A scientist requires a hypothesis around which to design experiments and test theory. In other words the scientist likes to have an explanation at the start about how the unexplained observations could happen. Ideally a hypothesis should sit comfortably within the current science paradigm (for when it doesn’t this leads to “resistance” from the orthodoxy).

I have found the metaphor of “healer as tuning fork” to be a helpful hypothesis for healing. During a treatment the healer acts like a tuning fork and the healee like a sounding board. We know that when placing an activated, energised tuning fork onto a sounding board, the board resonates in harmony and that it does this with some vigour. (It is like the vibration is actually amplified when this happens). The same is postulated here for the interaction between healer and healee. From the work of Beck, Cade and Zimmerman, the main frequency of this “tuning fork” effect is probably around 7 Hertz. Indeed perhaps this is a frequency channel that life has reserved for integrating healing and repair throughout its systems. Perhaps what gets in the way of rapid self-healing, is a lack of use, or a “jamming”, of this 7-Hertz frequency by other frequency channels in use. Perhaps healing is just a process of reminding the system that the healing channel exists.

This healing ‘vibration’ is very subtle, not directly perceived through the main sensory channels, and much weaker than for example the Earth’s Magnetic Field (this is why ordinary instruments can’t detect it). Actually we are seeing that the living cell is a far more sensitive apparatus for subtle perturbations in the ‘force’ (shades of Star Wars here) than any scientist’s measuring device. Also it would seem that “wireless” communication (i.e. the pulsating energy field) was a feature of the universe well before the dawn of life itself. So it is hardly surprising that life has evolved with an ability to use such pre-existent technology. Life utilised wireless communication before vodophone and O2! The clockwork-mechanism-universe is a very outdated metaphor indeed.

So 21st Century Science needs a more updated way of seeing and thinking, and it does not especially have to be a “Quantum Science” .

Albert Szent-Gyorgi set the tone that underlies the thinking of those who have been pioneers in this area.

If you asked a chemist to find out what a dynamo is, he would dissolve it in hydrochloric acid. A molecular biochemist would take it to pieces, describing carefully the helices of wire. Should you suggest that what is driving the machine is an invisible fluid called electricity, he would scold you as a “vitalist”. The fuel of life is the electron. The living cell is essentially an electrical device. The macromolecular structure is (just) its framework, in which the transduction of electrical energy into mechanical work takes place. Albert Szent Gyorgi        Pioneer of Bioelectronics

Tweet This Post

In the last blog, I mentioned that most Doctor’s and Scientists appear to practise ‘scientism’ rather than ‘science’. This is NOT a new phenomenon and we can see that this was often the case back in the 1700’s.

Let’s take a look at the story of healing from Mesmer and see if much has changed in regard to how scientists perceive healers and healing.

As you read on, focus on what I said previously about scientism – that when practicing scientism, if the observations don’t fit the belief held, than the observations are either (1) ignored (2) attacked as being false or some ‘magic trick’ (3) manipulated to fit the belief.

Because ‘hands-on healing’ (or distance healing or other types of healing) doesn’t fit comfortably with any Newtonian Model of Science, doctors practicing scientism will defend their Scientific Beliefs (using methods 1,2,or 3) rather than pay proper attention to what is actually happening and so don’t properly observe and have no inclination to investigate what they see. Most doctors will simply say ‘there isn’t any evidence that healing works’.

In this example below with a French Royal Commission set up in 1784 to investigate Mesmer’s Healing Technique, there was clear evidence that healing worked at some level – as most of the patients got better.

What wasn’t clear was HOW it worked and a true scientist would therefore want to set up experiments to ascertain the ‘how’.

Instead these commissioners used their expertise to DENY that Mesmer had demonstrated any real effects worthy of further exploration. Only one of the scientists a botanist called (Jussieu) appeared  to value science rather above scientism. See what you think -

The story of healing – from Mesmer to the Present

Mesmer was a scientist and healer living in the mid-1700’s.

Using a technique he described as “animal magnetism” (initially using magnets until he discovered that just using his hands had the same effect), Mesmer’s healing work became fashionable in Paris but irritated eminent physicians and scientists of the time. A Royal Commission, chaired Benjamin Franklin, was set up by Louis XV1 in 1784 to investigate Mesmer’s method.

