Townsend Letter, April 2007 - Hypothesis Of The Biofield Control System (BCS) - Savely L. Savva, MS
Hypothesis Of The Biofield Control System (BCS)
published in the Townsend Letter
Savely L. Savva, MS
In the 1970s,
when I worked as mechanical engineer in Leningrad, USSR, and had written my PhD
dissertation in the field of physical chemistry, I was introduced to what was
called “psychic healing.” I saw a movie about Pilipino “psychic surgeons” that
was privately brought and shown at the Academic Institute of Neurophysiology. I
didn’t think about how it might have been faked — I thought “What if this is
true?” —after all, science progresses through paradoxical observations.
Thus, when in 1985 in Dallas, Texas, I had an
opportunity to join a group of 50 Americans traveling to Mazatlan, Mexico, to
be treated by a Pilipino psychic healer, Romy Bugarin, I jumped on the wagon. I
certainly did not know the medical problems of the group members, but the
variety included people with different kinds of cancer and one man with a
deformed nasal septum (the partition) whom I met later and whose problem Romy
fixed by “finger surgery.”
Romy didn’t ask patients about their problems or
complaints. At the first encounter people were laid on a bench while two
assistants held a white bed sheet behind them. Romy looked at the individual
from a 6 to 8 feet distance for less than a minute. This was the diagnostic
procedure. Then, during the healing sessions — each member of the group was
treated twice a day in duration of five days — he worked on a particular part
of the body. Usually, he indented the body with his fingers and the indentation
immediately became filled with a pink liquid. With the other hand he pulled
from the indentation three types of objects: cream-colored solid strings with
irregular edges two-three inches long; jelly-like blood clots; and films rolled
up into strings. He didn’t demonstrate them to patients, especially when he
worked on their backs, but put them on a plate held by an assistant. I had a
feeling that these things came not from the bodies but somehow materialized in
My personal experience and the outcome of the
treatment were remarkable though I don’t know what else he saved me from.
Working on my bladder, Romy said that there is a
white mass there coming from the right kidney but that it was not dangerous.
For twenty five years before that I had periodical renal colic every two years.
Horrible pain. Every time I ended in a hospital. X-ray didn’t show any stones
in kidneys or ureters and in a few days after morphine injection I could forget
about this. In 1987 in Monterey, California, a local urologist finally
performed a cystoscopy and found a golf ball-size cancerous tumor that
apparently periodically interfered with the ureter outlet. Histological
analysis showed a class two cancer that was removed, but has emerged again, and
since that time has been removed three times showing unchanged histology.
For at least 15 years before 1985 I had a lower back
pain that chained me to the bed for 2 to 3 weeks twice a year. I didn’t have
any back pain in Mazatlan and I didn’t tell Romy about the problem. Romy worked
on four points on my back for a total of less than three minutes and during the
following 21 years, i.e., till today, I have had no shade of my former back
In 1983 I had a mild heart attack. My father, an otherwise
healthy and strong man, died from a heart attack at the age of 64. In 1985 I
barely could carry a rather light suitcase and a local Dallas cardiologist
insisted on a bypass surgery. Romy worked on my heart for 3-5 minutes without
”pulling out” any substance. Upon retuning back home, in Dallas, I didn’t feel
any improvement. I considered going for the open heart surgery but in about
two-three months all symptoms were gone. Sufficient to say that I didn’t see
any cardiologist during the next six years, i.e., till 1991. Later I went
through angioplasty and had four bypasses installed, etc. My guess is that I
wouldn’t have needed these if I had access to Romy again.
Now, the most interesting question is “What kind of physical
interaction is at work that changes the program of death, as in my case, in
duration of 2-3 months?” It is clearly not electric (chemical), electromagnetic
(this will be shown later), gravitational or nuclear — the only interactions
known to today’s physics.
The latter is the subject of the book that I had been
editing for one and a half years: “LIFE and MIND – In Search of the Physical
Basis” and that is printed by TRAFFORD Publishing. The book is a collection of
12 articles by scientists from four countries structured in three parts:
The concept of the biofield control system of the organism,
2 - Paradoxical
scientific observations that indicate inadequacy of contemporary physics to
explain life and mind and suggest ways for further studies, and
3 - Alternative physical models of
the Universe that may incorporate life suggested by five physicists. The
articles are written by scientists and for scientists in appropriate areas of
science — biology, biochemistry, biophysics and physics — but the concept of
the biofield control system is comprehensible to any thoughtful individual. The
following are parts of my introductory article elucidating this subject.
