Anyone Tried Bill Bengston Yet?

Messages
64
Hi friends,

My husband and I signed up for a workshop with Bill Bengston in September. He has a really interesting story... interesting to me because he's a scientist that accidentally came across energy healing, and accidentally figured out anyone can do it... in a lab. All of it was a total surprise to him.

As of today he's done countless studies on curing mice of cancer in a lab, and has collected a ton of data.

He claims to be able to heal certain things with his technique (his research in the lab has all been done on cancer, but he has helped people with other things), but not other things, so I've been curious to find out it anyone has tried it for ME...

Or if anyone is willing to try it...

https://bengstonresearch.com/

i don't think I'd even be willing to try this if not for the science he's done on it. I find that to be sooo interesting!
 

wabi-sabi

Senior Member
Messages
1,318
Location
small town midwest
Here is a nice article on reiki and cancer from PennMedicine.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/i.../reiki-a-light-touch-that-helps-cancer-patien

Legit energy healers do not claim they can cure cancer, because they can't. They can help with stress relief and a bit of the pain and anxiety that go along with cancer.

I've certainly felt a bit better myself after energy work and it's even-temporarily-helped with insomnia. But it doesn't cure cancer, ME/CFS, or anything else. It's a symptomatic treatment for stress, pain, anxiety and the like. I recommend energy work if it helps you with stress or insomnia. But I don't find energy workers who make extravagant claims about cancer cures to be ethical.
 
Messages
64
The articles on his website read like he messed up the controls in his experiment. I wouldn't put much stock in this.

He has had problems with the controls getting healed. He has to send the controls to another city otherwise they'll be healed as well.

He doesn't "claim" to heal cancer... he has healed cancer a number of times in lab experiments.

You'd have to download "The Effect of Laying on of Hands..." from this page...
https://bengstonresearch.com/publications, but here's an excert:



Methods and Data

The First Experiment

Krinsley was a professor at Queens College of the City University of New York. He had arranged for a disinterested professor of biology who was doing conventional cancer research to prepare experimental animals. Her area of ex- pertise was mammary cancer, so she was familiar with mammary adenocarci- noma and obtained from The Jackson Laboratory a “standard” mammary ade- nocarcinoma (code H2712; host strain C3J/HeJ; strain of origin C3H/HeHu). The normal progression after the mouse is injected is the development of a nonmetastatic palpable and visible tumor that grows so large that it crushes the internal organs of the host. Host survival in the conventional literature was 100% fatality between 14 and 27 days after injection.

The experimental procedure was planned as follows: Bengston was to place his hands around the outside of a standard laboratory plastic cage containing six mice for 1 hour per day while applying the healing technique, beginning 3 days after injection. At no time were the mice to be directly touched. Six con- trol mice were kept in a separate laboratory in the same building. One experi- mental mouse died of natural causes before treatment began, so only five mice were actually treated. Our initial hope was that we might get a significant dif- ference in survival between the experimental animals and their controls. Re- mission was not seriously considered.

Our results were totally beyond expectation. About 10 days into the proce- dure, the experimental mice began to develop a “blackened area” on their tumors (Figures 1 and 2). At this point, Bengston presumed that the experiment was failing and wanted to call it off. Krinsley convinced him to continue, rea- soning that there was nothing to lose. Approximately 1 week later, the black- ened areas “ulcerated” as if they had been split open (Figures 3 and 4). In some
cases, the ulceration grew extremely large (Figure 5) then appeared to implode (not shown), and the wound closed. The mice then lived their normal life span of approximately 2 years. In the figures, the index card notation “A-3” identi- fies the mouse, and the day number indicates elapsed time since injection. In

Figure 1 (Day 14), the tumor is visible on the left posterior dorsal aspect of the mouse.

On Day 22 (Figure 2), the tumor is clearly larger but has developed an en- crusted area on its surface (most posterior aspect of the tumor). This is the ear- liest indication of tumor regression.

Days 28, 35, and 38 (Figures 3 through 5) illustrate the next significant stage. The tumor appears to be resorbed internally and remains clear of infec- tion. From this stage on, the tumor regresses completely (not shown), and the mouse lives its normal life span.

