American Journal of Life Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 5, October 2015, Pages: 369-374
Received: Sep. 14, 2015;
Accepted: Sep. 25, 2015;
Published: Oct. 13, 2015
Views 5154 Downloads 73
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Alice Branton, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Dahryn Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Gopal Nayak, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, USA
Mayank Gangwar, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, India
Snehasis Jana, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, India
Antimicrobial resistance is a global health issue in the developing countries. This study was carried out to evaluate the impact of Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on multidrug resistant (MDR) clinical lab isolates (LSs) of Staphylococcus species viz. Staphylococcus haemolyticus (LS 18), Staphylococcus epidermidis (LS 21), and Staphylococcus aureus (LS 30). Each strain was divided into the two groups i.e. control and treated. The control and treated groups were analyzed for the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), biochemical analysis and biotype number using MicroScan Walk-Away® system. The analysis was done on day 10 after biofield treatment and compared with the control group. The sensitivity of erythromycin was improved from resistant to susceptible, while levofloxacin sensitivity was also improved from intermediate to susceptible in LS 21 isolate. The MIC results showed a decrease in the concentrations of ceftriaxone, erythromycin, imipenem, and levofloxacin antimicrobials in LS 21 as compared to the control. Linezolid and vancomycin also showed decrease in MIC as compared to the control in LS 30. Overall, 20.69% antimicrobials showed decrease in MIC value out of the tested twenty-nine after biofield treatment in Staphylococcus species. The biochemical study showed a 25% alteration in biochemical reactions as compared to the control. A significant change was reported in biotype numbers for all the three strains of MDR Staphylococcus species after biofield treatment as compared to the respective control group. On the basis of changed biotype number (306366) after biofield treatment in LS 18, the new organism was identified as Staphylococcus simulans with respect to the control species i.e. Staphylococcus haemolyticus (302302). The control group of S. epidermidis and S. aureus showed biotype number as 303064 and 757153 respectively. After biofield treatment, LS 21 and LS 30 isolates showed altered biotype number as 307064 and 317153 respectively. Overall, results conclude that biofield treatment could be used as complementary and alternative treatment strategy against multidrug resistant strains of Staphylococcus species with improved sensitivity and reduced MIC values of antimicrobial.
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi,
Antibiogram Typing of Biofield Treated Multidrug Resistant Strains of Staphylococcus Species, American Journal of Life Sciences.
Vol. 3, No. 5,
2015, pp. 369-374.
Heilmann C, Peters G (2000) Biology and pathogenicity of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Gram-positive pathogens ASM Press, Washington, D. C.
Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Winn Jr (1997) Color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. (5thedn), Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Falcone M, Campanile F, Giannella M, Borbone S, Stefani S, et al. (2007) Staphylococcus haemolyticus endocarditis: Clinical and microbiologic analysis of 4 cases. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 57: 325-331.
John JF, Harvin A (2007) History and evolution of antibiotic resistance in coagulase negative staphylococci: Susceptibility profiles of new anti-staphylococcal agents. Ther Clin Risk Manag 3: 1143-1152.
Favre B, Hugonnet S, Correa S, Sax H, Rohner P, et al. (2005) Nosocomial bacteremia: clinical significance of a single blood culture positive for coagulase-negative staphylococci. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26: 697-702.
Vuong C, Otto M (2002) Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Microbes Infect 4: 481-489.
Rupp ME, Crossley KB, Archer GL (1997) The Staphylococci in human disease. Infections of intravascular catheters and vascular devices. New York, Churchill Livingstone.
Agvald-Ohman C, Lund B, Edlund C (2004) Multiresistant coagulase-negative staphylococci disseminate frequently between intubated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Critic Care 8: 42-47.
Dinges MM, Orwin PM, Schlievert PM (2000) Exotoxins of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Rev 13: 16-33.
Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) An effect of biofield treatment on multidrug-resistant Burkholderia cepacia: A multihost pathogen. J Trop Dis 3: 167.
Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) Antimicrobial sensitivity pattern of Pseudomonas fluorescens after biofield treatment. J Infect Dis Ther 3: 222.
Benor DJ (2002) Energy medicine for the internist. Med Clin North Am 86: 105-125.
Movaffaghi Z, Farsi M (2009) Biofield therapies: Biophysical basis and biological regulations. Complement Ther Clin Pract 15: 35-37, 31.
Dhabade VV, Tallapragada RM, Trivedi MK (2009) Effect of external energy on atomic, crystalline and powder characteristics of antimony and bismuth powders. Bull Mater Sci 32: 471-479.
Trivedi MK, Patil S, Tallapragada RM (2013) Effect of biofield treatment on the physical and thermal characteristics of silicon, tin and lead powders. J Material Sci Eng 2: 125.
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.
Shinde V, Sances F, Patil S, Spence A (2012) Impact of biofield treatment on growth and yield of lettuce and tomato. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 6: 100-105.
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.
Lenssen AW (2013) Biofield and fungicide seed treatment influences on soybean productivity, seed quality and weed community. Agricultural Journal 8: 138-143.
Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.
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.
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.
Haque N, Hossain MA, Bilkis L, Musa AK, Mahamud C, et al. (2009) Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mymensingh Med J 18: 142-147.
Duran N, Ozer B, Duran GG, Onlen Y, Demir C (2012) Antibiotic resistance genes and susceptibility patterns in staphylococci. Indian J Med Res 135: 389-396.
Drago L, De Vecchi E, Mombelli B, Nicola L, Valli M, et al. (2001) Activity of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against urinary pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 48: 37-45.
Gardete S, Tomasz A (2014) Mechanisms of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Invest 124: 2836-2840.
Roman F, Roldan C, Trincado P, Ballesteros C, Carazo C, et al. (2013) Detection of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with 23S rRNA and novel L4 riboprotein mutations in a cystic fibrosis patient in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57: 2428-2429.
Ishii Y, Alba J, Maehara C, Murakami H, Matsumoto T, et al. (2006) Identification of biochemically atypical Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates with three automated identification systems. J Med Microbiol 55: 387-392.
Cunha Mde L, Sinzato YK, Silveira LV (2004) Comparison of methods for the identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 99: 855-860.
Koithan M (2009) Introducing complementary and alternative therapies. J Nurse Pract 5: 18-20.
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.