ENERGY HEALING

| Conference Home Page | Presenter Bios | CMBM Home Page |

Presenters: Elizabeth Targ, M.D., and Samuel Hendler, M.D.
Moderator: Susan Lord, M.D.
Commentator: Gailen Marshall, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
Session: Su1; June 13, 1999

I. Abstract

The term "distant healing" describes any purely mental effort undertaken by one person with the intention to improve physical or emotional well being in another. Distant healing is a phenomenon in which people are interested and it is widely used. There is disagreement between the medical community and patients about whether or not it is important and how distant healing exerts its effects. Dr. Elizabeth Targ first reviewed some of the data from well-controlled studies evaluating the effects of distant healing on animals and humans. She then described two of her own randomized double-blind studies that demonstrate the positive effects of distant healing on two groups of AIDS patients.

II. The Cancer-Related Issue Addressed

This session addressed the issue of distant healing which includes psychic healing, prayer, non-local healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki healing and various forms of spiritual healing. The presentation’s purpose was to examine some of the evidence supporting claims that healing at a distance leads to an improvement of physical and mental symptoms.

Dr. Targ

III. The Program Presented by Dr. Targ

A. Background

What is distant healing? The NIH defines distant healing as "distant mental influence on living systems." Dr. Targ's group describes distant healing as a conscious and compassionate act of meditation (thinking) intended to benefit the physical and/or emotional well being of another person at a distance. According to a recent poll carried out by The Lancet:

So there is a healthy skepticism and concern about charlatanery among the American people as well as a sense of the power of prayer. Looking over the evidence in support of distant healing, Dr. Targ noted that there have been close to 150 published studies in this area. Two-thirds of these studies have had results that were statistically significant. The studies have included in vitro studies on enzymes, on cancer cells in vitro, on yeast, bacteria, plants and mice. For example, many studies were undertaken in the area of anesthesia recovery wherein the recovery time (time until wake-up) for anesthetized mice who were prayed for was compared to the recovery time for a control group of mice. In 14 of 14 studies it was found that those mice who were prayed for awoke more quickly.

The most well controlled of the human studies on distant healing are biofeedback studies undertaken by Dr. Marilyn Schlitz and Dr. William Broad. In those studies a volunteer subject (#1) was videotaped while sitting in a room reading a magazine. Meanwhile, a second subject (#2), while watching the video of subject #1, was instructed, at random intervals, to send thoughts that would either activate or relax subject #1. The investigators then monitored the blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate of subject #1 for changes.

There was a study undertaken at San Francisco General Hospital about 10 years ago by Dr. Randolph Byrd in which he asked a Christian intercessory prayer group to pray for successively admitted coronary care patients. The patients were randomized to either a prayer group or a control group. The prayers prayed every day that the patients were in the hospital. The results of the study showed that people in the prayer group had significantly fewer complications during the course of their cardiac care and significantly better courses of recovery overall.

Dr. Broad undertook an in vitro study using university students (who were not trained healers) as subjects. The students first had blood samples drawn. Then, the students sat in a separate room from the blood samples. They were then told that distilled water (which causes red blood cells to burst) would be dripped onto their blood samples at various random intervals. Sometimes the students would be told that this was happening. They were instructed to send their intentions to protect the cells. At other times, the students wouldn't be told that this was happening. Nine of the 32 students (a highly statistically significant result) were able to protect the cells at the times when the distilled water was being dripped on them. When the red blood cells were their own, the students were able to better protect them from damage.

In Israel a study of fifty-three men who were having elective inguinal hernia surgery was undertaken. The men were randomized into three groups. Two of the groups were double blinded. The patients did not know whether they were receiving distant healing efforts from a well-known Israeli psychic or whether they were not receiving any extra treatment. A third group received relaxation tapes with healing instructions and suggestions. The results showed that the men who received neither the tapes nor the distant healing did the worst; the second best group had the suggestion tapes. The people who did the best following surgery were those receiving distant healing (although they did not know it). This latter group of people showed significantly more satisfaction with care, a higher sense of general well-being, improved wound healing, fewer fevers, and greater satisfaction with life than either of the other groups.

These studies were relatively well-controlled. Many of the other studies, such as the anxiety studies and depression studies testing the effects of distant healing, are much more difficult to interpret because people may have guessed that they are in the study and this can affect the results. In addition, studies of therapeutic touch require the presence of the healer in the room. Although the healer may be pretending not to heal, it is possible that the subjects will guess what is going on.

The results of studies such as those outlined led Dr. Targ and her colleagues to wonder, "Is this effect real?" Therefore, the purpose of her studies on distant healing was to determine whether one could entirely eliminate the placebo effect to find out whether there actually is healing at a distance.