The Commission’s Report when completed labelled Mesmer a Charlatan.

The crucial evidence cited against his method was that blindfold patients (Mesmer used a “hands off”or “hands-over” healing technique) did not demonstrate the patient bodily rigour that usually happened during his regular treatments. The fact that patients behaved differently blindfolded was evidence enough for the Commission to report that this technique was a sham (though in the blindfolded cases the patients also improved).

The Commission’s viewpoint was that “all could be explained by the patient’s imagination”.

A minority report by the botanist Jussieu dissented from this view and he felt that sufficient evidence had been provided “to make us admit the possibility of the existence of a fluid, or agent, which is communicated from one man to another, and sometimes exercises on the latter a sensible action”.

Who practised the good science? Franklin or Jussieu?

Which theory better predicted the facts – the unseen magnetic-type force proposed by Mesmer, or the Commission’s theory of imagination?

And if imagination was the key, why was this not explored further. Why did the scientists not remain curious as to how this allowed patients to get better (most were patient’s who were put forward by the physicians themselves that had not been helped by the physician’s treatments).

The Commission’s findings raised many questions for valid scientific investigation but the results were merely used for the purpose of discrediting Mesmer and not to advance scientific learning.

Would a Commission investigating healing conclude anything different today?

Probably not! We have some recent possible pointers. In the last 10 years at least one American State was reported to have banned healing (specifically a form called therapeutic touch) in their Hospitals, because researchers “disproved” the theory upon which it was based even though it appeared to have beneficial effects (animal magnetism in 18th Century, energy fields in the 20th Century).

Again not long ago in the UK there was the “scandal” of a healer and the England football team. The healer was “sacked” because of her beliefs and not because she was ineffective in accelerating players recover from injury.

Coming Next:

More on the England football Team Healer (who was sacked), as well a description of some simple experiments that open-minded scientists around the world could quickly and easily undertake in order to validate that healing is for real and that it is worthy of an extensive input of funding for research to the potential benefit of all.

Tweet This Post

(adapted from an article “The Science of Healing and the Healing of Science” published in Resource Magazine September 2005, Author: Barry Mapp)

We don’t realise how much our existing theories and beliefs prevent us from seeing new things clearly.

How the Scientist’s beliefs stop them seeing clearly

A principle of science is that ‘what actually happens’ comes before ‘how do things happen’. Thus the first stage of science comes from observation and experience. Then comes a hypothesis (a preliminary belief), then come experiments to see if the hypothesis holds water. What many scientists actually practice is not ’science’ but ’scientism’ which is the opposite of science – where the belief (the need to know how things happen) comes first and observation (what happens) comes second.

Thus when practicing scientism, if the observations don’t fit the belief held, then the observations are either (1) ignored (2) attacked as being false or some ‘magic trick’ (3) manipulated to fit the belief.

Because ‘hands-on healing’ (or distance healing or other types of healing) doesn’t fit comfortably with the Newtonian Model of Science, doctors practicing scientism defend their theory (using methods 1,2,or 3) and don’t properly observe and investigate the potential phenomenon. Most doctors will say ‘there isn’t any evidence that healing works’.

However any doctor who can suspend judgement about healers and healing long enough to search the world’s literature, will find plenty of published material (but not in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal) demonstrating that healing has “medical” effects worthy of further investigation. So we have to assume that most doctors practice scientism.

How the Healer’s beliefs stop them seeing clearly

Equally “healers” are often unaware how their theories and beliefs prevent them from seeing things clearly and they too must be prepared to change their beliefs if they want to move healing forward.

Scientists and healers suffer from the same problem. They both use outdated concepts or “out-of-context” theories to explain how things happen. (see more about unhelpful ways of thinking here). Healers are often using theories and explanations which go back thousands of years, whilst openly criticising the scientists who cling to Newton’s ideas that are much more recent. We need a pragmatic view of theory. No explanation or model is ever complete or “true”. What is important therefore, is not to argue over who or what is “right”, but to find explanations or metaphors that are useful, that most people can accept, and that allows predictions to be made and theory to be tested.