From my Introductory Article
starting with H. Driesch and A. Gurvitsch at the beginning of the 20th
century, suggested the existence of a non-chemical level of organization that
controls embryogenesis — the “biofield.” In the middle of the century,
developmental biologists called it “epiphenomenon of genome” recognizing the
insufficiency of the strictly genetic approach. In the 1960s, the Romanian
biochemist Eugene Macovschi postulated the existence of cellular “biostructure”
— an entity that controls processes in living cells and changes chemical
properties of constituent molecules. In 2000, at the announcement of
deciphering the human genome, Craig Venter, then CEO of Selera Genomics, said
exactly the same — to understand the way the genome operates, it should be
considered a “different” (presumably, non-chemical) level of organization.
Yet, in 2006, the absolute
majority of studies in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics, etc., are
about chemical signals associated with developmental, normal
physiological and aging processes, and diseases — their structure and presumed
mechanisms of action. The control system that arranges these signals is almost
never mentioned, although it is clear that any gene, a part of a DNA chemical
molecule, doesn’t have the ‘mind’ or a ‘plan,’ and the feedback mechanism
needed for controlling anything.
How is the control system of the
organism structured? What is its physical carrier and how is the genetic
information re-encoded on it? The contemporary, still Newtonian physics doesn’t
have any answers to these questions. This monograph is intended to clarify the
formulation of the problem and to suggest some approaches to solving it.
History and Basic Postulates
Alexander Gurwitsch wrote1:
“…the place of the embryonic
formative process is a field (in the usage of physicists) the boundaries of
which, in general, do not coincide with those of the embryo but surpass them.
Embryogenesis, in other words, comes to pass inside the fields. … Thus what is
given to us as a living system would consist of the visible embryo (or egg,
respectively) and a field.”
Perhaps, the term biofield may be somewhat misleading
for the field-like, non-electromagnetic control system of the organism and a
better term would be ‘Biofield Control
System’ or BCS. The following postulated definition of the BCS that is broader
than the biofield concept engendered in embryology comes from viewing the
organism as a self-controlled cybernetic system. Contemporary physics is unable
to explain life and life-related phenomena and many physicists have stated this
unequivocally. Robert Rosen, who in turn refers to Einstein and Schrödinger,
“…biology remains today, as it has
always been, a repository of conceptual enigmas for contemporary physics…”
The following postulates emphasize the difference between the field-like
control system of the organism and its yet-unknown physical carrier(s). It also
suggests ways for further experimental and theoretical studies into both
cybernetic and physical aspects of the life phenomenon.
The Biofield Control System (BCS) is
the operative control system of the organism. In BCS the genetic information is
re-encoded on other than biochemical physical carrier. It evolves in
ontogenesis into a hierarchy of subordinate BCSs of the whole organism, organs,
tissues and cells. At all levels it holds four fundamental programs of life:
development, maintenance, reproduction and death. The mind is an essential part
of the BCS at the whole organism level serving behavioral aspects of all
fundamental programs in addition to the
physiological aspect (see the graph below).
As postulated above, the mind is an essential part of the
biofield control system responsible for behavioral aspects of fundamental
programs of life. The word mind is used rather than consciousness in order to
distinguish the general ‘decision-making’ mechanism from awareness associated
with the latter in higher biological species. The mind includes fundamental
drives or ‘basic instincts’ serving conservation of the individual, the
population and the species, such as attraction to the food and opposite sex,
avoidance of threats and sticking to the group. The mind holds memory and
extracts meanings out of perceived information. It also includes programs
prioritizing the organism’s reaction to changing internal and external
conditions, for instance, how to behave when hunger, threat and sex drive act
simultaneously. Development of the nervous system and the brain in biological
evolution only broadened the mind capacity.
CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE ORGANISM
(Control subsystems exist only in higher biological taxa)
The arrows indicate flows
of control signals and feedback as well as directions of energy exchange. The ‘language’ of the feedback must be the same as that of the
1. Processes associated with brain functions – imagination, emotions, etc.;
2. For instance, pain, hunger;
3. For instance, sexual arousal, muscles
conscious control, etc.;
4. See C. Backster’s and J. Kiang’s articles in this book;
5. Provide energy supply, sensory information and control over muscular activity
Biofield Control System at the Organ Level
The ability of many organs to function after
transplantation to another organism clearly shows the autonomy and
survivability of their biofield control systems.
