Òåõíîëîãèÿ âåäè÷åñêèõ âèáðàöèé Ìàõàðèøè
Íåâðà÷åáíûé ìåòîä îæèâëåíèÿ âíóòðåííåãî ðàçóìà òåëà
As of March 26, 2001 we had database entries for 4,722 consultations. At least 1,186 of these were repeat consultations, by the same people, although not necessarily for the same disorders. The actual number of repeats is probably a couple of hundred more than this, since we did not keep track of this datum for the first few months of the program. Approximately 3,300 is a realistic estimate of the number of distinct persons who have participated in our program. A summary of our records on repeat consultations is provided in Table 1.
For the sake of simplicity we will consider each consultation to involve a distinct participant.
Table 2. Disorders Addressed
The 4,722 total participants had 8,974 disorders addressed—an average of 1.9 disorders per participant. 2,267 participants had more than one disorder addressed in their consultation. A summary of the number of disorders addressed and by how many participants is provided in Table 2.
More women than men participated in our program, 54% or 2,550 women compared to 46% or 2,172 men. The great majority of participants were middle-aged, with 5% aged 0 to 19, 10% aged 20 to 39, 71% aged 40 to 59, and 15% aged 60 or older. The oldest participant was a 95 year old man.
Self-evaluation (SE) results forms were filled out for each disorder addressed after each session, 7297 after session one, 7033 after session two and 6495 after session three. Of these, participants provided a numerical estimate of percent improvement for 2223 disorders addressed after session one, 3407 after session two and 3751 after session three. Our staff made qualitative assessments of comments on several hundred self-evaluation reports where participants felt it was too soon to evaluate numerically. By and large, the distribution of these qualitative reports was consistent with the numerical results. For 1640 disorders addressed, 937 participants provided numerical estimates following all three sessions. These 1640 numerical reports provide the basis for the primary data analysis for the MVVT program.
Chart 1, below, follows the progress of the participants through the three sessions, and shows that the results are cumulative—the average percent improvement increased from the first session to the second, and again from the second to the third session.
Chart 1. Cumulative Results: Average Percent Improvement by Session.
After the third session, the average percent improvement was 44.57%, with 6% or 98 of the 1,640 disorders addressed reported as100% improved.
Table 3. Quartile Results for All Disorders following Third Session
By dividing the results into four quartiles, as shown in Table 3, we can see how the results were distributed. Note that 65% or nearly two-thirds of the disorders evaluated improved by more than 25%. Chart 2 illustrates these results graphically.
Chart 2. Totals for All Disorders
Table 4. Accelerating Improvement With Repeat Consultations
5 and Chart 3, below, list the categories of disorders from most to
least successful. Table 5 shows the distribution of reports between
the four quartiles (75 to 100% improved, 50 to 74% improved, 25 to 49%
improved and less than 25%). The average percent improvement for
each category of disorders is shown in the right-hand column, and the
number of reports for each category is given in parentheses after the
name, in the left-hand column.
Table 5. Disorder Categories Listed in Order of Success
Note: the number of reports for each disorder category is given in parentheses.
Chart 3, below, lists the disorder categories in terms of their average percent improvement. The number of reports that each average is based on is given in parentheses after the disorder name.
Chart 3. Disorder Categories
Chart 4 and Table 6, below, list the 50 disorders with 4 or more reports, from most to least successful.
Chart 4. Disorder Detail View
Table 6 shows the distribution of reports between the four quartiles (75 to 100% improved, 50 to 74% improved, 25 to 49% improved and less than 25%). The average percent improvement for each category of disorders is shown in the right-hand column, and the number of reports for each category is given in parentheses after the name, in the left-hand column.
Table 6. Disorders Detailed Results
The 4,500 plus consultations offered at the time of this writing are more than twice the number of consultations at the time of our initial research report, “Phase One MVVT Research Report,” which was issued September 13, 1999. Our current results confirm the initial report in most respects. Most significant, both studies found that two-thirds of participants reported at least 25% improvement by the completion of their third session (see Chart 2).
The initial report noted a cumulative effect, from an average improvement of 29.84% after the first session, to 38.79% after the second, to 45.35% after the third. Our current study (see Chart 1) further documents this cumulative effect, from 29.34% after the first session, to 37.50% after the second, to 44.57% after the third.
