Have you heard about the “Trivedi Effect”?
No?
Let me tell you all about it.
This study aimed to compare the growth, meat quality, nutrition, consumer preference, and shelf life of biofield-treated birds with those of the unblessed/untreated control (UBCONG).
Commercial genotypes (Cobb 430Y) of white broiler eggs/chicks were used. The eggs were split into two groups: an UBCONG and a biofield (blessings) energy-treated group. Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly, and meat quality was assessed using nutritional and sensory parameters.
The mean feed conversion ratio was found to be significantly better in the groups of biofield-treated eggs (BTEG; p < 0.01), biofield-treated chicks (BTCG; p < 0.001), and BTEG and chicks [Double biofield (blessing) energy treatment on both eggs and chicks group (DBECG); p < 0.001] than in the UBCONG. Edible meat weight was significantly increased in both BTCG (p < 0.05; 62.69%) and DBECG (p < 0.001; 77.19%) compared with that in UBCONG. Carbohydrate was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 189.47% and 363.16% in BTEG and DBECG, respectively, compared to UBCONG. Vitamin B3 was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 26.45% in BTEG compared with UBCONG. Minerals such as iron and copper were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 2614.92% and 316.67%, respectively, in DBECG compared to UBCONG. The levels of unsaturated fats, monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), C18:1-oleic acid, C18:2-linoleic acid, and C18:3-linolenic acid were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 96.06%, 111.39%, 72.92%, 88.91%, 66%, and 145.35%, respectively, compared with those of UBCONG. The scoring of sensory parameters (color, flavor, taste, tenderness, juiciness, and overall quality/acceptability) was significantly improved (p < 0.001) in the biofield treatment groups compared with the UBCONG. The shelf-life examination of raw chicken meat indicated that it was safe for storage for up to 21 days.
The authors concluded that the biofield (blessing) energy treatment significantly improved growth-related parameters compared with the UBCONG. This treatment also improved the meat quality compared to the increased levels of carbohydrate, PUFA, MUFA, and few minerals such as Ca, Fe, Zn, and Cu than UBCONG.
The trouble here, it seems to me, is that biofield energy is an invention; IT DOES NOT EXIST!
Perhaps, we need to ask how this study came into being. Its authors (1st author Mahendra Kumar Trivedi) come from ‘TRIVEDI GLOBAL INC’. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and managed to publish around 50 Medline-listed studies on the ‘Trivedi Effect’, all showing that it is effective as a panacea.
Trivedi Global, Inc. is a US-based company founded by Mahendra Kumar Trivedi. The company is centered around The Trivedi Effect, which they describe as an evidence-based phenomenon in which an individual can harness an inherently intelligent energy from nature and transmit it to living organisms and non-living materials, anywhere in the world through thought intention, to significantly enhance potency and beneficially alter their characteristics. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi claims to have discovered his ability to induce this effect in 1995.
The apparently substantial revenue for Trivedi Global, Inc. is primarily generated from commercializing the “Trivedi Effect”:
- Collaborating with companies to “energize” or “treat” their products using the Trivedi Effect before they are sold to the public.
- Offering energy transmissions or “Consciousness Energy Healing Treatments” and hosting associated wellness events or programs for individuals.
- Training other individuals as “Biofield Energy Healers” to utilize the Trivedi Effect.
Key products and services of the company include:
- Mahendra Kumar Trivedi and other “Trivedi Healers” transmitting the Biofield Energy to individuals or materials remotely.
- Paid, structured training program to develop a person’s “innate healing abilities.”
- Applying the “Trivedi Effect” to ingredients, food, or consumer products.
Detailed and specific pricings for these services seem to be not publicly available.
So, what should we make of the above-mentioned, new study? Let me express it as politely as I can: I do not trust its findings until I see an independent replication.
2 Responses to Impact of ‘biofield energy’ treatment on broiler chicken growth performance, feed efficiency, carcass characteristics, and meat quality
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Smacks of “Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Technique” (NAET) to me…….
additional info here: https://www.techdirt.com/2016/06/17/highly-dubious-spiritualist-making-highly-dubious-claims-loses-highly-dubious-defamation-lawsuit-against-critic/