For example, some healers say that the cause of illness is “evil spirits”. A few hundred years ago or more this may have been a reasonable theory. However today this metaphor is outdated. Other healers invoke their religion, reincarnation, or their “spirit guides” as integral to their healing but none of these are essential to what they do. These beleifs simply provides a stream of potential red herrings (and an uncomfortable feeling) for the scientist. If healers want their form of healing to become mainstream, and thus part of everyday medical practice, they have to conceive explanations that are aligned with present day context and knowledge (even if some of that knowledge is “wrong”). As Newton’s Thinking is still predominant in science, the healer must speak with metaphors that the scientist understands (rather than jumping on the Quantum Theory bandwagon as most are doing – a bandwagon that has yet to starting rolling in the corridors of power)

Coming next: Lessons for science from the Mesmer experience

Tweet This Post

How often do we think about these two words? It is very unlikely that we share a common understanding of what these words represent and yet they are two words that are very important. So here goes.

Healing is an intrinsic process and represents the internal resources and processes available to each organism for the purpose of bodily maintenance and repair. Healing is thus the totality of processes and mechanisms within an organism that maintains wellbeing, balance and integrity. There, that wasn’t too bad was it?

Healing is something that is normally happening each and every day within all of us. Illness happens when the natural healing mechanisms are either overwhelmed, blocked or the energy or resources necessary to maintain wellness are either not available or have been diverted elsewhere.

Healing is also used to describe what a healer does in the process of the “laying on of hands” and when used in this context it has a slightly different meaning.

It is perhaps unfortunate that we don’t have another word for it, but in this context healing can be interpreted as “facilitating natural healing processes” (the processes just described). These two separate meanings (the natural intrinsic processes themselves and the facilitating of these processes) get mixed up by science and religion and this causes confusion.

A Definition of Healer

Again it is likely that we don’t have a common understanding of what we mean by healer. So lets devise a description that is inclusive for all those that would call themselves by this name:-

A Healer is a person who can help potentiate the natural healing processes in others, either through accelerating existing healing mechanisms (rather like a catalyst can accelerate a chemical reaction), or facilitating changes in a clients “physiology” towards “states” more conducive to the natural healing process. (Deep relaxation for example is an important pre-requisite for maximisation of the body’s natural healing processes)

This broad definition (potentiates the natural healing processes in others) allows a wide range of people to call themselves “healers” from doctors through to witchdoctors. The scientific approach to Healing and Healer would be to discover through research which of the ‘healing modalities’ have the most positive effects, which maximise the power of the placebo effect and which modalities do much more than placebo. With proper scientific study, I am confident that healers can demonstrate in many situations measurable positive effects far beyond placebo (and this will be discussed later). ANd subsequent blogs will outline the evidence so far that hand-on healing has real measurable effects

But we need to be clear that whenever a healer is at work, the “cure”, “repair” or “healing” itself is probably always done from within the patient by the patient’s own internal healing mechanisms (As healers are facilitators and healing is intrinsic). What the healer (most probably) does is to provide “information” that can assist the healing process. For any therapist, there will be the positive placebo aspect of communication that can be at a verbal level (words and tonality), or whole-body level (actions and behaviour of therapist). However with many therapies there are influences at work over and above placebo and this appears to be particularly so for “hands-on” healing which is the focus for this series of blogs.

One of the key features of healing over and above placebo is that it appears to elicit effects at a cellular level thus bypassing the need for mental or physical input by the patient themselves and here the low-frequency energy vibration through the healer’s hands provides the most convincing likely explanation. (Thus ‘belief’ is not required for success to ‘healing’ as sometimes thought, only an open-mindedness to accept the process without reservation).

How a healing modality communicates at a cellular level is not known but is definitely worthy of investigation and could lead to major scientific breakthroughs in other areas. It is likely a similar effect to low frequency pulsating electromagnetic fields which have been shown scientifically to influence rates of tissue repair.

Coming Next: Scientists and Healers need an Open Mind

Tweet This Post