The control mice presented us with some unique challenges. In the initial stages of developing the experimental procedure, the healer warned that he could not be near or see the control mice, or they, too, would go into remission. Although skeptical, we agreed to keep the control mice in another laboratory. When Bengston became the substitute healer, we relaxed this protocol. After two control mice had died “on schedule”—that is, between 14 and 17 days after injection—Bengston went to see the remaining four. They exhibited nor- mal tumor progression patterns and were obviously in the last stages of the dis- ease. However, after Bengston observed the four control mice in their cage, several days later, they too developed the blackened area, the tumor ulcerated, and the mice went into full remission, although they lagged behind the regularly treated experimental mice in remission rate.
 

gbells

Improved ME from 2 to 6
Messages
1,467
Location
Alexandria, VA USA
Scam nonsense

All of the people I've ever met who do energy healing are generally very spiritual and not objective (usually massage therapists, nurses or even lay people who took official courses). I don't think anything of it. There was a big story about it a few years ago when JAMA published a blinded study done by an 11 year old girl for her science project that disproved Therapeutic Touch that is still popular with some nurses. The nurses couldn't even tell if there was a living hand in a box when they couldn't see it.
 
Messages
64
All of the people I've ever met who do energy healing are generally very spiritual and not objective (usually massage therapists, nurses or even lay people who took official courses). I don't think anything of it. There was a big story about it a few years ago when JAMA published a blinded study done by an 11 year old girl for her science project that disproved Therapeutic Touch that is still popular with some nurses. The nurses couldn't even tell if there was a living hand in a box when they couldn't see it.

Yes, I've had Reiki before and it did nothing. I'm not a fan of "energy" healing.

Bill Bengston isn't an energy healer. He's a researcher who made friends with a guy who figured out he could heal people, and was so unnerved by the guy's uncanny abilities that he tried to drag him into the research lab. He also claims that he doesn't believe in energy healing either, and he also says that according to his research, it isn't energy that is healing the mice. He thinks it's something else.

The reason I find this interesting is because of the research he's doing. I personally think that if you blow off this kind of thing because you "don't believe in it" you are just as wrong as the person who buys into it because they believe in it. Either way you are entrenched in a belief.

I like Bengston because he himself doesn't seem to buy into believing or disbelieving in it either way. He just does the experiment and then is dumbfounded by the results.
 

wabi-sabi

Senior Member
Messages
1,318
Location
small town midwest
Although skeptical, we agreed to keep the control mice in another laboratory. When Bengston became the substitute healer, we relaxed this protocol. After two control mice had died “on schedule”—that is, between 14 and 17 days after injection—Bengston went to see the remaining four. They exhibited nor- mal tumor progression patterns and were obviously in the last stages of the dis- ease. However, after Bengston observed the four control mice in their cage, several days later, they too developed the blackened area, the tumor ulcerated, and the mice went into full remission, although they lagged behind the regularly treated experimental mice in remission rate.

This is what I mean when I said he messed up his controls. To be a real control, the mice should never have been in contact with any healer-substitute or otherwise. They should have been in another city away from any healers, as the healer stated they needed to be. Since they were not, that means this experiment was uncontrolled.

You cannot "relax your protocol" partway through the experiment and be able to compare treatment and control group.
 

wabi-sabi

Senior Member
Messages
1,318
Location
small town midwest
He also doesn't specify what type of mouse was used. Some mice are experimentally bred to be more or less susceptible to specific types of cancer. If he used a strain that was not susceptible in the first place, then the mice would naturally get over the cancer on their own, healer or no healer. If he doesn't say what type of mice were used, we cannot assume that he used the correct strain of mice to draw a conclusion.

Scientists are boringly specific because they have to be to rule out any possible extraneous factor. I don't see that being done here.
 
Messages
64
He also doesn't specify what type of mouse was used. Some mice are experimentally bred to be more or less susceptible to specific types of cancer. If he used a strain that was not susceptible in the first place, then the mice would naturally get over the cancer on their own, healer or no healer. If he doesn't say what type of mice were used, we cannot assume that he used the correct strain of mice to draw a conclusion.

Scientists are boringly specific because they have to be to rule out any possible extraneous factor. I don't see that being done here.


