ORIGINAL PAPERS

THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINEVolume 8, Number 6, 2002, pp. 703–717© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

The Biofield Hypothesis: Its Biophysical Basis and Role in Medicine

BEVERLY RUBIK, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a scientific foundation for the biofield: the complex, extremely weak elec-tromagnetic field of the organism hypothesized to involve electromagnetic bioinformation forregulating homeodynamics. The biofield is a useful construct consistent with bioelectromagnet-ics and the physics of nonlinear, dynamical, nonequilibrium living systems. It offers a unifyinghypothesis to explain the interaction of objects or fields with the organism, and is especially use-ful toward understanding the scientific basis of energy medicine, including acupuncture, biofieldtherapies, bioelectromagnetic therapies, and homeopathy. The rapid signal propagation of elec-tromagnetic fields comprising the biofield as well as its holistic properties may account for therapid, holistic effects of certain alternative and complementary medical interventions.

703

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, biochemistryand molecular biology have dominated bi-

ology and medicine. This approach, which isbased on reductionism and a view of the bodyas a complex machine made of parts, is the ba-sis of conventional biomedicine, with its so-phisticated pharmacologic, surgical, and otherpowerful medical modalities that fight disease.This view culminated in the Human GenomeProject that has elucidated less than 40,000genes (Claverie, 2001) in the human genome,purportedly the key information that makes upthe human being. It is surprising to find sucha small number of genes, and some questionwhether the human genome is sufficient to ac-count for all information specifying a human

being (Strohman, 1983). Moreover, the geneticview of life is limited because it is unable to ex-plain many of life’s subtle characteristics, in-cluding the action of various complementaryand alternative medicine (CAM) interventions.

The CAM therapies that appear to challengethe dominant biomedical paradigm typically in-volve subtle field interactions, such as biofieldtherapies, homeopathy, acupuncture, magnettherapy, bioelectromagnetic therapy, electroder-mal therapy, and phototherapy, among others(Table 1). Collectively, these have been called, en-ergy medicine. It is not well understood howthese modalities work, which is one reason theyremain outside the mainstream. An appropriatescientific foundation is important to advance theresearch, application, and acceptance of theseand other CAM medical practices.

Institute for Frontier Science, Oakland, CA, and Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, OH.

In relation to this, there is another scientificview of life based on biophysics. Living sys-tems are regarded as complex, nonlinear, dy-namic, self-organizing systems at a global orholistic level according to the principles of non-equilibrium thermodynamics of open systemsand chaos theory. Living systems are con-stantly exchanging energy-with-information atmultiple levels of organization with their sur-roundings in order to maintain themselves.They also possess emergent properties such ashigher order relationships dependent on con-text and meaning that have effects on health,disease, and healing. This biophysical view oflife provides the rudiments of a scientific foun-dation for CAM modalities involving the trans-fer of bioinformation carried by a small energysignal. This goes beyond the usual molecularconcepts of bioinformation. This paper pro-vides a scientific basis toward how these inter-ventions may work by impacting directly theglobal regulatory processes of life rather thanthe physical structures of the body.

It is worthwhile to consider further the twoscientific views of life mentioned above. On theone hand, conventional biology provides a re-ductionistic, analytical view of life based onmolecules and on structure–function relation-ships.

On the other hand, the emerging biophysicalview is a dynamic one that addresses the wholeorganism, its field interactions, and its integralflows of information in relation to the envi-

ronment. Metaphorically speaking, conven-tional biology depicts life as a crystal, and theemerging biophysical view depicts life as aflame. Although both views are correct withina certain context, each alone is limited. To-gether they are complementary and provide amore complete view of life that offers greaterpotential for understanding health and healing.That is to say, the living state is richer and morecomplex than it is possible to express in a sin-gle model or metaphor.

A similar situation exists in physics in thetheory of light. There it was necessary to for-mulate the principle of complementarity (Kat-sumori, 1998) to embrace light’s dualistic prop-erties of particles and waves. Either the particleor the wave model is invoked to explain par-ticular scientific observations, depending onwhich description best fits the experimentaldata. This particle–wave duality also applies toall matter in quantum physics. It is timely forbiology to move beyond Newtonian physicsand embrace quantum theory, which origi-nated a century ago. Therefore, we need to con-sider particle–wave duality for the constituentsof life. On the one hand, life is made of com-plex biomolecular structures; on the otherhand, it is dynamic waves with information.Whereas the molecular view of life provides ascientific basis for allopathic medicine, the fieldview offers a scientific foundation for manytypes of CAM modalities.

Some of the concepts in this paper may not bewell known to biologists or CAM practitioners.Thus, the key terms and concepts are introducedas they relate to CAM and the thesis of this pa-per. These are: nonlinear dynamic systems the-ory; nonequibrium thermodynamics; dissipa-tive structures; chaos theory; homeodynamics;bioinformation conveyed by electromagneticsignals; and a field model of life with the biofieldcentral to its “energy anatomy.” The ramifica-tions for CAM and a test of the biofield hy-pothesis are also discussed.

BACKGROUND

Linear and nonlinear systems

General systems theory goes back to biolo-gist and philosopher Ludwig von Bertalanffy,

RUBIK704

TABLE 1. CAM PRACTICES THAT MAY

INVOLVE FIELD INTERACTIONS

1. Acupuncture, electroacupuncture, laser acupuncture2. Acupressure and reflexology3. Bioelectromagnetic medicine4. Electrodermal testing5. Electrostimulation, electrotherapy6. Biofield therapies (Reiki, Therapeutic Touch,

Healing Touch, etc.)7. Homeopathy8. Bach flower remedies9. Magnet therapy

10. Microwave resonance therapy11. Low-level laser therapy12. Phototherapy13. Color therapy14. Orgonomy

CAM, complementary and alternative medicine.

who in 1930–1940 developed the groundworkfor a systems approach (von Bertalanffy, 1968).A system is a number of different and inter-acting things that display collective behavior asan integrative whole, such as a cell, nucleus,tissue, organ, organ system, organism, family,etc. The living domain of nature can be re-garded as a hierarchy or network of nested sys-tems of organized complexity.

Linear systems express behavior that isstrictly proportional; a plot of response versusstimulus is a straight line. Linear systems com-prise modules that can be taken apart and putback together again and still behave exactly thesame. Conventional biology and medicine of-ten utilize linear thinking in the causal schemeof relationships in living systems. For example,linear thinking underlies gene therapy, withthe insertion of genes into patients’ cells pur-portedly to eliminate disease.

Nonlinear systems express relationships thatare not strictly proportional and, in general,they cannot be reduced to distinct modules thatcan be taken apart and put back together againto yield the same behavior. These systems arecharacterized by a complex pattern of interac-tions that includes feedback. As a result of feed-back loops, even the simplest nonlinear systemcan display bizarre and unpredictable dynamicbehavior such as unexplained fluctuations andirregularities. The control theory of nonlinearsystems shows that feedback processes andother numerous pathways of information flowserve to regulate behavior (Weiner, 1948).

Before the age of fast computers, everythingwas approximated to be linear so that the math-ematics describing it could be solved, althoughit was recognized that most real systems in-cluding living systems were nonlinear. Indeed,linear causal molecular mechanisms still dom-inate conventional biomedicine, but by the1960s, new physical theory emerged from non-equilibrium thermodynamics that embracednonlinear phenomena.