Also, the distribution of disorders in terms of success, in this study, is very close to the distribution in our previous study. In that study, we noted that among the categories for which we had a significant number of reports, seven stood out as most successful. These were Mental Disorders, Respiratory Problems, Gynecological Disorders, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Pain as the Primary Problem, Cardiovascular Disorders and Musculoskeletal Disorders. The current study also indicates that these seven are among the most successful (see Table 5 and Chart 3). In addition, both studies agreed that Vision Problems, Ringing of the Ears and Hearing Problems were the least responsive to MVVT.
There were some differences between the two studies. For example Skin Disorders and Dental Related problems did better, in the current study, and Paralysis not as well. The large gap between the two skin disorders, Eczema and Psoriasis, exists in both studies, suggesting a fundamental difference.
As discussed in Section One, 937 participants completed 1,640 self-evaluation reports for all three sessions, including numerical estimates of percent improvement for each session. Of these 937 participants, 215 completed follow-up participant self-evaluations (FPSEs) for 317 disorders addressed, including numerical ratings. The average time elapsed from the date of the MVVT consultation to the date the FPSEs were filled out was 199.65 days, or nearly seven months. Based on these 317 FPSEs, the average percent improvement after seven months was 43.30%.
Chart 5. Stability of MVVT Results
By comparing this figure with the 44.57% average improvement reported immediately following the consultation we can calculate an Average Stability Quotient for the MVVT results over time. Thus, 43.30/44.57 = .97. This relative constancy is inconsistent with placebo or expectation-based explanations of the MVVT results (see Chart 5). An expectation-based account would predict a continuous decline in average results over time.
Table 7, below, provides a more detailed account of the long-term results. The leftmost column delineates the four quartiles (75 to 100% improved, 50 to 74% improved, 25 to 49% improved and less than 25%) immediately after the consultation’s third session. Column two gives the number of consultation self-evaluation reports for each quartile. For each consultation self-evaluation report there is a matching FPSE (follow-up) report. Column three gives the average difference between the FPSE reports and the consultation reports. Column four provides the average absolute difference between the two sets of reports, and column five provides notes on the observed trends within each quartile.
Of the 317 disorders addressed, 217 had improved significantly at the time of the consultation. (Significant improvement is defined as 25% or better.) Based on the FPSEs, 76% of these disorders (165) were still significantly improved an average of seven months following the consultation. Although there were a number of cases of declines from initial good results, these instances were largely offset by the opposite phenomenon of deferred improvement.
Table 7. Follow-up Participant Self-Evaluations (FPSEs) compared to Self-Evaluation reports (SEs) at the time of consultation
Of the 100 disorders originally evaluated in the 75 to 100% quartile, 85% were still reporting significant relief. 52 remained in the top quartile, 24 had declined to the second quartile, 9 had declined to the third quartile and 15 had dropped to the lowest quartile. Of the 22 initially reporting 100% relief, half (11) were still reporting 100% and only 2 were no longer experiencing significant relief (>= 25% improvement). 11 who had not reported 100% relief in their original SEs were now reporting 100% relief in their FPSEs.
Of the 76 disorders originally evaluated in the 50 to 74% quartile, 32% (24) had improved to the top quartile, 22% (17) remained in the second quartile, 20% (15) had declined to the third quartile and 26% (20) had dropped to the lowest quartile. 5% (4) now indicated 100% relief.
Of the 41 disorders originally evaluated in the 25 to 49% quartile, 12% (5) had improved to the top quartile, 29% (12) had improved to the second quartile, 17% (7) remained in the third quartile and 41% (17) had declined to the lowest quartile.
Of the 100 disorders originally evaluated in the lowest quartile, 25% were now reporting significant improvement. 6% had improved to the top quartile, 13% to the second quartile and 6% to the third. 75% remained in the bottom quartile.
The phenomenon of deferred improvement was observed in every quartile, from the 25% in the lowest quartile, who subsequently reported significant improvement, to the 11% in the highest quartile, who attained 100% relief only after some time. Here are some typical participant comments (with the SE à FPSE numerical ratings in parentheses):
Of course, not everyone obtained good results. One participant commented in the FPSE, “I enjoyed the treatments, but cannot say that I am satisfied with the results.” Another wrote, “I felt a powerful effect during the treatment and hours after—but it did not last.” And some who had good results initially found symptoms recurring: “For four months after the consultation, I experienced a significant improvement. Then, three months ago, I experienced a recurrence of symptoms (although less severe) that have continued to today.” (80 à 20%)
But most people (two-thirds) experienced significant improvement, which was usually sustained months later and reported in the FPSE forms. The FPSEs abound with comments such as the following:
Many participants remarked on the blissful character of the consultations which, in many cases, continued in daily life:
The blissful character of MVVT is very much a part of the healing process. Maharishi explains that his purpose is “to make everyone free from disease, pain and suffering, to make everyone healthy. And healthy means happy.”
