Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated <i>Serratia marcescens</i>

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi; Alice Branton; Dahryn Trivedi; Gopal Nayak; Mayank Gangwar; Snehasis Jana

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

| Peer-Reviewed

Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, Snehasis Jana

Published in European Journal of Preventive Medicine (Volume 3, Issue 6)

Received: 23 October 2015 Accepted: 4 December 2015 Published: 22 December 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens) has become an important nosocomial pathogens and increased resistant isolates were reported. The current study evaluates the impact of an alternate energy medicine i.e. Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on S. marcescens for changes in sensitivity pattern of antimicrobial, biochemical characteristics, and biotype number. S. marcescens cells were procured from MicroBioLogics Inc., USA in sealed pack bearing the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC 13880) number and divided into two groups, Group (Gr.) I: control and Gr. II: treated. Gr. II was further subdivided into two sub-groups, Gr. IIA and Gr. IIB. Gr. IIA was analyzed on day 10, while Gr. IIB was stored and analyzed on day 159 (Study I). After retreatment on day 159, the sample (Study II) was divided into three separate tubes as first, second and third tube, which were analyzed on day 5, 10 and 15 respectively. All experimental parameters were studied using the automated MicroScan Walk-Away^® system. Antimicrobial susceptibility results showed that 42.85% of tested antimicrobials results in altered sensitivity pattern, while decreased minimum inhibitory concentration values in 40.62% tested antimicrobials as compared to the control after biofield treatment on S. marcescens. The biochemical study showed that 12 out of 33 tested biochemicals (36.36%) were reported for alteration of biochemical reactions pattern as compared to the control. Biotype study showed an alteration in biotype number in all the experimental treated groups as compared to the control. These results suggested that biofield energy treatment has a significant impact on S. marcescens. Overall, it is expected that Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment as an integrative medicine could be better therapy approach in near future.

Published in	European Journal of Preventive Medicine (Volume 3, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18
Page(s)	201-208
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Serratia marcescens, Energy Healing, Biofield, Antimicrobial Susceptibility, Biochemical Reaction, Biotype

