Here is an interesting article from the April issue of The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine:
Resonance, Placebo Effects, and Type II Errors: Some Implications from
Healing Research for Experimental Methods
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2007, 13(3):
William F. Bengston, Ph.D.
St. Joseph's College, Patchogue, NY.
Margaret Moga, Ph.D.
Indiana University School of Medicine, Terre Haute, IN.
Background: Classical experimental design presupposes that subjects,
randomly separated into experimental and control groups, are independent
and distinct. Treatments given to the experimental group ought to have
no effect on the control group, which functions as a baseline to
illustrate “what otherwise would have happened.” Any change in the
control group is often labeled an “anomaly.” Examples of these types of
anomalous phenomena can be found in placebo research, which often shows
proportional unexpected and unexplained changes in control subjects.
In four previously reported experiments on anomalous healing using
“healing with intent” on mice injected with lethal doses of mammary
adenocarcinoma (source, The Jackson Laboratories, Bar Harbor, ME; code,
H2712; host strain, C3H/HeJ), a high percentage of both experimental and
control mice exhibited an anomalous healing pattern, most often passing
through stages of tumor ulceration to full life-span cure.
Objective: In order to explain tumor regression of control animals, I
posit the formation of “resonant bonds,” which can link spatially
separate groups. Healing given to the experimental animals can result in
an unintended treatment to the control animals, producing anomalous
healing akin to placebo effects.
Materials and methods: A recently completed experiment at the Terre
Haute campus of the Indiana University School of Medicine has produced a
successful test of resonance theory. One group of mice (n = 30) was
injected with mammary adenocarcinoma cells and randomly divided into a
treated group (n = 15) and untreated control group (n = 15). A second
group of age-matched controls (n = 25) was left uninjected. Mice from
each group were intermittently sacrificed to measure hematologic values
and spleen weight.
Results: As predicted by resonance theory, there were few differences
between treated and untreated animals from the first group, but there
were significant differences between these animals and the age-matched
Conclusions: Some implications for placebo research and the way we
normally conceptualize Type II errors will be discussed. Researchers are
invited to reanalyze past data in light of resonance theory.
Comment: often in science one includes not just a negative control
(where you expect nothing to happen), but also a positive control (where
something is supposed to happen). In this study, the positive control
(mice injected with adenocarcinoma cells) failed - most of the mice
recovered from their injections, whereas for this protocol in other
laboratories, the mice “normally have 100% fatality subsequent to
Most investigators would conclude from this that something has gone
wrong with the protocol, and try to correct the apparent error.
However, in this case the authors conclude that there is “resonance,”
such that the mystical “healing” (through mental effort alone) applied
to the treatment group also carried over to the control group.
There are a few other interesting aspects to the paper, such as
violations in protocols, and favorable citation of the psychokinesis
experiments of Jahn at Princeton (PEAR).
An editorial in the same issue, "Healing by Skeptical Trainee Healers,"
by Alex Hankey and Sara McCrum, is available for free:
I'm trying to put this in English, which is hard to do when I don't have all the referenced material they cite each time they use an unfamiliar word or phrase. There appears to be developing a distinct genre for this type of research complete with it's own scientifical-sounding terminology.
Is what I think they are trying to say is that any kind of relationship between groups in a study can create a "resonant bond" that will be a significant influence that generates positive outcomes. Beyond resonant bonds among study groups, any and all study intervention can create an impactual resonance. Thus, the fact that there is a study is enough to confound its conclusions due to protocols creating resonant bonds that impact outcomes.
Conclusion: Controlled clinical trials are no good, because they aren't real life. Resonant bonds created in studies are not the same as the ones in real treatments outside of clinical studies. Any data, by it's mere presence, is subject to differing resonant bonds discrediting any comparison to actual outcomes and invalidating predictions. That's why alt med modalities (that are probably uniquely dependent on real-life resonant bonds for success) consistently fail to prove their worth in randomized controlled trials. Therefore, we should refocus our clinical study toward retrospectively looking at what's working in individual cases, not comparing the case to any other case (else risk a confounding resonant bond), and build on the successes.
Comment: I wondered if this report boils down to a very detailed laboratory study creating a bunch of precise data to be manipulated in abstract ways. Personally, no matter how detailed and precise your information is about the planets, it won't convince me of the credibility of astrology.
I think I found the most relevant definition of "resonance" in wikipedia. After all quantum science is the new buzz of what is going to explain why all of alt med "works."