Self-organizing systems

The physics of self-organizing systems waslaunched by Ilya Prigogine, Ph.D., Nobel Lau-reate in chemistry for his work in nonequilib-rium thermodynamics (Prigogine, 1980), and

Eric Jantsch (Jantsch, 1980), among others. Theybrought together general systems theory andprinciples of self-organization and showedhow these concepts applied to living systemsand humans. Some tenets are (Morowitz, 1968):(1) living systems are open systems exchang-ing energy, matter, and information with theenvironment in order to develop and maintainthemselves; (2) open systems such as organ-isms that orchestrate flows of matter, energy,and information through themselves are self-organizing systems, far from equilibrium; (3)such systems dissipate energy in order to main-tain themselves (dissipative structures) asquasi-stable macroscopic structures inspace–time; (4) open systems typically displaydynamic steady states that are quasi-stable oroscillate around steady-state values; (5) signif-icant perturbations in living systems’ dynam-ics can lead to disease and eventually death.

Self-organization through continuous flowsof matter, energy, and information is the bio-physical basis of life’s autopoiesis, or self-main-tenance and renewal. Life is continuously or-chestrating its own dynamic pattern, and indoing so, is cognitive of itself (i.e., able to dis-tinguish self from environment).

Self-organizing systems may undergo spon-taneous internal fluctuations in their dynamicsthat, if near a critical point, may cause them tobifurcate to another dynamic state exhibitingnew patterns of greater order or disorder.These fluctuations may be small in magnitude,but nonetheless powerful factors in generatingnew patterns of behavior. These new behav-ioral patterns may be the dynamic basis of dis-ease or the basis of natural healing.

Self-organizing systems are also subject toexternal fluctuations or environmental signalsthat can also affect system behavior. Similar tointernal fluctuations, changes in the environ-ment can produce bifurcations in behavior andgenerate completely new modes of behavior.This may explain how medical modalities ap-plied to the body, such as electromagnetic in-terventions that may interact directly with thesystem’s dynamics, may nudge the organismdynamically into a healing state.

One important feature of living systems dis-tinguishing them from the nonliving domain,including machines, is the large number of in-

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 705

tricate pathways along which informationflows between all levels of organization, bothascending (“bottom-up”) and descending(“top-down”). Medical interventions that in-teract with bioregulatory systems may act onany of these informational pathways. One lim-itation of conventional biomedicine is its bot-tom-up reductionist approach that precludestop-down approaches, because these are notstrictly reducible to biochemical events.

Chaos theory

By the 1970s the chaos theory was born,largely as a result of physicists, mathemati-cians, meteorologists, engineers, and biologistsworking together to explore the behavior ofnonlinear dynamic systems throughout nature.Chaos is defined as “organized disorder,” (i.e.,patterns of unpredictable irregularity dis-played by even the simplest nonlinear system;Gleick, 1987). Chaotic systems in mathematicsgive rise to new, unexpected levels of order thatare complex and richly patterned, sometimesstable and sometimes not, reminiscent of spon-taneous patterns in nature. A simple exampleis the complex unpredictable pattern made bysmoke rising from a pipe that can be changeddrastically by the tiniest airflow.

Chaos theory goes a step further in address-ing the dynamics of complex, nonlinear sys-tems in showing that they display fundamen-tal unpredictability. This theory extendedself-organizing systems theory and nonequi-librium thermodynamics to more sophistica-tion by including fractal geometry and themathematics of evolutionary systems. More-over, chaos theory uncovered the universalityof all nonlinear dynamic systems in physics, bi-ology, mathematics, and engineering. That is tosay, nonlinear systems may exhibit preciselythe same dynamics, even though they may con-sist of vastly different subcomponents at dif-ferent scales of order. Despite this universalityand the wide applicability to living systems,chaos theory has not yet had much impact yeton mainstream biology, biomedical thinking,or the practice of medicine.

The concepts of open, nonequilibrium, non-linear, dynamic chaotic systems summarizedbriefly have important ramifications for biol-

ogy and medicine. In the past, scientists ne-glected small stimuli to living systems. How-ever, the new biophysics indicates that smallfluctuations in the system dynamics or life’s en-vironment cannot be ignored because they mayhave significant, even drastic, effects. This hasramifications for bioregulatory processes andlife’s subtle interactions with the environment;for understanding certain CAM approaches tohealth assessment; and for understanding var-ious CAM therapies, in particular, how the tini-est stimuli of energy medicine may promotedramatic effects on biologic regulation.

Two categories of medical interventions

It is proposed that medical interventions beconsidered categorically as follows: (1) struc-tural interactions, and (2) regulatory interac-tions. Stimuli that do not recapitulate the dy-namic processes or cognitive domain of theorganism, but act structurally or mechanicallyon the organism, for example, to disrupt itsstructure or function in a gross fashion, arestructural interactions. One example would besurgery to remove diseased tissue. Anotherwould be radiation therapy to kill cancer.Many mainstream medical interventions arestructural.

Stimuli that reiterate or partially realize theinnate dynamics of the organism may commu-nicate information to the organism, evokingcorresponding shifts in dynamic processes.Medical interventions that act informationallyutilize stimuli that are extremely small in in-tensity. They are small nudges that act in ac-cordance with the organism’s natural systemdynamics to restore balance and harmony. Ex-amples of such medical modalities may includeacupuncture, homeopathy, bioelectromagneticinterventions, and, in fact, a large number ofCAM modalities.A priori, it is difficult to categorize allopathic

drug therapies, which may act either informa-tionally or structurally. This depends on the ra-tionale and mechanism of action of the partic-ular drug.

In general, when a healthy organism is ex-posed to a weak stimulus such as that used inenergy medicine, the response is usually neg-ligible. This is because a nonlinear dynamic

RUBIK706

system at homeostasis tends to remain therewhen a small fluctuation is imposed. However,if the organism is diseased or otherwise imbal-anced, the response to a weak stimulus may bedramatic. It may dynamically nudge an unbal-anced or sick organism directly into a newsteady-state region associated with healing. Onthe other hand, it may send the sick organisminto a region of greater instability and producea healing crisis. This secondary imbalance fur-ther informs the organism and may promoteother dynamic changes that lead to healing.Thus, chaos theory lends itself toward a scien-tific understanding of how CAM therapies mayinteract dynamically with bioregulatoryprocesses to promote healing.

Homeostasis and homeodynamics

The idea of homeostasis has its origins in theancient Greek roots of Western medicine(Grmek, 1999). In the nineteenth century, it wasadvanced further by French physiologistClaude Bernard, who is regarded by many asthe founder of experimental medicine(Bernard, 1857). The term homeostasis, coinedin the 1950s by Walter B. Canon, Ph.D., anAmerican physiologist, describes the resistanceof the organism to change, along with the main-tenance of a stable internal environment, to al-low proper functioning of its component cells,tissues, organs, and organ systems by con-straining physical and chemical parameters tocertain limits (Cannon, 1978).

Homeostasis, however, is based on classicphysics, not modern biophysics. It is modeledin terms of mechanical feedback cycles similarto that by which a thermostat regulates tem-perature by switching a heater on and off.However, it is now recognized that there is nosingle or ultimate homeostatic balance point inbiologic systems because they are self-organiz-ing systems with many more possibilities thana single steady state. They also rely on dy-namics other than feedback control such asstrange attractors and innumerable flows of in-formation to regulate themselves (Dell, 1982).Thus, the concept of homeostasis is limited andis undergoing replacement by a new concept,homeodynamics (Lloyd, et al., 2001; Yates,1994). This new concept arose from the bio-

physical theories discussed here, namely, non-equibrium thermodynamics of open systems,self-organization, and chaos theory.

Homeodynamics takes into account the manymodes of dynamic behavior exhibited by livingprocesses in an ever-changing lifeline of the or-ganism (Rose, 1997). The principle of homeo-dynamics states that physiological and bio-chemical processes help maintain the internalsystems of the body (e.g., blood pressure, tem-perature, pH, etc.) in dynamic equilibrium, de-spite continuous environmental challenges andinternal fluctuations in the natural dynamics oflife. However, the dynamic range of what isconsidered optimal health is not a unique bal-ance point, but varies, depending on the indi-viduality of the organism—its unique bio-chemistry, history, and biologic age. Moreover,homeodynamic processes exhibit characteristicoscillations or periodicities, and there are a largenumber of these in an organism, each with dif-ferent temporal features. For example, the fluxof various ions across the cell membrane haveparticular periodicities. Many homeodynamicprocesses display circadian rhythms.