B. Details

Dr. Targ and her colleagues decided to work with a population of people with advanced AIDS. This population was chosen for three reasons. First, at the time of the study there was very little that could be done for these patients. Therefore, there was little likelihood that any positive outcome would be the result of expectation or psychological input. (At the time, the results of other studies indicated that such interventions were not making much of a difference in this patient group.) Second, this was a population that clearly needed something. Third, people with advanced AIDS often don't have a lot of money for health care and distant healing might be a treatment which could be made available to patients at a low fee or for free from family members and friends.

The pilot study involved a group of 20 men. They were divided into two groups. They received healing in a double blind format every day for an hour for two weeks. After six months, there were four deaths in the control group and no deaths in the treatment group. This was a remarkable result. There were not enough patients left in the control group to fill out the questionnaires that would help researchers to evaluate some of the subjective psychological outcome measures. When they looked at the data, researchers found that while they had balanced the two groups for CD-4 cell counts and for the number of AIDS-defining illnesses, they had not balanced the two groups for age. People in the treatment group had an average age of 40 while the people in the control group had an average age of 50. Therefore, it was conceivable that the age difference alone could account for the outcome, so they decided to repeat the study.

The second double-blind trial included forty people, both men and women. Each person was pair-matched to another person of the same age, with the same CD-4 count and with the same number of AIDS-defining illnesses. In addition, all of the subjects were taking medication for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. The subjects were randomized to two groups. The control group received standard treatment only. The distant healing group received their standard treatment but also received healing from distant healers across the country.

The healers who were chosen to participate in this study were chosen according to a list of credentials: a good reputation from their patients and colleagues; at least five years experience as practitioners; distant healing experience with at least ten patients; and a history of working with at least ten people with AIDS. In actuality, the healers who were selected not only met but exceeded these criteria. Their average number of years of was seventeen. The average number of distant healings that they had performed was more than one hundred and twenty. They had worked on hundreds of people with HIV disease. It is also important to know that the healers worked for free. Although they were asked to work for an hour each day on behalf of their subject, many of them worked for many more hours each day. Finally, in order to distribute the 'good' and 'not-so-good' healers equally amongst the subjects, the healers worked on a schedule that rotated every week. Therefore ten different healers treated each subject, one for each week of the study. There were forty healers, so each healer worked only every other week.

The healers filled out a log sheet, describing to researchers what they were doing.

The healers and the subjects never met. The healers had info sheets on the patients that included a head and shoulders photograph, the patient's first name and T-cell count, and two sentences describing the patient's condition. The healers were asked only to "hold an intention for the health and well-being of the patient." Beyond that they could do whatever they wanted.

Researchers looked at twenty-seven different baseline variables. These variables are described in exhaustive detail in the published report of this research. They include measures of psychological status, uses of distant healing and belief in distant healing. There were no significant differences on any of the measures. In fact, the treatment group was found to be a little more ill at the beginning of the study.

Eleven outcome variables were measured: number and severity of new AIDS-defining diseases; survival; CD-4 count; number of doctor visits; number of hospitalizations; number of days of hospitalization; mood measure; measure of subjective physical symptoms; measures of functioning.

This data suggests that the control group was more ill at the completion of the study.

C. Mechanisms

To test for the influence of the placebo effect on the patient's outcome, the researchers asked patients whether or not they believed themselves to be in the treatment group. They found that twelve people who were in the treatment group had guessed that they were in the treatment group. In addition, nine people in the control group thought they were in the treatment group. The people who guessed they were in the treatment group tended to have slightly higher CD4 counts than the other patients in the study. This data suggests the presence of possible non-local effects in the mechanism of action for distant healing. No other treatment-related mechanisms for the effects found in the treatment group were posited. Because of these results, Dr. Targ and her colleagues at the California-Pacific Medical Center have begun using a variety of energy healing techniques with their patients.

IV. Limitations

The most difficult studies of distant healing are undertaken using human populations. These studies are so difficult is because their results can be explained using either of two different hypotheses. The first is that there is some kind of non-local effect at a distance but raises questions about the effect – is it energy? Is it an act of God? Does it have to do with visualization or remote hypnosis? The second hypothesis is that the success of distant healing is wrapped up in the patient’s hopes or expectations and the patient/healer relationship or the patient's own belief about healing.

V. Comments: Dr. Gailen Marshall

There is a long history of laying-on-of-hands in a variety of different religious backgrounds. Whether it is a pastor, priest or other individuals in a congregation, this mode of healing has a long history. Prayer itself has an equally long history. In the New Testament, it says, "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much". In Judeo-Christian religions as well as Eastern religions, the idea of a person's prayers for another person having a positive therapeutic benefit is not a new idea.

