We Are All Asking the Same Questions
Researchers, clinicians and clients are all seeking answers to the same questions.
Bill often said, “Folks—we are asking the same questions here.” We researchers, practitioners, and clients are all seeking answers to some similar core questions.
Bill started by observing clinical phenomena of healing and then took it into the lab to try to find answer the question, “What in heaven’s name is going on?” This need to find out what was behind his observations and experiences drove his research for over 50 years. In the clinical world, the variables are too great to try pin down the answers. In the lab the conditions could be controlled.
Clinicians usually think clinically while researchers think experimentally, and the two often don’t meet. Researchers and clinicians consider things from different angles—researchers seek data to support the answer to a question; clinicians are seeking the health of their client. In research, the question drives the quest to discover the answer. As the clinician, the questions drive our practice and interactions with clients. If we are the client, the answers to these questions are directly relevant to our health.
The questions get answered in different ways. In research, a protocol is set and adhered to based on past research, preliminary findings and/or the question being asked. In the clinician’s world, experience plays large role. In the research world, once the experiment starts, the answer is fixed. The clinical world is more fluid and may change based on the response of the client.
But again and again, the same questions tend to come up in either place. Some of the most common are below.
Can this treatment fix X condition? or Will it work?
The researcher explores this under controlled conditions in the lab and the client wants an answer from the real world—who else has been fixed? How consistent are the results? Will it work for me?
I am using “X condition” deliberately because the question applies regardless of the condition. Bill’s research and the MD Anderson research asked this question using specific types of cancer in the experiment. Both asked whether a specific type of cancer could be fixed or impacted using a specific healing method, (The Bengston Energy Healing Method), under controlled laboratory conditions. However, this question is relevant regardless of the condition.*
How much treatment is necessary (time and quantity, i.e. dose)?
This question naturally follows the one above. As Bill said, “You can take chances experimentally and play around with dose. With people, you want to fix them.”
The researcher asks how many treatments, and for what length of time, should I include in the study. What will give me the best data points. The client asks how long before I start feeling better. The clinician, wanting to fix them, uses their experience to answer the question.
The researcher may do preliminary testing to see what dose should be used in the protocol. They may base the dose on historical data, or they may simply say “let’s try this” and make their best guess. The dose is then set in the research protocol and is adhered to in the experiment. Secondary questions lead to future research, “Will the dose be the same for all cancers? Is the dose different for a human?” And the fun begins again.
The client asks the clinician “How long will it take?” and “How many treatments do I need?” The clinician asks, “What length of time should I treat?” When treating people, the practitioner actively follows the patient’s condition to see if they are improving, stabilizing, etc. Dose can, and often does vary, depending upon what the client is experiencing, any test results, and the practitioner’s own observations. Again, secondary questions abound. Does the clinician give the same dose every session, even if the time is the same? Are all treatments the same—is a treatment given on day one the same as one given on day two or three? We don’t know at this point.
Will the treatment last?
The patient asks, “Once I’m fixed, will my condition come back?” The clinician cna inform the client of their experiences from past similar cases. But there’s no crystal ball and no guarantee.
In research, this question may take a long period of time to answer. Bill’s research with mice involved survival studies, and consequently they were able to witness mice that had been cured of mammary cancer living out a normal life span of two years. He also found that if a mouse that had been cured was re-injected with a lethal dose of the same type of cancer, they did not get the cancer again. For the mice, the treatment lasted as long as their natural lifespan.
Bill’s research spanned decades. This question takes time to answer in the lab.
Can healing be combined with conventional treatment?
In both the lab and the clinical world, if we combine radiation or X with healing, what is the effect? We may assume we know the answer to this, but from a research perspective very little has been done in this regard. In the clinical world, each practitioner uses their experience to best answer the question.
When giving lectures about his research, Bill requested that researchers and clinicians not be siloed—that they learn from each other. He often asked, “How can lab findings inform clinical practice? How can clinicians help inform pre-clinical studies?” Bill’s desire for answers to the above questions consumed decades. Although his passion was research, in later years, he pursued clinical experiences again. He felt strongly that both worlds should inform each other. Can we find a better way for the clinicians and researchers to share information?
In a future post we will offer thoughts on choosing a practitioner and understanding the skills they might offer and what questions you might ask them. One thing we’d recommend, when possible, is working with a healer who appreciates how the existing body of research can inform their work! And for the researchers, we hope they’ll consider adopting several healers they can talk to and learn from as well. We’ll all be better off when these conversations are a regular affair.
*Bill’s research used a mammary cancer model because past research gave historical evidence that this cancer caused death in a specific number of days regardless of the treatment tried. The Bengston Method has been used for other conditions as well.