A critical aspect of homeodynamics is the ca-pacity of living systems to respond creativelyto stressors by developing new dynamicmodes. When humans are exposed to environ-mental stressors or emotional challenges, thereis a cascade of signal processing along with re-sulting physical changes in the body that initi-ate a response. Homeodynamics emphasizesthe ever-adjusting nature of the processes thatmaintain life functions. Once a new stressor isencountered, the organism never returns to itsprevious dynamic state, but establishes a newdynamic balance appropriate to this newly in-tegrated experience.

In homeodynamics, the processes that ren-der dynamic stability proceed simultaneouslyat multiple levels of organization, from themolecular level to that of the whole being, andwith various time scales. These processes areconstantly adjusting to the myriad informationflows and the entire lifeline or history of the or-ganism. In this way, the organism integrates ahuge number of information signals and re-sponds appropriately. The biofield is proposedto act as a regulator of homeodynamics to co-ordinate life functions.

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 707

History of vitalistic concepts in science and medicine

It is acknowledged that the concept of thebiofield, or any organizing field in biology,evokes shades of vitalism, an old philosophicalconcept that goes back to the 1600s (Bischof,1994). Vitalism is the belief that life and organicsubstances differ fundamentally from the inor-ganic world because they contain a vital force.Vitalism suffered serious blows in 1845 whenacetic acid, previously found only in organicmatter, was synthesized by Kolbe from its con-stituent elements (Kolbe, 1845). In the 1890s theconcept of a bioinformational field that guidedembryogenesis in organisms was introducedby Driesch (Driesch, 1891) and in 1912 elabo-rated further by Gurvitch (Gurvitch, 1944).Weiss, in 1939, developed a similar concept toexplain development (Weiss, 1939). Manyother noteworthy biologists have promulgatedbiologic field theories to explain both biologicdevelopment and the integrity of organisms,including Yale biologist Harold Saxon Burr,Ph.D., who together with F.S.C. Northrup pro-posed an electrodynamic field underlying life(Burr and Northrup, 1939). A history of bio-logic field concepts in twentieth-century sci-ence was published in 1998 by Bischof (Bischof,1998). Although such biologic field conceptswere part of the mainstream for the first halfof the twentieth century, as molecular biologygrew more dominant from 1950 onward anddeveloped into big business, a field perspectiveof life became taboo in academic science.

Despite its being ousted from science, vital-ism has had a long history in medicine (Coul-ter, 1973). Vitalistic principles called by variousnames underlie many key concepts in CAM: qiin Chinese medicine; prana in Ayurvedic med-icine; ki in Japanese medicine; and Wilhelm Re-ich’s (M.D.) orgone in orgonomy, to name a few(Rubik et al., 1994a). Hahnemann (1755–1843),the father of classic homeopathy, wrote of thevital force (Hamlyn, 1979). Many schools of chi-ropractic hold vitalistic assumptions (Palmer,1910), as do classic osteopathy and many othersystems of medicine outside conventionalWestern medicine. Medical historian Harris L.Coulter, Ph.D. (Coulter, 1994) describes the2500-year-old ongoing struggle between the vi-

talists and the mechanists in their healingphilosophies. This philosophical difference re-mains one of the major schisms between con-ventional Western medicine and CAM.

The concept of subtle energy bodies is alsointegral to the ancient Eastern philosophicalviews of the human being that arose in Indiaand China. Indian philosophy and Ayurvedicmedicine maintain that, in addition to the phys-ical body, there is a subtle body possessing var-ious energetic anatomic structures, includingthe seven chakras, nadis (etheric channels),pranas, vayus, and koshas (yogic sheaths or bod-ies) (Leadbeater, 1927).

In Chinese philosophy and medicine, thereare three important energy centers, called dan-tians that store and disperse qi from the taijipole (center core) of the body (Johnson, 2000).The lower dantian, located in the lower ab-domen, is connected with the qi field of thephysical body. The middle dantian, located inthe center of the chest, is connected with the qifield of the emotional body, surrounding thephysical body. The third dantian is located in-side the middle of the head and is associatedwith the spiritual field of qi that surrounds boththe physical and emotional subtle bodies. Qitravels along the acupuncture meridians to allorgans and tissues of the body.

The point here is not to prove or refute theexistence of the subtle bodies of ancient med-ical systems. Rather, it is to point out that vi-talistic concepts remain central today in virtu-ally every indigenous system of medicine,including Oriental medicine, Ayurvedic medi-cine, modern chiropractic, classic osteopathy,homeopathy, and many other forms of CAM.It is the author’s goal to introduce a field con-cept consistent with contemporary biophysics,the biofield, which may provide a unifying sci-entific foundation for CAM modalities restingon diverse vitalisic principles.

THE BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS

Recently a small number of scientists in-cluding the author (Rubik, 1993, 1997b) havereintroduced the concept of a biologic field cen-tral to life. Tiller proposed the existence of anew force to explain certain features of life, in

RUBIK708

addition to the other four known forces ofphysics (Tiller, 1993). Popp and colleagues pro-posed coherent states in organisms and theemission of coherent electromagnetic waves(Popp, 1996). Savva considered the biofield togo beyond electromagnetism, involving a non-physical mental component that carries the in-formation of intention and the psychic realm(Savva, 1997, 1998). Zhang called the biologicfield the “electromagnetic body” and consid-ered it to be a complex, ultraweak field ofchaotic standing waves, a dissipative structureof electromagnetic fields that forms the ener-getic anatomic structures including the chakrasand acupuncture meridians (Zhang 1995, 1996).Welch proposed metabolic field structures ofspace–time (Welch, 1992; Welch and Smith,1990).

The biologic field is seen as a holistic orglobal organizing field of the organism by allthese authors. Similar to the way a holographicplate distributes information throughout thehologram, the biologic field conveys informa-tion throughout the organism and is central toits holistic integration. The human biologicfield is an organizing field within and emanat-ing from the body, which hypothetically regu-lates the biochemistry and physiology of thebody. The proposed biologic field is also a con-ceivable solution to the problem of how the in-formation in an organism is stored beyond thegenome. It must be said, however, that there isno consensus among scientists regarding thenature of the biologic field (i.e., whether it iselectromagnetic or not, or whether it consistsof electromagnetic components together withother uncharacterized fields).

In 1994, a panel on manual medicine modal-ities concerned with alternative and comple-mentary medicine at the U.S. National Insti-tutes of Health coined the term “biofield”(Rubik et al., 1994a) for the biologic field. Theterm “biofield” has been accepted by the U.S.National Library of Medicine as a medical sub-ject heading search (MeSH) term. In 1999, theNational Center for Complementary and Al-ternative Medicine at the U.S. National Insti-tutes of Health (NIH) issued a Request for Ap-plication (RFA) for grant proposals dealingwith biofield therapies such as Reiki, Thera-peutic Touch, external qi healing, and other

subtle energy interactions (NIH Web site).These NIH-sponsored research centers forFrontier Medicine in Biofield Science were es-tablished in 2002.

