Dear friends with whom I share a love of scientific, medical, and metaphysical mysteries,
If this article is true it’s one of the scariest, most interesting things I’ve seen in a while:
I always wondered about the mysterious synchronicity of Dr. Elizabeth Targ, the well known researcher on Brain Cancer, (and daughter of Dr. Russell Targ) dying of cancer of the brain. Having met her, and presented at many of the conferences that she presented at, I was saddened and interested in the strange coincidence of her death being from the same disease that she devoted her life to studying.
Could the hypothesis given in this article be a pathway to discovering the answer? I’d love to hear your thoughts if you’d like to share them; and please let me know if you want me to share them with my thirty people list (of leaders in the field and people interested in this subject) or keep them private.
Blessings for further understanding of the metaphysical mysteries of life,
Michael
Here is a follow up to my last email (above):
As a follow up to my last email, I’ve been getting interesting responses: Stan Krippner for example brings up the implications of this research (if it proves accurate) for health care workers of people with terminal diseases. I’ve always wondered about whether a higher percentage of actors who play the part of people who have diseases such as cancer end up getting that disease.
Do any of you know of research studies on this topic? For those of us who have contact with graduate doctoral students it would be interesting to see if someone will do their dissertation or research on this. Here are some questions to be explored:
• Is it a statistically reliable phenomenon that a higher percentage of people who are around a certain non-contagious disease or study it get that physical disease? How does this relate to mental disorders?• Even if this is not statistically significant difference, is this still an anomalous but valid phenomenon? What then would create a susceptibility for this “contagion effect” in a small number people. For example, perhaps a small number of “empaths” who are working with the ill have a susceptibility to this “contagion” effect through their biophotons, and they are not able to transmute the effects. Or are these possible effects related to immune system issues or other variables?• If this is a valid phenomenon, what healing measures could stop this from happening? In the Chinese Medical Qigong tradition we help people to cultivate their Wei Chi, protective chi. { I and other Medical Qigong teachers, teach this as part of “basic training”:-) }Are there other, better, or integral ways of teaching protective measures? A biophoton researcher could measure susceptible health care workers to see the difference between various mind body protective measures, cultivation of Wei Chi, nutritional interventions etc. Research could be set up to explore this hypothesis and antidotes.I look forward to hearing your thoughts and additions (Let me know if you want me to keep your comments private or share them),
Michael
Comments 4
Author
Dr. Beverly Rubik comments:
Hi Michael,
Most healthy persons have better energy regulation than sick persons, which I think is why the biophotons from sick persons do not affect them much. In fact, it is the other way around—the biofield of sick persons entrains to that of their practitioners, which is part of the therapeutic relationship that helps them heal. It is important for practitioners to work only on days when they are well and not sick. In our bacterial study on Reiki back in 2002, we found anecdotally on one occasion that a sick practitioner actually thwarted the growth of bacterial cultures in one experiment, when normally Reiki stimulated culture growth over controls.
By the way, we have a biophoton chamber at our lab in Emeryville with apparatus to count biophotons from any bodily region. This is a laborious procedure with extensive data analysis. Nonetheless, we would be interested in collaborating on biophoton research projects with you or your colleagues if funding could be procured.
Enclosed here is one of our recent publications on human biophotons in relation to energy healing and psycho-energetic states. Feel free to pass this along to anyone.
Thanks for sending this provocative article that goes beyond anything I have read in this field.
Warm regards,
Beverly
Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.
President/founder, Institute for Frontier Science
http://www.frontiersciences.org
http://www.brubik.com
Author
Larry Dossey writes:
Dear Michael,
What a provocative article. Thanks for sending.
I doubt these “bystander” effects are based in quantum nonlocality/entanglement. Nonlocal quantum effects are not signal-mediated. They have three characteristics. They are (1) unmediated by any known signal; (2) unmitigated (they do not weaken with increasing distance); and they are (3) immediate or instantaneous. (See: Nick Herbert. 1987. Quantum Reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday: 214.) This does not mean the bystander phenomena are not real, only that they are not evidence of quantum nonlocality/entanglement.