"We obtained five experimental mice with mammary adenocarcinoma (code: H2712; host strain: C3H/HeJ; strain of origin: C3H/HeHu), which had a predicted 100% fatality between 14 and 27 days subsequent to injection. Bengston treated these mice for 1 hour per day for 1 month. The tumors developed a “blackened area,” then they ulcerated, imploded, and closed, and the mice lived their normal life spans. Control mice sent to another city died within the predicted time frame. Three replications using skeptical volunteers (including D.K.) and laboratories at Queens College and St. Joseph’s College produced an overall cure rate of 87.9% in 33 experimental mice".

After the first experiment they did start sending the control mice to another city, it was in the first one that the control mice were kept in a separate lab. I don't think it is uncommon in experiments with drugs to keep the control mice in the same lab as the mice receiving treatment. At the time, nobody thought the control mice would overcome their cancer with nobody doing anything to them.

The mice and the cancer used were both extremely common in cancer studies. In his lectures he talks a lot about the type of mouse used as he deliberatly picked one that is very common in cancer studies... there are over 2,000 cancer research studies in existence using these mice with this cancer and no mouse has ever lived past day 27 without some form of treatment.
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,296
The reason I find this interesting is because of the research he's doing. I personally think that if you blow off this kind of thing because you "don't believe in it" you are just as wrong as the person who buys into it because they believe in it. Either way you are entrenched in a belief.

That's not how it works. I'm not just as correct in believing that the Loch Ness Monster exists than believing it does not exists because both are beliefs. The default position, especially in science, is to be skeptical until something has passed the test. In science, aside from making laboratory tests, you have to get peer-reviewed and furthermore, the experiments have to be conducted so that they can easily be replicated and verified and finally, they actually have to be replicated. If not, we end up in another XMRV situation (the virus that people thought everyone with ME/CFS had just as recently as 10 years ago).
 

gbells

Improved ME from 2 to 6
Messages
1,467
Location
Alexandria, VA USA
What I'm reading from ME patients doing energy healing is that they like the emotional support but it isn't curing them. This is what I would expect because ME is probably due to overload by chronic DNA viruses (with some non-cytolytic form coxsackie RNA enterovirus thrown in) which aren't going to disappear on their own because they work hard fighting the immune system to stay alive. However, Bengston experimented on mice injected with normally fatal adenocarcinoma and was able to kill the resulting tumors just through visualization and physical proximity to the animals. Granted it was too small a study, only 6 mice where you need 30 for a statistically significant result, however I don't think it would hurt to try it on ME patients with a bengston practitioner in the room and see if they could kill their virally infected cells. It would be a neat experiment. With the things we are learning about quantum physics perhaps it is possible. If anyone tries it I would love to see the results.

My library has a digital copy of Bengston's book. I'll check it out and give it a quick read.
 
Last edited:
Messages
64
Yeah his research studies are still small scale... because who's going to fund a giant study on something that's free?

The interesting thing to me is that they are completely repeatable and he's getting the same results every time he does it, and he's done it at a number of different colleges and a couple of Medical schools now.

The default position, especially in science, is to be skeptical until something has passed the test.

I don't think you are taking a skeptical position here at all. You seem to be biased against the research this guy has done... just because we don't have the big giant peer reviewed studies YET, doesn't mean that his research has no validity or that he isn't stumbling upon something interesting.

Do you define a skeptic as someone who believes that something doesn't exist to begin with until it is proven to exist? Because that to me is a bias, a belief... you believe it doesn't work or exist until some big peer reviewed study comes along and slaps you in the face. In my opinion a real skeptic is someone who will admit the scientific fact of the matter, which is that we don't know one way or another whether some of this stuff exists or not. So far there's no proof it does, and no proof that it doesn't.

Science is about exploring the world we live in and asking questions. Science is not about looking down your nose at anything that doesn't fit into the box of what we've already proven exists in the world. I fear that this is what a lot of people who think they are all about science do, and I think it holds us back.

How many doctors have snubbed us because our labwork doesn't fit into their idea of what illness looks like? Look at some of the stories of how hard it is for ME patients to get their doctors to take them seriously. It's because these doctors are trained to only see what they know exists, rather than to ask questions about what might exist.

I think snubbing Bengston's research because it isn't grandiose enough to pull you out of your little reality box is the same thing.