It is possible that there are subtle bodies ofthe human being beyond the physical body thatinvolve realms of mind, soul, and spirit as es-poused by Eastern philosophies. A full scien-tific model of the human being may indeed re-quire elements that go beyond space-time,matter-energy, and require multidimensionalgeometry or other novel concepts. However,this paper takes only a first step in proposinga biofield hypothesis based on known scientificconcepts from bioelectromagnetics and bio-physical systems theory. The biofield is definedhere as the endogenous, complex dynamic elec-tromagnetic (EM) field resulting from the su-perposition of component EM fields of the or-ganism that is proposed to be involved inself-organization and bioregulation of the or-ganism. The components of the biofield are theEM fields contributed by each individual os-cillator or electrically charged, moving particleor ensemble of particles of the organism (ion,molecule, cell, tissue, etc.), according to princi-ples of conventional physics. The resultingbiofield may be conceived of as a very complexdynamic standing wave (Rubik, 1997b; Zhang,1995, 1996). It has a broad spectral bandwidth,being composed of many different EM fre-quencies, analogous to a musical symphonywith many harmonics that change over time.

The biofield hypothesis offers a unifying hy-pothesis to explain the interaction of objects orfields with an organism, such as are used incertain CAM interventions. All objects radiatean EM field signature of resonant frequencies.If an object (such as a nutritional supplement,homeopathic, or drug) or externally appliedEM field (such as that produced by a thera-peutic electromagnetic device) is brought nearto or inside the body of an organism, the fre-quencies radiated by the object (or applied EMfield) would, in theory, interact with the or-ganism’s biofield. For example, it could mod-ify, reinforce, destabilize, or otherwise interactwith the biofield, by the principle of superpo-sition of waves in the behavior of chaotic non-linear dynamical systems. This would be thefirst step in mediating a biologic response.

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 709

As a holistic property of the organism, thebiofield is proposed to regulate homeodynamicprocesses at multiple levels of organizationfrom the molecular level upward to that of thewhole organism. It orchestrates the activity ofthe organism’s constituents through nonlinearsystems dynamics described earlier. Thebiofield is similar to a conductor regulating themusicians playing a symphony. In this case,however, the conductor and the symphony areone and the same, because life is a self-orga-nizing system. All the body constituents andtheir interactions give rise to the biofield, andthe biofield in turn directs the functions of allthe body constituents. A similar statement wasmade by Claude Bernard, who wrote, “the vi-tal force directs phenomena that it does notproduce; the physical agents produce phe-nomena that they do not direct” (Bernard,1859).

Computing the biofield is an impossible task.The huge number of dynamic, interacting ele-ments and their network of interactions tran-scend computational limits. Moreover, therehave been no concerted efforts to date to mea-sure the total endogenous EM field emitted byany organism. This is also a formidable, if notimpossible, task, because there is a huge spec-trum of frequencies involved that are extremelyweak and time-dependent. Additionally, somemeasurements of the biofield would alter it.Nonetheless, certain elements of the humanbiofield have already been assessed under var-ious conditions, including the electrocardio-gram (ECG), electroencephalogram (EEG), andmagnetoencephalogram (MEG). However, itmust be said that conventional thinking re-gards these emissions as waste energy ratherthan informational fields playing an active rolein bioregulation.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS

Animal studies on regeneration

Experiments on regeneration in animals sup-port a concept of the biofield in part as an en-dogenous electric field that informs the organ-ism and orchestrates the regeneration process.In the early 1960s, the regeneration of sala-

mander limbs was shown to be controlled byendogenous DC microampere currents flowingthrough the stumps (Becker, 1960, 1961). A pos-itive current of injury flows for a few days af-ter amputation that reverts to a negative po-tential as a blastema forms and regeneration isensured, returning to its baseline potentialwhen the limb is fully restored. By contrast, thefrog, which does not spontaneously regeneratenew limbs, produces a positive potential at theamputation site that remains positive until fi-brotic healing of the stump is completed, whenit returns to its baseline potential. However, adegree of limb regeneration can be inducedboth in the frog (Smith, 1974) and in the rat(Becker, 1972) by implanting a minute electri-cal battery and driving current through thestump. Reversal of the battery polarity causestissue degeneration. More recent controlledstudies in amphibians show that actively block-ing the current of injury, which is of low am-perage but significant voltage, inhibits limb re-generation (Jenkins et al., 1996). This suggeststhat bioelectrical factors are the critical controlsof limb regeneration.

In studies conducted by Rose in the mid-twentieth century, kidney cancer cells of thefrog were transplanted into salamander limbswhere they grew into tumors and metastasized(Rose, 1948). The control animals with the can-cer transplants died. In the test group, limb am-putation was performed, and spontaneous re-generation occurred. Rose amputated thesalamander limb through the primary tumor,leaving cancer cells behind in the stump. As thesalamander began to regenerate its limb, the tu-mor mass disappeared, and the cancer cellsdedifferentiated even more fully as the newlimb formed. Then as the new leg grew, the for-mer frog tumor cells redifferentiated alongwith the new limb cells. In biopsies performedlater, the frog cells were easily distinguishedfrom salamander cells by their smaller nuclei,and microscopic analysis showed frog muscleamid salamander muscle, frog cartilage cellsamid salamander cartilage, etc. (Rose, 1948).No traces of cancer were found in the test ani-mals. These data suggest the presence of a pow-erful organizing field activated during sponta-neous limb regeneration that controls cellulardedifferentiation, redifferentiation, and cancer.

RUBIK710

Thus, it appears that regenerative healing isnot merely a local process, but a global one thatmobilizes a primitive bioelectric control systemdistributed throughout the body that may beactive in development, growth, and regenera-tion. Fully active in lower animals, it appearsto be vestigial in mammals. Moreover, the nat-ural healing of wounds leading to the scar tis-sue also involves electrical control of prolifera-tion through changes in the DC potential of skinand currents of injury. Becker has pointed outthat this same primitive DC bioelectric controlsystem may be involved in the acupuncture sys-tem of meridians and points (Becker, 1974).

Some examples of indirect clinical evidence

Electrodermal testing and treatment. The bio-field may be related to the system of acupunc-ture points and meridians, which have eludedanatomic approaches to locate them. A pa-tient is assessed via electrodermal testing foracupuncture meridian and organ dysfunctionsby measuring the variations in the electrical re-sistance of the acupuncture points. Then, whena substance that is the appropriate homeopathicremedy for a patient is brought near the patient’sbody, the electrical conductivity of the patient’sacupuncture points that were previously abnor-mal immediately shifts to normal (Voll, 1975).Apparently the remedy is able to affect the elec-trical conductivity in the acupuncture meridiansthrough the sample held by the patient or placednearby the patient to influence the biofield. Thismethod of selecting appropriate homeopathicremedies, nutritional substances, and other in-terventions using electrodermal testing is aCAM diagnostic and treatment method used bymany practitioners worldwide.

VAS response. Practitioners use the vascularautonomic signal (VAS response) to assess foodallergies and environmental sensitivities clini-cally. When an allergen is placed near the pa-tient’s ear, rich in acupuncture points, the sub-stance emits resonant frequencies that informthe subject’s biofield of this stressor. This leadsto a change in tension of the peripheral arterysmooth muscle that can be measured by mon-itoring the brachial artery pulse (Kenyon,1982). Subtle changes in the pulse are assessed

to discern positive, negative, and neutral stim-uli, including drugs, homeopathic substances,and foods (Frinerman, 1999).

Applied kinesiology. This method of diagnosisand therapy purportedly determines health im-balances in the body by identifying weaknessesin specific muscles, and by means of activatingor relaxing these muscles, health problems mayalso be resolved (Walther, 1988). One examplefrom applied kinesiology is the bidigital O-ringtest (Omura, 1982), whereby the patient touchesthe thumb with the index finger to make a ring.The practitioner tries to pull the fingers apart,while the patient tries to resist. The degree ofresistance is assessed subjectively by the prac-titioner, who retests the patient again while heholds a sample medication. If the medication isindicated, the patient’s power of resistance willthen increase. Apparently the frequencies emit-ted from medicament and received informa-tionally by the patient’s biofield produce achange in the muscle strength.