References

[1]	Mahlen SD (2011) Serratia Infections: from military experiments to current practice. Clin Microbiol Review 24: 755-791.
[2]	Farmer JJ III (1995) Enterobacteriaceae: Introduction and Identification. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.
[3]	Gouin F, Papazian L, Martin C, Albanese J, Durbec O, et al. (1993) A non-comparative study of the efficacy and tolerance of cefepime in combination with amikacin in the treatment of severe infections in patients in intensive care. J Antimicrob Chemother 32: 205-214.
[4]	Cox CE (1985) Aztreonam therapy for complicated urinary tract infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Rev Infect Dis 7: S767-S770.
[5]	Komer RJ, Nicol A, Reeves DS, MacGowan AP, Hows J (1994) Ciprofloxacin resistant Serratia marcescens endocarditis as a complication of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Infect 29: 73-76.
[6]	Atlee W, Burns R, Oden M (1970) Serratia marcescens keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol 70: 31-33.
[7]	Mills J, Drew D (1976) Sermtia marcescens endocarditis: a regional illness associated with intravenous drug abuse. Ann Intern Med 84: 29-35.
[8]	Koithan M (2009) Introducing complementary and alternative therapies. J Nurse Pract 5: 18-20.
[9]	NIH, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. CAM Basics. Publication 347. [October 2, 2008]. Available at: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/
[10]	Schwartz GE, Simon WL, Carmona R (2007) The energy healing experiments: Science reveals our natural power to heal. (1stedn), Atria Books.
[11]	Movaffaghi Z, Farsi M (2009) Biofield therapies: Biophysical basis and biological regulations? Complement Ther Clin Pract 15: 35-37, 31.
[12]	Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Latiyal O (2015) Studies of the atomic and crystalline characteristics of ceramic oxide nano powders after bio field treatment. Ind Eng Manage 4: 161.
[13]	Trivedi MK, Patil S, Nayak G, Jana S, Latiyal O (2015) Influence of biofield treatment on physical, structural and spectral properties of boron nitride. J Material Sci Eng 4: 181.
[14]	Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Latiyal O (2015) Evaluation of biofield treatment on physical, atomic and structural characteristics of manganese (II, III) oxide. J Material Sci Eng 4: 177.
[15]	Sances F, Flora E, Patil S, Spence A, Shinde V (2013) Impact of biofield treatment on ginseng and organic blueberry yield. Agrivita J Agric Sci 35: 22-29.
[16]	Lenssen AW (2013) Biofield and fungicide seed treatment influences on soybean productivity, seed quality and weed community. Agricultural Journal 83: 138-143.
[17]	Patil SA, Nayak GB, Barve SS, Tembe RP, Khan RR (2012) Impact of biofield treatment on growth and anatomical characteristics of Pogostemon cablin (Benth.). Biotechnology 11: 154-162.
[18]	Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.
[19]	Trivedi MK, Patil S, Harish S, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) Biofield treatment: An alternative approach to combat multidrug-resistant susceptibility pattern of Raoultella ornithinolytica. Altern Integr Med 4: 193.
[20]	Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Bairwa K, Jana S (2015) Phenotypic and biotypic characterization of Klebsiella oxytoca: An impact of biofield treatment. J Microb Biochem Technol 7: 203-206.
[21]	Fader RC, Weaver E, Fossett R, Toyras M, Vanderlaan J, et al. (2013) Multilaboratory study of the biomic automated well-reading instrument versus MicroScan WalkAway for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels. J Clin Microbiol 51: 1548-1554.
[22]	Vigeant P, Loo VG, Bertrand C, Dixon C, Hollis R, et al. (1998) An outbreak of Serratia marcescens infections related to contaminated chlorhexidine. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 19: 791-794.
[23]	Alvarez JS, Regueiro B, Garrido MJ (1979) Antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical isolates of Serratia marcescens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 16: 523-524.
[24]	Yu VL (1979) Serratia marcescens. Historical perspective and clinical review. New Engl J Med 300: 887-893.
[25]	Craven PC, Jorgensen JH, Kaspar RL, Drutz DJ (1977) Amikacin therapy of patients with multiply antibiotic-resistant Serratia marcescens infections: development of increasing resistance during therapy. Am J Med 62: 902-910.
[26]	Tamma PD, Girdwood SC, Gopaul R, Tekle T, Roberts AA, et al. (2013) The use of cefepime for treating AmpC β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 57: 781-788.
[27]	Chong Y, Lee K, Kwon OH (1993) In-vitro activities of cefepime against Enterobacter cloacae, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic gram-negative bacilli. J Antimicrob Chemother 32: 21-29.
[28]	Nikaido H, Liu W, Rosenberg EY (1990) Outer membrane permeability and 8-lactamase stability of dipolar ionic cephalosporins containing methoxyimino substituents. Antimicmb Agents Chemother 34: 337-342.
[29]	Sleigh J D (1983) Antibiotic resistance in Serratia marcescens. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 287: 1651-1652.
[30]	Platt DJ, Sommerville JS (1981) Sermtia species isolated from patients in a general hospital. J Hosp Infect 2: 341-348.
[31]	Juvin ME, Potel G, Caillon J, Xiong YQ, Bugnon D, et al. (1994) In vivo bactericidal activities of ciprofloxacin and pefloxacin in an experimental model of Sermtia marcescens endocarditis. Antimicmb Agents Chemother 38: 883-885.
[32]	Vigeant P, Loo VG, Bertrand C, Dixon C, Hollis R, et al. (1998) An outbreak of Serratia marcescens infections related to contaminated chlorhexidine. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 19: 791-794.
[33]	Rubik B, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE (2006) In vitro effect of Reiki treatment on bacterial cultures: role of experimental context and practitioner well-being. J Altern Complement Med 12: 7-13.
[34]	Hintz KJ, Yount GL, Kadar I, Schwartz G, Hammerschlag R, et al. (2003) Bioenergy definitions and research guidelines. Altern Ther Health Med 9: A13-A30.
[35]	Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) In vitro evaluation of biofield treatment on cancer biomarkers involved in endometrial and prostate cancer cell lines. J Cancer Sci Ther 7: 253-257.
[36]	MacFaddin JF (2000) Biochemical tests for identification of medical bacteria. (3rdedn). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
[37]	Puthucheary SD, Ngeow YF (1981) Serratia marcescens: Biochemical characteristics, antimicrobial sensitivity and clinical significance. Malaysian J Pathol 4: 35-41.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, et al. (2015). Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. European Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(6), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi; Alice Branton; Dahryn Trivedi; Gopal Nayak; Mayank Gangwar, et al. Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. Eur. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 3(6), 201-208. doi: 10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, et al. Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. Eur J Prev Med. 2015;3(6):201-208. doi: 10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18,
  author = {Mahendra Kumar Trivedi and Alice Branton and Dahryn Trivedi and Gopal Nayak and Mayank Gangwar and Snehasis Jana},
  title = {Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens},
  journal = {European Journal of Preventive Medicine},
  volume = {3},
  number = {6},
  pages = {201-208},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  abstract = {Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens) has become an important nosocomial pathogens and increased resistant isolates were reported. The current study evaluates the impact of an alternate energy medicine i.e. Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on S. marcescens for changes in sensitivity pattern of antimicrobial, biochemical characteristics, and biotype number. S. marcescens cells were procured from MicroBioLogics Inc., USA in sealed pack bearing the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC 13880) number and divided into two groups, Group (Gr.) I: control and Gr. II: treated. Gr. II was further subdivided into two sub-groups, Gr. IIA and Gr. IIB. Gr. IIA was analyzed on day 10, while Gr. IIB was stored and analyzed on day 159 (Study I). After retreatment on day 159, the sample (Study II) was divided into three separate tubes as first, second and third tube, which were analyzed on day 5, 10 and 15 respectively. All experimental parameters were studied using the automated MicroScan Walk-Away® system. Antimicrobial susceptibility results showed that 42.85% of tested antimicrobials results in altered sensitivity pattern, while decreased minimum inhibitory concentration values in 40.62% tested antimicrobials as compared to the control after biofield treatment on S. marcescens. The biochemical study showed that 12 out of 33 tested biochemicals (36.36%) were reported for alteration of biochemical reactions pattern as compared to the control. Biotype study showed an alteration in biotype number in all the experimental treated groups as compared to the control. These results suggested that biofield energy treatment has a significant impact on S. marcescens. Overall, it is expected that Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment as an integrative medicine could be better therapy approach in near future.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens
AU - Mahendra Kumar Trivedi
AU - Alice Branton
AU - Dahryn Trivedi
AU - Gopal Nayak
AU - Mayank Gangwar
AU - Snehasis Jana
Y1 - 2015/12/22
PY - 2015
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18
DO - 10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18
T2 - European Journal of Preventive Medicine
JF - European Journal of Preventive Medicine
JO - European Journal of Preventive Medicine
SP - 201
EP - 208
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2330-8230
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18
AB - Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens) has become an important nosocomial pathogens and increased resistant isolates were reported. The current study evaluates the impact of an alternate energy medicine i.e. Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on S. marcescens for changes in sensitivity pattern of antimicrobial, biochemical characteristics, and biotype number. S. marcescens cells were procured from MicroBioLogics Inc., USA in sealed pack bearing the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC 13880) number and divided into two groups, Group (Gr.) I: control and Gr. II: treated. Gr. II was further subdivided into two sub-groups, Gr. IIA and Gr. IIB. Gr. IIA was analyzed on day 10, while Gr. IIB was stored and analyzed on day 159 (Study I). After retreatment on day 159, the sample (Study II) was divided into three separate tubes as first, second and third tube, which were analyzed on day 5, 10 and 15 respectively. All experimental parameters were studied using the automated MicroScan Walk-Away® system. Antimicrobial susceptibility results showed that 42.85% of tested antimicrobials results in altered sensitivity pattern, while decreased minimum inhibitory concentration values in 40.62% tested antimicrobials as compared to the control after biofield treatment on S. marcescens. The biochemical study showed that 12 out of 33 tested biochemicals (36.36%) were reported for alteration of biochemical reactions pattern as compared to the control. Biotype study showed an alteration in biotype number in all the experimental treated groups as compared to the control. These results suggested that biofield energy treatment has a significant impact on S. marcescens. Overall, it is expected that Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment as an integrative medicine could be better therapy approach in near future.
VL - 3
IS - 6
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi

Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Alice Branton

Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Dahryn Trivedi

Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Gopal Nayak

Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Mayank Gangwar

Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Snehasis Jana

Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, et al. (2015). Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. European Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(6), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi; Alice Branton; Dahryn Trivedi; Gopal Nayak; Mayank Gangwar, et al. Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. Eur. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 3(6), 201-208. doi: 10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, et al. Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens. Eur J Prev Med. 2015;3(6):201-208. doi: 10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18,
  author = {Mahendra Kumar Trivedi and Alice Branton and Dahryn Trivedi and Gopal Nayak and Mayank Gangwar and Snehasis Jana},
  title = {Assessment of Antibiogram of Biofield Energy Treated Serratia marcescens},
  journal = {European Journal of Preventive Medicine},
  volume = {3},
  number = {6},
  pages = {201-208},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ejpm.20150306.18},
  abstract = {Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens) has become an important nosocomial pathogens and increased resistant isolates were reported. The current study evaluates the impact of an alternate energy medicine i.e. Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on S. marcescens for changes in sensitivity pattern of antimicrobial, biochemical characteristics, and biotype number. S. marcescens cells were procured from MicroBioLogics Inc., USA in sealed pack bearing the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC 13880) number and divided into two groups, Group (Gr.) I: control and Gr. II: treated. Gr. II was further subdivided into two sub-groups, Gr. IIA and Gr. IIB. Gr. IIA was analyzed on day 10, while Gr. IIB was stored and analyzed on day 159 (Study I). After retreatment on day 159, the sample (Study II) was divided into three separate tubes as first, second and third tube, which were analyzed on day 5, 10 and 15 respectively. All experimental parameters were studied using the automated MicroScan Walk-Away® system. Antimicrobial susceptibility results showed that 42.85% of tested antimicrobials results in altered sensitivity pattern, while decreased minimum inhibitory concentration values in 40.62% tested antimicrobials as compared to the control after biofield treatment on S. marcescens. The biochemical study showed that 12 out of 33 tested biochemicals (36.36%) were reported for alteration of biochemical reactions pattern as compared to the control. Biotype study showed an alteration in biotype number in all the experimental treated groups as compared to the control. These results suggested that biofield energy treatment has a significant impact on S. marcescens. Overall, it is expected that Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment as an integrative medicine could be better therapy approach in near future.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download