Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics
Of all the forms of psychic ability, including precognition, telepathy, clairvoyance and psychokinesis, none is quite as ubiquitous, well known or well documented as psychic healing, a.k.a. the placebo effect, miracle healing, hands on healing, Reiki, etc.
The fact is, psychic healing is quite ordinary and literally anybody can do it with a bit of training. People have done it with no training at all. The hard part of psychic healing is typically measuring it. The problem is that if we compare people who are receiving psychic healing for, let’s say breast cancer, we have all types of variables and ethical situations to contend with. First of all, there are different types of breast cancer, people have their cancer discovered at different stages and they have differences in immunity, genetics and overall health. People will often do a wide variety of things to improve their chances at healing. And this is something that no one has any control over in a medical study.
You can’t have a control group in medicine to find out how fast people die without any treatment. You can’t stop people from changing their diets, their work and home lives, their intake of supplements and anti-oxidants or any number of other factors that might change the outcome of the study. Some people will try anything and everything; the study results are of secondary importance to a research subject’s desire to survive. So it’s hard to know whether someone improved because of psychic healing or because of other treatments that they sought. To make things more complicated, the people who are most likely to be open to psychic healing will also be the most likely to seek other treatments. They are the most pro-active of all test subjects.
In a world in which the mainstream medical community looks for any excuse at all to dismiss test results as “something else” this is a problem. Traditional scientists don’t understand the mechanism, so they don’t understand the results, so they don’t acknowledge them. This doesn’t mean that the results don’t exist or that they aren’t convincing. Reiki in particular, is supported by too many medical studies to list. (You will need to register, but you can find them here.)
William F. Bengston (Bill) is a professor of sociology at St. Josephs College in New York, U.S.A. He received his Ph.D. from Fordham University, New York, in 1980. His “day job” areas of specialization include research methods and statistics.
For many years, Bill has conducted research into anomalous healing, and has proven the effectiveness of his technique in 10 controlled animal experiments conducted in 5 university biological and medical laboratories. His healing research has produced the first successful full cures of transplanted mammary cancer and methylcholanthrene induced sarcomas in experimental mice by laying-on-of-hands techniques that he helped to develop.
These experiments with lab mice had a number of important features.
Setting up the experiment this way eliminated all the ordinary variables and allowed the research to unambiguously demonstrate whether there was an actual effect. (A detailed explanation can be found here. pg’s 5-9) (Here is the JSE paper.) It’s impossible to overstate just how important it is to be able to do this.
One of the chair’s department members had been doing mice studies on a par- ticular form of mammary adenocarcinoma that is 100 percent fatal within 27 days of injection. The model itself was so well understood that statistical studies of lifespan were routinely done, even as no mouse had ever lived past 27 days. If we could even get our mice to live closer to the 27 day mark, that would be strong evidence of a healing effect. If a mouse were to live to day 28, well, then we’d own the world record.
Using a technique developed with a a psychic healer that involved both the use of personal positive image visualization and an attitude of detachment, Bengston set about healing the first batch of mice:
. . . Any remaining hope I had disappeared as the tumors developed blackened areas on them. I saw this as the beginning of the end. Then, the blackened areas ulcerated and the tumors split open. Again I urged that we do the ethical thing and end the experiment. But the biology chair noticed that the mice still had smooth coats and their eyes remained clear, and he wondered why they were acting as though perfectly healthy.
Then, in the final stages, the mice tumors simply implod- ed without any discharge or infection of any sort; it was a full lifespan cure. We were stunned. Here was a skeptical healer and a presumably non-believing group of mice that had gone through a novel pattern of remission to full cure in a mouse model without precedent of a cure.
To replicate his experiment, Bengston chose students specifically “to find the strongest levels of skepticism.”
The four skeptical “volunteers” then replicated what I did, and we got essentially the same results. All of the mice were cured. I then moved the operation to St. Joseph’s College where I was working, and with the chair of the biology depart- ment there did experiments three and four with other skepti- cal volunteers. In those experiments we also tried injecting the mice with twice the dosage necessary to produce a fatal cancer, tried multiple injections, and even tried re-injecting them after the experiment was over. But the mice remained immune to future injections throughout their two-year lifespan.
. . . We have now done ten experiments on mice at five different institutions, including two medical schools. Eight of those experiments involved the same mammary adenocarcinoma, and two of them used methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas, which are not quite as aggressive. Though these experiments achieved healing across the board, the intricacies of the results are complex and, frankly, quite puzzling.
It’s at this point that I stopped and considered what I just read. If this were a cancer drug, it would be the biggest news in the history of cancer research. It’s not just a remission, but a complete cure. I constantly run into references to this research within the parapsychological community because people who know about it generally understand its incredible significance, . . . but never outside of it. These test results are thousands of times superior to anything else the medical establishment has going and they are the most amazing medical research results of the 21st century -at least.- How much better does it get than a 100% cure of cancer?
So there you have it. A cure for cancer that is 100% safe and 100% effective. What more could you possibly want?
The silence is deafening and I find that to be infuriating. So how many people are going to die needlessly from cancer before this becomes common knowledge? We are basically waiting for skeptics to come around and accept the research, but how long is enough? To me, this is a situation that calls for desperate measures so that we can heal the sick. But what is to be done?
Bill Bengston will join myself and David Metcalfe on Wed. Jan. 22, 2014, at 8pm EST on the Evolver Webinar “Everybody’s Psychic”