Subtle stimulation of acupoints. The applicationof subtle influences to an acupoint produceschanges in the body unrelated to neurophysi-ological or other known mechanisms. For ex-ample, the placement of magnets on acupointswith the magnet pole oriented in a certain di-rection has a different effect on distal acupointsthan if the magnet polarity is reversed (Man-aka et al., 1995). This suggests that not only theneedling of acupoints, but extremely subtlestimuli such as the placement of magnets onthem may be interacting with the biofield.

Reflexology. Stimulation of the reflex pointsand areas of the body allows them to send andreceive specific information to and from otherregions of the body. This stimulation may in-teract with the biofield, a holistic property ofthe body that conveys bioinformation. Thespecificity of action in reflexology may relateto boundary conditions of the biofield at cer-tain tissue interfaces (Rubik, 1995b).

Evidence from geobiology

There is a deep interrelationship betweengeo-cosmic fields and life, because life evolved

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 711

in the presence of specific natural EM fields onearth (Tomassen et al., 1990). Evidence suggeststhat geophysical fields regulate life (Dubrov,1978). Some of the natural frequencies associ-ated with earth’s Schumann resonance (Sent-man, 1995), a transverse resonating wavebandspanning between the earth and ionosphere,ranging from approximately 7 to 10 Hz, pro-duce beneficial effects on many organisms, in-cluding humans, even at extremely low inten-sities. Consider that brain waves at 8 to 10 Hzform the alpha band of EEG, which is associ-ated with relaxation and meditation. When EMfields in this frequency range are applied to thehuman, the brain is dynamically entrained atthose frequencies, and the person goes into apsychophysiological state of relaxation. Or-ganisms, in fact, may be stimulated by certainkey frequency components of the geomagneticfield that act as pacemakers for their internalbiologic oscillators.

Evidence from bioelectromagnetics

Bioelectromagnetics has demonstrated ex-perimentally various biologic effects of ex-tremely low-level nonionizing EM fields ap-plied to organisms, ranging from small torobust. Positive, negative, and neutral effectshave been observed (Blank, 1993; Polk and Pos-tow, 1986). The empirically observed beneficialeffects of EM fields (Brighton and Pollack, 1991)form the basis of bioelectromagnetic therapy.The technology of applying certain beneficialEM fields to the body to stimulate the naturalhealing response, known as bioelectromagneticmedicine, is a new form of CAM therapy (Ru-bik et al., 1994b). Specific EM fields have beenidentified that stimulate therapeutic effectssuch as osteogenesis, soft tissue regeneration,psychophysiological modulations, and im-mune system enhancement (Rubik, 1997a). Onespecific application is that extremely low-level(picoTesla) EM fields in the extremely low-fre-quency range (less than 100 Hz) have been ap-plied successfully to treat Parkinson’s disease(Sandyk and Derpapas, 1993). Another morewidely used application is pulsed magneticstimulation at 7 Hz, useful to promote bone tis-sue regeneration (Sharrard, 1990). This nonin-vasive treatment for bone fractures has been

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ap-proved for more than 20 years.

Bioelectromagnetics research has uncovereda surprising fact. Extremely low intensity, non-ionizing EM fields, having even less energycontent than the physical thermal noise limit,can produce biologic effects (Adey and Bawin,1977; Rubik et al., 1994b). At such extremelylow levels, the energy content of the signal iseven less than the random energy of molecu-lar motion at physiological temperature. Thismeans that such extremely low-level fields can-not act energetically on organisms, because theenergy content is negligible. Thus, it has beenproposed that they are acting informationally(Rubik et al., 1994b). Although there is noagreed on modus operandi of such stimuli, prin-ciples of nonequilibrium thermodynamics ofnonlinear systems have been invoked, in whichsmall stimuli play a key role as discussed pre-viously. Fields carrying biologically relevantinformation have been called, “electromagneticbioinformation” (Popp, 1988). It is proposedhere that they interact directly with the biofield.

Therapies involving the application of ex-tremely low-level EM signals may be provid-ing EM bioinformation. This may occurthrough resonance or entrainment of specificfrequencies. However, evidence shows that notjust the frequency of the EM field, but otherfield parameters (Rubik et al., 1994b) includingwaveform, intensity, carrier frequency, modu-lation frequency, polarity, and time exposurepatterns are involved in the specific biologic re-sponses to externally applied EM fields. Par-ticular values of these parameters make the dif-ference between obtaining one biologic effectover another, or seeing no response whatso-ever. Specifically configured EM fields thus ap-pear to encode information in the dynamicwave train that is decoded by organisms. Asyet, there is no accepted theory predicting thebiologic response to a particular EM field. Theresponses, however, exhibit many propertiespredicted by nonequilibrium, nonlinear,chaotic systems theory. These include behav-iors such as response thresholds, power andfrequency windows of response, strange at-tractors, and hysteresis effects (Adey, 1990).

Some of the extremely low-level fields thathave therapeutic action in bioelectromagnetic

RUBIK712

medicine are similar in frequency and intensityto the endogenous fields of life (i.e., of compo-nents of the biofield). Many natural frequenciesare emitted by the brain and heart, and exter-nally applied fields at these same frequenciescan cause entrainment and physiological, psy-chologic, and behavioral changes. Siskin andWalker (1995) have reviewed the healing ef-fects of specific frequency windows, and someof them are as follows: 2 Hz, nerve regenera-tion; 10 Hz, ligament healing; 15, 20, and 72 Hz,stimulation of capillary formation and fibrob-last proliferation. This suggests that EM bioin-formation is fundamental to regulation of bio-logic function, and that it is encoded in thebiofield. Thus, the natural oscillators in livingsystems themselves emit EM bioinformationregulating biologic function. In other words,cells and tissues may be “whispering” EM sig-nals to one another and “listening” for relevantsignals from their surroundings. The conceptof EM bioinformation extends the conventionalnotion of information in biology to include thatsensed by the higher order dynamics of livingsystems.

BIOINFORMATION AND A NEWCOMMUNICATION SYSTEM

The concept of information in biomolecularscience is based on biochemistry and conveyedby biomolecules, such as DNA, RNA, hor-mones, and receptors. However, the concept ofinformation can be extended to biophysicalmodels based on field interactions. Here we ex-tend it to include EM bioinformation (i.e., in-formation encoded in the dynamic wave trainof low-level EM fields).

Information has taken on a mechanisticmeaning in our age of computers, appropriatefor machines, but questionable for life with itsfeatures of self-reference, self-organization,and consciousness. Machines have only a fewcritical internal interconnections, whereas liv-ing systems have an immense network of in-terconnections within, many dependent on thehistory, habits, and dispositions they have in-herited or acquired. In living systems there arenumerous pathways for information flow be-tween the multiple levels of order, from the

top-down as well as the bottom-up. From anonmechanistic viewpoint appropriate for liv-ing systems, information is neither energy normatter in itself, although energy or matter is itscarrier. Information is that which exists only inrelationship, and similar to energy, always in-volves at least two entities, a sender and a re-ceiver, and it depends on the context. Infor-mation for a living system is that which“in-forms”; it conveys meaning, although themeaning to the organism may not always beconscious.

The complex network of information flowsand exchanges in living systems is a novel wayto conceptualize the living state. In otherwords, the living state is a multilevel informedand informing complex dynamic regulatorysystem. Information in biologic systems, hereincalled bioinformation to distinguish it fromother mechanistic concepts of information, wasproposed earlier by the author as a unifyingconcept of causation in living systems (Rubik,1995a). As part of biologic regulation and main-tenance of homeodynamics, cells and tissuesmay engage in continuous EM field sensingand exchange of information. This is proposedto be an inherent communication system in theorganism based on waves, in which each con-stituent of life may serve as both antenna andreceiver of information-carrying signals.

