more strangely) the effectiveness was even seen with past outcomes. !?!?!?!

Wish I could place my hands on this information so I could offer a link but I can seem to find it.
The Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggart discusses several experiments that appear to show retrocausation. In the medical records experiment the author, Leonard Leibovici, claimed the positive results merely showed that you can't study such things using conventional statistical techniques. Eventually he refused even to discuss it (cognitive dissonance, anyone?). However, other types of experiments have had similarly positive results. The well-know random event generator type of study has been reversed in time by recording the stream of random numbers and locking them in a safe (or otherwise keeping anyone from looking at them). Then, any time later, an attempt is made to bias the numbers, still unexamined, in a positive or negative direction. Such experiments are as effective as the ones done in real time (perhaps more effective). Another series of experiments even appeared to show retrocausal influence over the recorded movements of laboratory animals.

The reference for the medical records experiment is:

L. Leibovici, "Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial". British Medical Journal, 2001; 323.

The Intention Experiment can be viewed in Google Books if you want the other references - they are listed in the Notes for Chapter 11 beginning on page 245.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#97
David Bailey posted this relevant article from another thread:

COMPARING TREATMENT METHODS ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: OPEN-MINDED EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH
By Rupert Sheldrake

In medical research, the “gold standard” research methodology involves randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. These trials are helpful in distinguishing the effects of a treatment from the effects of a placebo, but they do not provide the information that is needed by many patients and health care organisations. For example, if I am suffering from lower back pain, I do not want to know whether drug X works better than a placebo in relieving this condition, but which kind of treatment I should seek out of the various available therapies: physiotherapy, acupuncture, osteopathy, and so on.

Probably the best way to answer this question would be a “level playing field trial” in which various possible treatments were compared with each other. Taking the example of lower back pain, in such a trial a large number of sufferers, say 1,200, would be allocated at random to a range of treatment methods. Five treatment methods could be included in the trial, plus one no treatment group. Thus for each method there would be 200 patients. The treatment methods could include physiotherapy, osteopathy, acupuncture, chiropraxis, and any other therapeutic method that claimed to be able to treat this condition. Within each treatment group, there would be five different practitioners, so that in the statistical analysis the variability between practitioners could be compared. There would also be a no-treatment group...
 
#98
. . . taking the example of lower back pain, in such a trial a large number of sufferers, say 1,200, would be allocated at random to a range of treatment methods. . .
Speaking of testing treatments for back pain, anyone with chronic back pain or one of dozens of other painful and debilitating conditions may want to take a look at the work of John Sarno, Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University School of Medicine. He has found that for the 20% of patients who accept his explanation (subconscious repressed emotions, principally rage), there is a very high rate (~ 75 - 80%) of complete cures (many others are partially cured), often within a few days or even hours, even for people who were practically bedridden. This includes patients whose x-rays and MRIs reveal significant abnormalities for which the recommended treatment is surgery.

Sarno's treatment? Simply learn about and accept the diagnosis - you don't have to understand or come to terms with your repressed emotions. Sarno eventually began screening his patients over the phone, not according to the nature of the problem, but according to whether or not they had open minds. Naturally he is derided by many of his peers and historically hasn't been able to get funding to run controlled trials, even with his exceptional track record.

This falls squarely into the Skeptiko area of interest. When trying to figure out what makes energy cures work (e.g., Ben Mayrick curing Bill Bengston's bad back in ten minutes) this information should be folded in. Note again: Sarno has found that only around 20% of people are open minded enough to consider his premise even though they are desperate for relief, another point of interest to the Skeptiko audience.

Though I recommend reading one of his books, here's a short article from a patient's point of view:

www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2012/09/26/americans-best-doctor-and-his-miracle-cures-dr-john-e-sarno/

His Amazon page:

www.amazon.com/John-E.-Sarno/e/B001IOBML8/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1410104686&sr=8-1
 
#99
[quote="

The reference for the medical records experiment is:

L. Leibovici, "Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial". British Medical Journal, 2001; 323.
.[/quote]

I have seen responses to this study essentially saying: "Look, this is proof that (my) God is real". And I imagine the person blithely walking away,, getting on with their life. Self assured that whatever religious affiliation they were born into or have more recently subscribed to has been validated,,, while never giving it another thought...

I don't see this as proof of God at all,, but rather a peek at how reality works.

My internal compass tells me that this isn't about "prayer" per se at all, and this could also be demonstrated/validated by a similarly executed "non-religious" retrospective healing intercession of some sort.

I am amazed that:
1- More people aren't fundamentally moved by this evidence.
2- Other researchers haven't spent more effort confirming this and experimentally exploring the real nature of it.
 
Hey Alex,

I enjoyed this podcast. Thanks for publishing, and interested in reading more details in the book.

Just wanted to mention a quick correction; Semmelweis did not commit suicide. And I agree his story is indeed a fascinating one.
noted. thx.
 
Top