There are several experiments revealing bystander effects that apparently are explainable by connectivity based in quantum nonlocality/entanglement. In replicated experiments by Rita Pizzi’s group in Milan, when two isolated samples of human neurons or neuron stem cells were placed in distant Faraday cages, when one batch of neurons was stimulated by laser the distant neurons registered the same changes at the same moment. (Faraday cages prevent the transmission of common forms of electromagnetic signaling, including presumably biophoton signaling.) (See: Pizzi R, Fantasia A, Gelain F, Rossetti D, Vescovi A. Non-local correlation between separated human neural networks. In: Donkor E, Pirick AR, Brandt HE (eds.) Quantum Information and Computation II. Proceedings of SPIE5436. 2004:107-117. Abstract available online at: The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5436..107P. Accessed January 17, 2009.)
A similar study was done with human gastrointestinal epithelial cells at Rush Medical Center in Chicago by Ashkan Farhadi’s group. In this design, two tissue samples were isolated at a distance in Faraday cages. When one batch was poisoned with hydrogen peroxide, the distant isolated cells registered the same effects at the same time. (See: Farhadi A, Forsyth C, Banan A, Shaikh M, Engen P, Fields JZ, Keshavarzian A. Evidence for non-chemical, non-electrical intercellular signaling in intestinal epithelial cells. Bioelectrochemistry. 2007; 71 (2): 142-148. Also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201089/.)
I could cite other similar experiments, but these should make the point: apparent “bystander” effects can occur nonlocally, without mediation by any energetic signal, biophotons or otherwise.
We may be dealing with two different types of bystander phenomena — one type is local, mediated by conventional signals or biophotons, as the article maintains; the other type of bystander effect is nonlocally based, in which signal mediation does not occur. A big problem: I think the author of the article does not understand the essential nature of nonlocal connectivity, and how it fundamentally differs from energetically, locally mediated phenomena.
I haven’t read all the references referred to in the article. However, a way of sorting out the way “transmission” occurs in all the organisms mentioned (fish, tadpoles, mice, etc.) would be to separate the “senders” and “receivers” in Faraday cages. If this blocked the bystander effect, this would argue for a conventional, mechanical, energetic mode of transmission. If the effects were not blocked, this would favor nontransmission of a nonenergetic phenomenon of a nonlocal variety.
If these nonlocal distant effects sound like big magic, well, that’s the way the universe works: instant connectedness at a distance, without any glue. Our world is weirder, even, than the article implies.
I discuss these issues in my recent book ONE MIND, because these and many additional experiments strongly suggest that consciousness is a nonlocal, beyond-the-brain phenomenon, and that it is unitary, collective, immortal, and one: i.e., consciousness is nonlocal with respect to both space and time.
Circulate this as you wish.
Cheers,
~ Larry
Larry Dossey, MD
Exec. editor: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
http://www.explorejournalcom
Author
Dr Stanley Krippner writes:
Michael
I think it is very likely that actors would get sick from the roles they play. No biophotos are involved. The only link would be an over-identification with the part, and a part of actor training is to avoid that possibility. The classic Ronald Coleman film “A Double Life” shows what happened when an actor fell prey to over-identification. As Othello, he killed Desdemona, but Shelley Winters came out of the ordeal with an academy award. Not too shabby. Your other questions make much more sense.
Stan
Author
On Oct 23, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Dana Ullman wrote:
Michael,
I do know one other person who died from a disease about which he was an expert. Did you know Marc Lappe?
However, determining “cause and effect” is not so simple because I personally wonder if these people have a precognitive sense that they NEED to know about this disease because they will be dying (or suffering) from it.
It is like a woman I know who was seeking to adopt a baby and was allow to adopt a Native American baby…and the tribe that allowed her to do so happened to be a tribe about which she had previously studied greatly and for which she had had a special appreciation.
–Dana