You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
Biofield healing (aka energy healing) has shown tremendous results in case studies, placebo-controlled studies, cell culture studies, and other peer-reviewed research over the past few decades. It’s recognized by the NIH and approved for use in hospitals.
And yet, biofield healing is only used by 1% of the population, and research funding is almost non-existent. Why?
It’s not failings in current research. Yes, most studies are single-blind not double-blind, and like all research you can find flaws in some studies. But you know what? If a drug were producing these results, there would be a pile of money to fund top-quality double-blind trials.
So what’s the difference between drugs and biofield healing?
The short answer is: Physics.
See, the sciences aren’t isolated. Medicine is based on biology, and we can explain how drugs function in terms of cells and hormones and neurotransmitters. And biology is based on chemistry, which describes the details of those interactions. And ultimately, all of that is based on physics. Science isn’t just a collection of facts. It’s a tower, with physics at the bottom, and chemistry, biology, and medicine built on one another, going up.
To research a new drug, we only need a new top floor. All of the foundation already exists — the physics, chemistry, and biology.
But when we research biofield healing, we’re starting from zero. There’s no biology that corresponds to the biofield, and no chemistry, and no physics. We need the whole building, not just the top floor.
That’s why current research isn’t convincing: It’s starting with the medicine, and skipping the physics.
But scientists add to physics all the time. Two hundred years ago, relativity, quantum, string, and many other findings didn’t exist. So why can’t we just run some good medical studies and let the physicists update physics, while we get on with healing people?
The short answer is: Medicine and physics have different rules. Except that isn’t satisfying at all. Why do they have different rules, and why does that matter?
In any research, there’s a chance that the results are coincidence. Some portion of your volunteers will get better all on their own, and if we get more of those destined-to-be-healthy people in the treatment group than the control group, the treatment group will have better results with or without the drug. Think of it like flipping a coin — heads means healthy, tails means sick, and if you flip 10 times, sometimes you’ll wind up with 7 or 8 heads just from random chance.
If instead of 10 flips, we do 100 or 1000, it’s must less likely we’ll wind up far from 50% heads. So that’s what we do: We test the drug on many people, and ensure there’s only a 5% chance the results were just luck. Maybe 1% chance if we’re really serious. Those are good papers in medicine.
But in physics? Between 0.01% and 0.0001% chance the results are luck. That’s 10,000x as careful as top-notch medical research. And physics can do that, because atoms are much easier to work with than humans, and there are no ethics committees.
The point is: Accepting the biofield requires new physics. So we need a way to produce physics-level results, that only have a one-in-a-million chance of being luck.
How do we do that? Short answer is to develop new biofield techniques producing obvious, unmistakable results. The long answer is its own post, or more likely its own book.
But the first step toward a solution is understanding why the problem exists. So that’s why: Because we don’t just need new medicine. We need new physics.If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.