Ultimately, creating health by means of Maharishi’s consciousness-based programs involves creating Enlightenment. Maharishi makes the connection between health and Enlightenment explicit:
Bliss, happiness and, ultimately, Enlightenment reflect the holistic character of MVVT. It should not be surprising, therefore, that this healing technology has side-benefits. In Maharishi’s words:
Vedic Vibration is that vibration which is the most fundamental creative process in Nature. So while eliminating one disorder in a man, because it functions holistically, it influences all kinds of disorders, not only in one man, but also in his friends, his nation, his world, his cosmos. Everything is made healthier.
Here is an example of the holistic healing effects from our FPSE records. This man came for a consultation for a frozen shoulder and found spontaneous relief from a structural problem that he had regarded as permanent:
The MVVT has meant more to me than you can know. My frozen shoulder syndrome (one month running in 1998) has been virtually eliminated. Furthermore, the MVVT work translated down into my back to my pelvic region. Because of that, my long term pelvic tilt (short leg, long leg syndrome) of the past 36 years has also been eliminated. I haven't seen my chiropractor for 6 months! I am most grateful to Maharishi and have told this story to many friends.”
The physical mechanisms associated with MVVT seem to be more profound than the mechanistic processes underlying allopathic modalities. It seems likely that a thorough understanding of the science underlying MVVT will involve quantum physics, including unified field theory. This holistic level of Nature’s functioning supports healing influences from the environment—which Maharishi refers to as the support of Nature. In one FPSE comment a participant described MVVT’s correction of his high blood pressure as involving a combination of direct physiological causation and indirect receptivity to lifestyle changes:
My blood pressure is rock solid at 120/80 or better. It has been completely corrected without medication. I have been more attentive to dietary considerations and getting exercise. I attribute this increase in receptivity to what is good for me to my MVVT consultation, in addition to the direct positive effects.
Because these holistic mechanics may be unfamiliar to those of us steeped in the mechanistic paradigm of medicine (and most of modern science, generally), it is possible to fail to appreciate the work of the Vedic Vibrations. There may be a tendency to disavow apparent healing or to be unsure of whether to attribute it to MVVT. Perhaps these are examples of this phenomenon:“Current diagnosis: Don't get excited, but an MRI taken after consultation did not show a brain lesion or demyelination. MRI taken 4/98 showed brain lesion etc. which can be attributed to head injury sustained 5/93 (onset of fatigue and post-concussion symptoms). MRI taken 7/99, after MVVT, did not show any abnormalities; however the neurologist said could be due to difference in quality of MRI (two different labs were used). I have not noticed improvement in symptoms, but did experience "bliss" during consultation.” “Degree of disability: almost absent. At first there seemed little difference, but a number of quite dramatic psychological insights/transformations occurred on the conscious level, and at present I feel very little anxiety. What brought it about, I really do not know—MOU? MA in SCI? Vastu school? Reverberation technique? Church involvement?”
These uncertainties on the part of the participants are, of course, understandable. But the holistic quality of MVVT’s healing effect can be tested for statistically, as in the case of simpler quantum mechanical effects.
The Follow-up Supplemental questionnaire together with the FPSE contained questions designed to investigate contributing factors to the success of the MVVT program. The most important findings are, first, that TM and the TM-Sidhi program are not needed for the success of MVVT and, second, that the use of the stabilizer is highly correlated with a successful outcome.
been instructed in TM or the TM-Sidhi program provided no advantage
as far as percent improvement in MVVT is concerned. However, those
who were regular had a decided advantage over those who were not.
Those who practiced TM “Twice a day” had an average 10 points higher
percent improvement rating than those who did not. And Sidhas
who practiced their program “Twice a day” had a 14 point advantage over
those who were not regular.
Chart 6. Use of Stabilizer
Chart 6 shows that there is a significant correlation between use of the stabilizer and successful results. Between the most conscientious (75 to 100% use) and least conscientious (less than 25% use) there is a gap of 9.8 percentage points. The biggest step is between those who used their stabilizer less than 25% of the time and those who at least used it 25 to 49% of the time.
© 2000 by Maharishi Vedic University, The Netherlands