The following relates dynamic systems be-havior to bioinformation. There is a broad spec-tral bandwidth of frequencies for the naturaloscillators in the human body that are infor-mation-rich and hypothesized to govern sys-tem dynamics from the top-down. Perhaps theEM signals that organisms emit and receivefrom others comprise the original wirelesscommunication system on earth. This commu-nication system may be more fundamentalthan the nervous system as it may be faster andricher in information.

SOME IMPLICATIONS, PREDICTIONS,AND TESTS OF THE

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS

Acupuncture

Science has failed to substantiate theacupuncture meridians and acupoints anatom-

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 713

ically. Instead, these may be energetic mani-festations of the biofield. Moreover, acupointshave been shown to be special regions of higherelectrical conductivity than the surroundingtissues (Becker, 1976). The rapid global re-sponses of the organism to acupuncture sug-gests that its effects may not be entirely medi-ated by neurohumoral mechanisms, but mayinvolve the biofield with its faster communica-tion system and holographic features. Thebiofield hypothesis predicts that stimulatingthe acupoints would impact the biofield tocarry bioformation rapidly and globallythroughout the organism for its specific recep-tion by distant tissues. Studies to measure thespeed of signal transduction of stimuli throughthe acupuncture system could be done to mea-sure whether bioinformation travels faster thanthrough the nervous system. If indeed theacupuncture system of meridians and points ispart of the biofield, and if EM waves are themeans by which a signal moves through theacupuncture system, then the biofield hypoth-esis predicts that this signal will travel fasterthan the speed of nerve conduction (20 m/s),because EM signals in the body travel at nearlythe speed of light (3 3 108 m/s).

Homeopathy

Homeopathic remedies can be clinically ef-fective at extremely high potencies or dilutionswhere no molecules of the original mother tinc-ture remain. Thus, molecular theory is inade-quate to explain its modus operandi. However,there may be bioinformation stored in the sub-strate of the remedy that the patient needs.Structured water, or water that has stored EMbioinformation of the original substance dis-solved in it, may be the active agent in classichomeopathy. Ludwig claims to have measuredand compared a large number of the extremelylow-frequency rhythms in humans with reso-nant frequencies in homeopathic remedies(Ludwig, 1987), using a spectrum analyzer sen-sitive to the millihertz range. The frequenciesradiated by homeopathic remedies may ini-tially interact directly with the biofield. Thebiofield hypothesis predicts that homeopathicremedies brought into the proximity of a pa-tient might also be effective, as would as “elec-

tronic” homeopathy, in which the key EMbioinformation of a homeopathic remedy is de-livered via carrier waves. This is consistentwith results from Benveniste’s laboratory ex-ploring “digital biology” (Thomas et al., 1995)and clinical results from electroacupuncture ac-cording to Voll (EAV; Voll, 1980) whereby elec-tronic remedies are delivered to patients.

Biofield therapies

The beneficial effects from laying-on ofhands by those such as Reiki and other biofieldpractitioners may be mediated by means of EMbioinformation. For example, extremely low-level EM fields emitted from a biofield practi-tioner may impact the biofield of the patienttherapeutically. Furthermore, some of thesepractitioners claim to sense irregularitieswithin and around patients’ bodies, possibly inthe biofield. That is, their hands or other organsmay serve as sensitive antennae for elementsof the biofield. Because microbes treated bypersons serving as sham practitioners in basicscience experiments do not show beneficial ef-fects above untreated controls (Rubik, 1996),the EM bioinformation emitted during laying-on of hands might be uniquely associated withpsychophysiological states of the practitioner’sintention. This could be studied by measuringthe extremely low-level EM fields emanatingfrom practitioners’ hands during treatmentcompared to nontreatment tasks. It is antici-pated that shifts in mental concentration, mood,and/or intention might produce changes in thebiofields of practitioners.

Electromagnetic bioinformational aspects ofcertain structural medical interventions

Medical interventions considered structuralsuch as surgery, may, in fact, impact thebiofield and work structurally and bioinfor-mationally on the organism. It has been foundin a few controlled trials on surgery, for exam-ple, in a recent study on osteoarthritis of theknee, that the sham surgery group showed sim-ilar beneficial results as conventional arthro-scopic surgery (Moseley, 2002). The beneficialresults of sham surgery are presently consid-ered as placebo effects. However, physical in-jury to tissue produces electrical currents of in-

RUBIK714

jury, first described by Galvani in 1786, andlater by others (Vodovnik and Korba, 1992).Thus, both sham and conventional surgeryshould alter the biofield by the resulting cur-rent of injury that arises in the surgical wound.In studies where beneficial results from so-called “placebo” surgeries are obtained, thepositive results, at least in part, may be the re-sult of regulatory influences on homeodynam-ics from changes in the biofield. The possibletherapeutic effects of sham surgery beyondplacebo may be explored by looking for out-come differences between different types ofsham surgery for a given disorder, whereby theplacebo response would be rendered constant.Such observed differences, if any, would be ex-pected if the sham surgeries had different im-pacts on the biofield.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The history of biology reveals differentphilosophic perspectives that have shaped bi-ology and medicine over the centuries. The pre-sent dominant paradigm of molecular reduc-tionism falls short of explaining the dynamic,self-organizing and self-restoring properties ofliving systems and their responses to manyCAM therapies, especially those involving fieldprinciples. However, a biophysical view of lifeis emerging from dynamic nonlinear systemstheory of open, far from equilibrium systemsthat offers a complementary perspective andembraces the complex, holistic, dynamic fea-tures of life as well as new electrodynamic andbioinformational interactions.

The biofield hypothesis is developed fromthis perspective. It has implications for the lifesciences in general, predicting a new commu-nication system in organisms that involves EMbioinformation. It has implications and ex-planatory power for CAM; it predicts thatmany CAM modalities act dynamically onbioregulation, rather than on structure–func-tion relationships in the body. Moreover, it pro-vides the rudiments of a scientific foundationfor the energy medicine modalities of acupunc-ture, homeopathy, bioelectromagnetic thera-pies, and biofield therapies. The first stage inthe modus operandi of these modalities is pre-

dicted to be an interaction with the organism’sbiofield, and the result is an effect on homeo-dynamics.

We cannot observe the biofield directly, iso-late it, or analyze it comprehensively. We can-not compute it from first principles because ofits complexity. In relation to this, there aremany unobservable aspects of nature knownonly indirectly in physics by their effects. Fieldsare one example of this. Another example fromphysics is the curvature of space-time. None-theless, certain aspects of the biofield may beascertained from careful measurements, and itsproperties elucidated through the existence ofcertain phenomena. In order to learn moreabout the human biofield and its proposed em-inent role in health and healing, we need a “hu-man energy project,” a project similar to theHuman Genome Project, with funding and thefull commitment of the research community.The new centers for Frontier Medicine inBiofield Science recently funded by NIH markan important step forward.

This paper advances the biophysical per-spective of life with a succinct definition andhypothesis of the biofield, which offers a uni-fied concept for the modus operandi of certainmedical interventions. Some predictions aremade, and certain aspects of the biofield hy-pothesis proposed here can be further exam-ined for validity. Further work, both theoreti-cal and experimental, is needed to more fullydevelop and test this hypothesis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Supported in part by National Institutes ofHealth P20 AT00774-01.

REFERENCES

Adey WR, Bawin SM. Brain interactions with weak elec-tric and magnetic fields. Neurosci Res Prog Bull1977;15:1–129.

Adey WR. Electromagnetic Fields and the Essence of Liv-ing Systems: Modern Radio Science. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1990:1–36.

Becker RO. A description of the integrated system of di-rect currents in the salamander. IRETrans Biomed Elec-tron 1960;7:202.

Becker RO. The bioelectric factors in amphibian limb re-generation. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43A:643.

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 715

Becker RO. Stimulation of partial limb regeneration inrats. Nature 1972;235:109–111.