What doesn't have a long history is how that works and for whom it works. There has been research suggesting that caring and support is extremely important (i.e. knowing that someone is praying for you) in eliciting a positive response to energy healing. This has been demonstrated to be important in immune responses, in survival, and in quality of life issues. In Dr. Targ's study, the data did not show this to be a statistically significant correlation. Therefore, at least in her study, this is not a sufficient explanation for what is going on. One of the interesting issues that this work raises is that mechanism studies are critically important. A big question with complementary and alternative techniques is "where are they useful?" Nobody would try to tell you that one treatment is good for all types of cancer and all types of diseases. The questions must be asked: Who is it good for? Under what situation?  Can you get too much energy? Can you pray too long for someone? If they get well and you keep praying for them, are they going to get sick again? There are many therapies where if you give too much it is detrimental to the patient. Is that true in things like energy? Will it work for all patients? Is it a direct effect of the energy or an indirect effect? Are the different methods of energy healing comparable? Is there a good/better/best method or is the method irrelevant? Mechanism studies are important to do in order to begin answering these questions. The research that will define what works for whom needs to be undertaken from a variety of different backgrounds. Are there differences in gender? Are there genetic differences? Are there differences in race and ethnicity? These are important questions to answer; history tells us that different people respond differently to the same treatment.

Finally, questions must be asked that compare these treatments to one another. Will some treatments actually be antagonistic to each other? That is, if you want to participate in energy healing, is yoga bad for you? Are certain therapies synergistic? Should the therapies be undertaken sequentially or simultaneously? True science is looking for the truth of a situation. The majority of scientists, as they see and learn about the validity of some of these ideas, will very much want to embrace them and learn more about them for the common benefit of all of us. That is something to which we should look forward. We should demand funding for this research with our tax dollars.

VI. Audience Questions

What kinds of studies are being done right now?

Money is certainly a major issue in terms of trying to get these studies off the ground. The NIH is now formally open to funding studies on distant mental influence on living systems. There are a number of studies ongoing in distant healing right now. There are studies being done at Duke University, and at Harvard University with Dr. Herb Benson. There is an additional factor besides funding that makes it difficult to do this type of study. There is a concern on the part of researchers that this may not be an acceptable or appropriate field of study.

Dr. Hendler

III. The Program Presented by Dr. Hendler

A. Background

NAET or Nambudripad Allergic Elimination Therapy, is a technique that is currently being used to treat allergies throughout the country. Treatment using NAET involves exposing the patient to an allergen and providing acupressure along spinal meridians to eliminate the body's negative response to the substance. Dr. Samuel Hendler has been experimenting with the use of NAET for cancer patients. He described the outcome of a number of patients with whom he has used this technique. By treating the patients' biopsy slides as an allergen, Dr. Hendler seems to have eliminated the cancerous cells from some patients. The side effects associated with chemotherapy have been reduced in others and the quality of life of his patients has generally been improved by reducing their pain and discomfort following chemotherapy. This session addressed a possible treatment for the negative side effects associated with chemotherapy such as nausea and vomiting using NAET. Dr. Hendler's evidence also suggests that NAET might be able to reduce tumor size or eliminate cancerous cells from the body altogether.

An allergy is a reaction of the body to substances perceived as foreign called allergens. When the body comes in contact with allergens, the immune system responds to the perceived challenge by activating various immune cells to produce substances to counteract the allergen. This causes a variety of symptoms in an individual, such as swelling, excess mucous production, or nausea for example.

When using NAET, a practitioner relies on principles of kinesiology to determine whether or not a particular substance is an allergen or not. When a person's nervous system senses exposure to an allergen, the person's muscles are greatly weakened. For example, if a practitioner were to give her lactose-allergic patient a bottle of milk to hold, the patient would lose force in his arm muscle until putting the milk down. Dr. Devi Nambudripad developed the acronym NAET, which stands for Nambudripad Allergic Elimination Therapy. She is a professional in TCM who lives and works in California teaching about NAET to other health professionals. She discovered this therapy when she herself was exposed to carrots (to which she is allergic). After receiving acupressure treatment during this exposure, Dr. Nambudripad found that she was no longer sensitive to carrots and began investigating the implications of her findings. The reason behind using NAET techniques to treat cancer patients is twofold, as Dr. Hendler described it. First, many of the negative side effects associated with conventional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy are due to allergies on the part of the patient to the chemotherapeutic agents. When the allergy is eliminated, these negative side effects might subside or disappear entirely. Second, Dr. Hendler believes that tumors are like allergens to the body and might therefore respond to similar treatment modalities.