Bengston is asking really interesting questions about this bizarre thing he has found... that you can heal mice of cancer with your hands, which he has proven over and over again.

https://skeptiko.com/william-bengston-hands-on-healing-research-ignored-by-cancer-industry/

 
Messages
64
I will probably duck out of this conversation from here on out, because I really only wanted to find out if any ME people had tried it yet. It works great on cancer and certain things, but he says that it doesn't seem to work on every disease.

So that was my question, I wasn't really looking to get into an argument about it.
 

gbells

Improved ME from 2 to 6
Messages
1,467
Location
Alexandria, VA USA
I will probably duck out of this conversation from here on out, because I really only wanted to find out if any ME people had tried it yet. It works great on cancer and certain things, but he says that it doesn't seem to work on every disease.

So that was my question, I wasn't really looking to get into an argument about it.

He said the people who do best treating cancer are young and haven't had radiation/chemotherapy yet. A lot of young ME patients are also able to recover at higher rates than adults. For mice they had to be in proximity to the treater.

You should read his book The Energy Cure which may be at your library for free.
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,296
He said the people who do best treating cancer are young and haven't had radiation/chemotherapy yet. A lot of young ME patients are also able to recover at higher rates than adults. For mice they had to be in proximity to the treater.

You should read his book The Energy Cure which may be at your library for free.

Yeah somehow these methods always work better for the subset that also has a higher rate of spontaneous remissions. Makes you wonder why these treatments never work for chronic incurable illnesses like ALS.

Do you define a skeptic as someone who believes that something doesn't exist to begin with until it is proven to exist?

Basically yes, at least in scientific context, the default starting position is that a proposed hypothesis X does not connect or explain given observations. This is also called the null hypothesis, which should remain the default position until it has sufficiently been falsified. More specifically, in medical context it would mean there is no connection between therapy X and the patient's health status improving until it is sufficiently proven to be the case, even though it may seem like the therapy works. The vast majority of medical hypotheses that has been proposed over the years never reach the point of overturning the null hypothesis, which is why they remain hypotheses.

Accepting something as true without sufficient skepticism is how we came up with almost every bad idea in medicine. The idea that CBT and GET are effective in ME/CFS was basically taken as given and the papers were worked from that assumption instead of assuming the null hypothesis is true and actually trying to prove it wrong. Unfortunately a lot of nonsense gets published even in more conventional journals and medicine. This is especially true in recent times of rapid peer-review and thousands of open access journals. Recently a couple of papers about a COVID-19 intervention were published in very high-quality journals and a few weeks later both turned out to be nonsense based on fabricated data and later retracted. Unfortunately these are the times we are living in. I won't even go into books and DVD's with paid programs, as that should automatically be a red flag.

Generally speaking, the more extraordinary the claim is, the more evidence and replication is needed to get to a point where it would become accepted. In this case, the claim is that someone can heal animals without any known form of physical interaction taking place, which would overturn almost everything we know about biology and medicine currently.
 
Last edited:

gbells

Improved ME from 2 to 6
Messages
1,467
Location
Alexandria, VA USA
Yeah somehow these methods always work better for the subset that also has a higher rate of spontaneous remissions. Makes you wonder why these treatments never work for chronic incurable illnesses like ALS.

I thought the same thing myself.
 

invisiblejungle

Senior Member
Messages
228
Location
Chicago suburbs
Hi friends,

My husband and I signed up for a workshop with Bill Bengston in September. He has a really interesting story... interesting to me because he's a scientist that accidentally came across energy healing, and accidentally figured out anyone can do it... in a lab. All of it was a total surprise to him.

As of today he's done countless studies on curing mice of cancer in a lab, and has collected a ton of data.

He claims to be able to heal certain things with his technique (his research in the lab has all been done on cancer, but he has helped people with other things), but not other things, so I've been curious to find out it anyone has tried it for ME...

Or if anyone is willing to try it...

https://bengstonresearch.com/

i don't think I'd even be willing to try this if not for the science he's done on it. I find that to be sooo interesting!

I had treatments from Equilibrium here in Chicago, which is the "home base" for Bill Bengston's therapy in the US. I had both in-person and remote treatments.

I had 4 weekly treatments, and I felt temporarily worse after each treatment, but there were no lasting effects.

I'm very sensitive to energy medicine, so I can say that Bengston therapy does have an effect. Whether it helps a specific person or not will depend on many factors, just like all therapies.