Becker RO. The significance of bioelectric potentials. Bio-electricity Bioenergetics 1974;1:187–199.

Becker RO. Acupuncture points show increased DC elec-trical conductivity. Am J Chinese Med 1976;4:69–72.

Bernard C. Des Liquides de l”Organisme: Tome III. Paris:Bailliere, 1859.

Bernard C. Introduction to Experimental Medicine. NewYork: Dover, 1957.

Bischof M. The history of bioelectromagnetism. In: HoMW, Popp FA, Warnke U, eds. Bioelectrodynamics andBiocommunication. Singapore: World Scientific Pub-lishing, 1994, pp. 1–30.

Bischof M. The history of biological holism and field the-ories in the 20th century. MISAHA Newsletter1998;22–23:7–11.

Blank M., ed. Electricity and Magnetism in Biology andMedicine. San Francisco: San Francisco Press, 1993.

Brighton CT, Pollack, SR, eds. Electromagnetics in Medi-cine and Biology. San Francisco: San Francisco Press,1991.

Burr HS, Northrup FSC. Evidence for the existence of anelectro-dynamic field in living organisms. Proc NatAcad Sci 1939;25:284–288

Burr HS. Blueprint for Immortality: The Electric Patternsof Life. Essex, UK: C. W. Daniel Company, 1972.

Cannon WB. The Wisdom of the Body. New York: PeterSmith, 1978.

Claverie JM. Gene number: What if there are only 30,000human genes? Science 2001;291:1255–1257.

Coulter HL. Divided Legacy, A History of the Schism inMedical Thought, Vol. 1: The Patterns Emerge: Hip-pocrates to Paracelcus. Washington, D.C.: Center forEmperical Medicine, 1973.

Coulter HL. Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism inMedical Thought. Vol. 4: Twentieth Century Medicine:The Bacteriological Era. Washington, D.C.: Center forEmpirical Medicine, 1994.

Dell PF. Beyond homeostasis: Toward a concept of co-herence. Fam Process 1982;21:21–41.

Driesch H. Studies on mechanisms of development [inGerman]. Zeitschrift fur Zoology 1891;53:160–178.

Dubrov AP. The Geomagnetic Field and Life: Geomag-netobiology. New York: Plenum, 1978.

Frinerman E. New ways to document VAS using novelFDA-approved technology—Historical view and per-spectives. Coherence Int J Integr Med 1999:26–32.

Gleick J. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: VikingPenguin, 1987.

Grmek MD. Western Medical Thought from Antiquity tothe Middle Ages. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1999.

Gurvitch AG. The Theory of the Biological Field [in Russ-ian]. Moscow: 1944.

Hamlyn E. The Healing Art of Homeopathy (TheOrganon of Samuel Hahnemann). London: Beacons-field, 1979.

Jantsche E. The Self-Organizing Universe. New York:Pergamon, 1980.

Jenkins LS, Duerstock BS, Borgens RB. Reduction of thecurrent of injury leaving the amputation inhibits limbregeneration in the red spotted newt. Dev Biol1996;178:251–262.

Johnson JA. Chinese Medical Qigong Therapy: A Com-prehensive Clinical Text. Pacific Grove, CA: Interna-tional Institute of Medical Qigong, 2000:103.

Katsumori M. Bohr’s early complementarity argument.Historia Sci 1998;8:1–19.

Kenyon J. The auricular cardiac reflex as a diagnosticmethod for food and allergy testing. Am J Acupunct1982;10:239–243.

Kolbe H. Contributions to the knowledge of syntheticcompounds [in German]. Liebigs Ann 1845;54:145–188.

Leadbeater CW. The Chakras. Wheaton, IL: TheosophicalPublishing House, 1927.

Lloyd D, Aon MA, Cortassa S. Why homeodynamics, nothomeostasis? Sci World J 2001;1:133–145.

Ludwig HW. Electromagnetic multiresonance: The basisof homeopathy and biophysical therapy. In: Proceed-ings of 42nd Congress of the International Homeo-pathic Medicine League, 29 March–April 2 1987, Ar-lington. Washington, D.C.: American Institute ofHomeopathy, 1987.

Manaka Y, Itaya K, Birch S. Chasing the Dragon’s Tail:The Theory and Practice of Acupuncture in the Workof Yoshio Manaka. Brookline, MA: Paradigm Publica-tions, 1995.

Morowitz HJ. Energy Flow in Biology. New York: Acad-emic Press, 1968.

Moseley JB. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery forosteoarthritis of the knee. NEJM 2002;347:81–88.

NIH Exploratory Program Grants for Frontier MedicineResearch AT-00–003. Online document at: nccam.nih.gov/fi/concepts/rfa/index.html

Omura Y. Effects of an electrical field and its polarity onan abnormal part of the body or organ representationpoint associated with a diseased internal organ, and itsinfluence on the bi-digital O-ring test and drug com-patibility test—Part I. Acupunct Electrother Res Int J1982;7:209–246.

Palmer DD. The Science, Art, and Philosophy of Chiro-practic. Portland, OR: Portland Printing House, 1910.

Polk C, Postow E, eds. CRC Handbook of Biological Ef-fects of Electromagnetic Fields. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, 1986.

Popp FA. Electromagnetic Bio-information. New York:Springer-Verlag, 1988.

Popp FA. Evolution as the Expansion of Coherent States.In: Zhang CL, Popp FA, Bischof M eds. Current De-velopment of Biophysics. Hangzhou, China: HangzhouUniversity Press, 1996:252–264.

Prigogine I. From Being to Becoming. San Francisco: W.H.Freeman Co., 1980.

Rose S. Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism. Lon-don: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1997.

Rose SM, Wallingford HM. Disappearance of cancer in re-generating limb of salamander. Science 1948;107:457.

Rubik B. Can Western science provide a foundation foracupuncture? Am Acad Med Acupunct Rev 1993;5:15–17.

RUBIK716

Rubik B. Energy medicine and the unifying concept of in-formation. Altern Ther Health Med 1995a;1:34–39.

Rubik B. Can Western science provide a foundation foracupuncture? Altern Ther Health Med 1995b;1:41–47.

Rubik B. Volitional effects of healers on a bacterial sys-tem. In: Life at the Edge of Science. Oakland, CA: In-stitute for Frontier Science, 1996:99–117.

Rubik B. Bioelectromagnetic medicine. Admin Radiol J1997a;XVI:38–46.

Rubik B. The unifying concept of information in acupunc-ture and other energy medicine modalities. J AlternComplement Med 1997b;3(suppl 1):S67–S76.

Rubik B, Pavek R, Ward R, Greene E, Upledger J,Lawrence D, Ramsden E. Manual healing methods.NIH Publication No. 94–066, Alternative Medicine: Ex-panding Medical Horizons. Washington, D.C.: US Gov-ernment Printing Office, 1994a:134–157.

Rubik B, Becker RO, Flower RG, Hazlewood CF, LiboffAR, Walleczek J. Bioelectromagnetics applications inmedicine. NIH Publication No. 94–066. AlternativeMedicine: Expanding Medical Horizons. WashingtonDC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994a:45–65.

Sandyk R, Derpapas K. Further observations on theunique efficacy of picoTesla range magnetic fields inParkinson’s Disease. Int J Neurosci 1993;69:167–183.

Savva S. A systems approach in biology and biophysics.MISAHA Newsletter, 1997;18–19:2–9.

Savva S. Toward a cybernetic model of the organism. Ad-vances in Mind–Body Med 1998;14:292–301.

Sentman DD. Schumann resonances. In: Volland, H, ed.Handbook of Atmospheric Electrodynamics, vol 1.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1995, 267–295.

Sharrard WJW. A double-blind trial of pulsed electro-magnetic fields for delayed union of tibial fractures. JBone Joint Surg (Br)1990;72B:347–355.