B. Details

The practice of NAET involves giving the allergen to the patient, usually within a glass container. This exposes the patient's body to the allergen. If the allergen is a tumor, the patient is asked to hold a slide that contains a piece of the tumor from the biopsy. The practitioner then performs acupressure and acupuncture along both sides of the vertebral column in order to abolish all blockages along the various meridians. For twenty-five hours after the treatment, the patient cannot touch or come in contact with the allergen. This is because there are twelve meridians and every two hours the energy flows along a different meridian. After twenty-five hours, the patient is re-examined for the presence of an allergic reaction. If the treatment worked, there should be no reaction. Even if the patient is exposed to the same allergen at a later date, it will no longer cause an allergic reaction.

There is an initial ten-week period in which the NAET patient is exposed to a standard series of substances, such as proteins and glucose. The patient is then treated with the substance of the tumor. While some patients only require a few weeks of treatment, others require months of treatment before the allergic response is eliminated completely. When the treatment is completed, the patient returns to Dr. Hendler approximately every four months for a check-up.

C. Mechanism of Action

Although this is currently just a hypothesis, Dr. Hendler suggested the following mechanism of action. In a tumor, there is a change in the DNA and RNA of a cell, which causes that cell to proliferate out of control. This change is similar to the changes that occur in the body in an autoimmune disease, wherein transformations in the cell's DNA and RNA cause the body to react against it's own tissues as a foreign substance. Treatment with NAET resets the cells' DNA and RNA to normal.

In the question/answer session, Dr. Susan Lord suggested that there is an energy field created by the allergen substance. When the patient holds the substance, it affects that person's energy field. The treatment on the patient's body changes the patient's relationship to the substance. Something in the autonomic nervous system is reset so that it doesn't react habitually in an overstimulated way.

D. Research

What follows are descriptions of cancer cases treated with NAET by Dr. Hendler. His goal in providing treatment was to give patients pain relief during treatment for cancer, to improve quality of life, to prolong life and to reduce the general symptoms associated with chemotherapy, such as nausea, vomiting and weakness.

Very little work has been done using NAET as a treatment for cancer. Dr Hendler does not suggest that any patient stop taking a treatment that their doctor has prescribed.

IV. Comments: Dr. Gailen Marshall

Dr. Hendler's work raises a particular issue. The way that he defines allergies is distinct from the way that most other conventional physicians define allergy in a strict medical sense. Others define allergy as a reaction that is mediated by the production of an abnormal antibody called IgE. This antibody binds to a mast cell and, when the antibody is cross-linked with subsequent antigen exposure, the mast cell is activated and there are predictable consequences. In certain people, the symptoms are such that the allergic reaction can be mimicked by a variety of other mechanisms, which do not involve IgE. The standard way in which an allergy patient is evaluated is to take a history and perform skin tests. The results of the skin test in the context of the history and the physical exam help the clinician to make the diagnosis of an allergic disease. Therapy is instituted as a result of that. According to Dr. Hendler's mechanism, an individual who has this reaction improves after a manipulation. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Hendler's mechanism of action, there is some commonality here. From a research standpoint, the immune mechanisms that appear to be most involved in allergic reactions are those that would tend to promote tumor growth in many types of tumors, including the tumors in patients that Dr. Hendler discussed today. Therefore, regardless of mechanism, anything that alters the immune response might in fact encourage the body to produce more of an anti-tumor response. These anti-tumor responses are related to things like cytotoxict-lymphocytes, natural killer cells, etc. Dr. Marshall has both seen and published data showing that HIV patients with allergies are at a greater risk of dying from their disease. Indeed, Dr. Marshall's own lab group is currently working on an epidemiological study investigating whether cancer patients with a history of allergic disease might be more susceptible to particular types of tumors.

In the area of NAET, it might be very interesting to do some research to look at whether NAET affects some of the parameters that classical allergy therapy affect. Does it affect skin test results? Does it affect histamine activity? Will NAET affect provocative challenge for major mast cell reactions? That is, can you cure bad asthma, venom sensitivity with this technique?

V. Resources

VI. Audience Questions

What does 'allergic' mean in this context?

In the context of NAET, the term "allergic" means that the body is having a negative response in some way to very natural substances.

Is it the NAET treatment itself that causes the results? Is it the person performing the treatment? Is there a way of monitoring this?

Many practitioners are being trained in NAET. The success of the treatment does not seem to be dependent on the practitioner at all. It is a standard treatment that people do.

In the NAET treatment is there any testing suggesting that the technique does anything besides eliminate the symptoms of the allergies?

The technique changes the behavior of the brain to recognize the substance as familiar instead of as an allergen. Therefore, there is no longer a reaction to the substance inside the body at all.

Is NAET being used as a treatment for patients with any other types of illnesses?

Dr. Hendler and others are also using NAET to treat children with attention deficit disorder and people who cannot hear without a hearing aid.

Will this research be published?

Dr. Hendler's research and the protocols associated with his case series will be published on the web during the summer, hopefully by the end of July.

| Conference Home Page | Presenter Bios | CMBM Home Page |