Siskin BF, Walker J. Therapeutic aspects of electromag-netic fields for soft-tissue healing. In Blank M, ed.Electromagnetic Fields: Biological Interactions andMechanisms. Advances in Chemistry Series 250.Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1995:277–285.

Smith SD. Effects of electrode placement on stimulationof adult frog limb regeneration. Ann NY Acad Sci1974;238:500–507.

Strohman R. Ancient genomes, wise bodies, unhealthypeople: Limits of a genetic paradigm in biology andmedicine. Perspect Biol Med 1993;37:112–145.

Thomas Y, Litime H, Benveniste J. Modulation of humanneutrophil activation by “electronic” phorbol myristate(PMA) [abstract]. FASEB J 1995;9:A227.

Tiller W. What are subtle energies? J Sci Explor1993;7:293–304.

Tomassen GJM, de Graff W, Knoop AA, Hengeveld R,eds. Geo-Cosmic Relations: The Earth and Its Macro-Environment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: PudocPress, 1990.

Vodovnik L, Korba R. Treatment of chronic wounds bymeans of electrical and electromagnetic fields: A liter-ature review. Med Biol Engineer Comput 1992;30:257–266.

Voll R. Twenty years of electroacupuncture diagnosis inGermany: A progress report. Am J Acupunc 1975;3:7–17.

Voll R. The phenomenon of medicine testing in elec-troacupuncture according to Voll. Am J Acupunc 1980;8:97–104.

Von Bertalanffy L. General System Theory. New York:Braziller, 1968.

Walther DS. Applied Kinesiology Synopsis. Pueblo, CO:Systems DC, 1988.

Weiner N. Cybernetics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1948.Weiss P. Principles of Development. New York: Holt,

1939. Welch GR, Smith HA. On the field structure of metabolic

spacetime. In: Mishra RK, ed. Molecular and BiologicalPhysics of Living Systems. Dordrecht, Holland:Kluwer,1990:53–85.

Welch GR. 1992. An analogical “field” construct in cellu-lar biophysics history and present status. Prog BiophysMol Biol 1992;57:71–128.

Yates FE. Order and complexity in dynamical systems:Homeodynamics as a generalized mechanics for biol-ogy. Math Comput Model 1994;19:49–74.

Zhang CL. Acupuncture system and electromagneticstanding wave inside body [in Chinese]. J Nature1995;17:275–281.

Zhang CL. Standing wave, meridians and collaterals, co-herent electromagnetic field and holistic thinking inChinese Traditional Medicine [in Chinese]. J YunnanColl Trad Med 1996;19:27–30.

Address reprint requests to:Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.

Institute for Frontier Science6114 LaSalle Avenue, PMB 605

Oakland, CA 94611-2802

E-mail: beverly.rubik@tui.edu

BIOFIELD HYPOTHESIS 717

This article has been cited by:

1. Donald M. Epstein , Simon A. Senzon , Daniel Lemberger . 2009. Reorganizational Healing: A Paradigmfor the Advancement of Wellness, Behavior Change, Holistic Practice, and HealingReorganizationalHealing: A Paradigm for the Advancement of Wellness, Behavior Change, Holistic Practice, and Healing.The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 15:5, 475-487. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

2. Hugh MacPherson , Richard Nahin , Charlotte Paterson , Claire M. Cassidy , George T. Lewith , RichardHammerschlag . 2008. Developments in Acupuncture Research: Big-Picture Perspectives from the LeadingEdgeDevelopments in Acupuncture Research: Big-Picture Perspectives from the Leading Edge. The Journalof Alternative and Complementary Medicine 14:7, 883-887. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

3. Julia C. McKay, Frank S. Prato, Alex W. Thomas. 2007. A literature review: The effects of magneticfield exposure on blood flow and blood vessels in the microvasculature. Bioelectromagnetics 28:2, 81-98.[CrossRef]

4. Richard Hammerschlag , Heather Zwickey . 2006. Evidence-Based Complementary and AlternativeMedicine: Back to BasicsEvidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Back to Basics. TheJournal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12:4, 349-350. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

5. Marius Hossu , Ronald Rupert . 2006. Quantum Events of Biophoton Emission Associated withComplementary and Alternative Medicine Therapies: A Descriptive Pilot StudyQuantum Events ofBiophoton Emission Associated with Complementary and Alternative Medicine Therapies: A DescriptivePilot Study. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12:2, 119-124. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDFPlus]

6. Beverly Rubik , Audrey J. Brooks , Gary E. Schwartz . 2006. In Vitro Effect of Reiki Treatment on BacterialCultures: Role of Experimental Context and Practitioner Well-BeingIn Vitro Effect of Reiki Treatment onBacterial Cultures: Role of Experimental Context and Practitioner Well-Being. The Journal of Alternativeand Complementary Medicine 12:1, 7-13. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

7. Kim A. Jobst . 2005. Homeopathy, Hahnemann, and The Lancet 250 Years On: A Case of the Emperor'sNew Clothes?Homeopathy, Hahnemann, and The Lancet 250 Years On: A Case of the Emperor's NewClothes?. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 11:5, 751-754. [Citation] [PDF] [PDFPlus]

8. Abraham R. Liboff . 2004. Toward an Electromagnetic Paradigm for Biology and MedicineTowardan Electromagnetic Paradigm for Biology and Medicine. The Journal of Alternative and ComplementaryMedicine 10:1, 41-47. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

9. Iris R. Bell , Daniel A. Lewis , Sabrina E. Lewis , Audrey J. Brooks , Gary E. Schwartz , Carol M. Baldwin. 2004. Strength of Vital Force in Classical Homeopathy: Bio-Psycho-Social-Spiritual Correlates Withina Complex Systems ContextStrength of Vital Force in Classical Homeopathy: Bio-Psycho-Social-SpiritualCorrelates Within a Complex Systems Context. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine10:1, 123-131. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

10. Katherine Creath , Gary E. Schwartz . 2004. Biophoton Images of Plants: Revealing the LightWithinBiophoton Images of Plants: Revealing the Light Within. The Journal of Alternative andComplementary Medicine 10:1, 23-26. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

11. Glen Rein . 2004. Bioinformation Within the Biofield: Beyond BioelectromagneticsBioinformation Withinthe Biofield: Beyond Bioelectromagnetics. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 10:1,59-68. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

12. Nicholas Handoll . 2004. Energy Medicine: An Osteopath's Personal ViewEnergy Medicine: An Osteopath'sPersonal View. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 10:1, 87-89. [Citation] [PDF] [PDFPlus]

13. Opher Caspi, Cari Stellhorn, Melinda Connor. 2004. Sham in CAM. Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine1:4, 233-240. [CrossRef]

14. Michael E. Hyland . 2003. Extended Network Generalized Entanglement Theory: TherapeuticMechanisms, Empirical Predictions, and InvestigationsExtended Network Generalized Entanglement

Theory: Therapeutic Mechanisms, Empirical Predictions, and Investigations. The Journal of Alternativeand Complementary Medicine 9:6, 919-936. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

15. 2003. CorrectionCorrection. Alternative and Complementary Therapies 9:1, 50-50. [Citation] [PDF] [PDFPlus]

16. 2003. LiteratureWatchLiteratureWatch. Alternative and Complementary Therapies 9:1, 49-50. [Citation][PDF] [PDF Plus]

17. Beverly Rubik . 2002. Sympathetic Resonance Technology™: Scientific Foundation and Summary ofBiologic and Clinical StudiesSympathetic Resonance Technology™: Scientific Foundation and Summaryof Biologic and Clinical Studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 8:6, 823-856.[Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

18. Janine Joyce, G Peter Herbison, Janine JoyceReiki treatment for psychological symptoms . [CrossRef]