Besides the sensitivity to commands of the whole
organism control system, BCS at the organ level can be illustrated particularly
by controlling the transformation of inserted stem cells into specialized cells
enhancing the organ’s function. Dr. Evan Snyder of the Burnham Institute in La
Jolla, California, who specializes in application of stem cells in neurological
“We found that stem
cells will shift to give you the requisite number of cells needed. If you put
them into a brain that has fewer functioning oligodendrocytes than necessary,
they somehow know to shift to give you the requisite number. They can sense the
Clearly, stem cells do not sense anything except for commands of the organs’ and organism’s BCS that control their destiny.
Biofield Control System at the Cellular Level
In the 1950’s to the 1970’s, the Romanian biochemist Eugene Macovschi4
postulated his concept of cellular ‘Biostructure’ that is very close to the
cellular BCS as described above. It is an entity that exists only in living
cells and controls chemical processes and properties of organelles and
biochemical molecules, leaving space inside the cell for solutions that are in
equilibrium with intercellular liquids. G. Drochioiu reviews Macovschi’s
concept in the monograph.
The cell’s biofield control system carries all fundamental
programs of life: development, maintenance (metabolism, repair, etc.),
reproduction (mitosis) and death (apoptosis).
of cells’ BCS to signals of the organ’s BCS is mentioned above but cells are
capable of sensing commands of the whole organism’s BCS as well, and even
distantly sensing BCS’ of other organisms. The latter is backed up by results
of experiments by J. Kiang and C. Backster presented in the book.
Fundamental Programs of Life
biologists have been opposing the strictly genetic approach since the beginning
of the 20th century. Lev Beloussov, Professor of the Moscow State
University, presents in the book the history of the biofield concept from its
inception and in the attached to his article Commentary American developmental
biologists Professors John Opitz and Scott Gilbert briefly describe the ensuing struggle. Even the very beginning of embryogenesis is controlled
by a program that is based on the genome but is not simply chemical — chemistry knows of only stochas tic (chaotic) interactions while the first cell division is strictly
However, embryonic development, at least in organisms more complex than a single cell,
apparently cannot occur without participation of an external BCS — e.g.,
mother’s, egg’s, bee hives, ant colony, etc. No more than 80 cells of a human
embryo can currently be grown in a test tube. For further development, the
embryo must be implanted in a uterus where it is controlled by the mother’s
biofield control system — her reproduction program. The birth of the organism
means that its own BCS becomes sufficient for further development up to
maturity. This subject is being avoided even by the most progressive
developmental biologists, perhaps because it challenges current paradigm: What
is the physical nature of this BCS communication?
program includes obtaining and distributing energy from the environment,
breathing, thermal stabilization, self protection (i.e., immunity and avoiding
threats) reparation at all levels of organization from a gene to the whole
organism, as well as population-supporting behavior and so forth. The latter
particularly illustrates how far those programs are from the biochemical
mechanisms acting in the organism.
The reproduction program includes both the
physiological function and the reproductive behavior controlled by the mind of
the BCS. The mother’s reproduction program in mammals, as mentioned above,
controls embryonic development and, for instance, milk supply at the physiological
level. Attachment, care and protection of the progeny work at the mind level.
Pheromones, the chemical molecules, may be only
one of many signals engaging the mail reproduction program in some species.
The program of death is an immanent feature of life.
It manifests in rather stable life spans characteristics for every biological
species and works at all levels of the organism including programmed aging and
diseases. The dying process of the organism can illustrate the autonomy of
lower levels of the BCS hierarchy. After the organism’s death the organs (that
is their BCS), are still alive and can be transplanted into other organisms.
When the organ is no longer alive (cannot be revitalized by another organism)
the tissues and cells are still alive and can be maintained alive in anabiosis
for a rather long time at near 0oC temperature or being fast-frozen.
When we buy meat and fish in markets we buy living tissues. They rot when they
die. The latter is the realization of the program of death at the cellular
level: the cellular organelles, DNA, proteins and other complex organic
molecules are being destroyed by complex genetic and biochemical mechanisms.
Rather recent studies indicate that even bacteria and yeasts have programmed
More complex organisms are operated by the BCS through four
separate control subsystems that use different agents and channels of
communication: nervous (electric), circulatory (chemical), electromagnetic
(hypothetical electromagnetic coherencies and biophotons in tissues and organs
proposed and studied by the F.-A. Popp group8) and one manifested in
acupuncture (called Qi, prana, and so forth, in Oriental cultures) that may
have the same physical carrier as the BCS itself.
Biofield Control System and the Biological Evolution
the current discussion between promoters of ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) and
Neo-Darwinists, M. Behe is absolutely persuasive showing the “irreducible
complexity” of the blocks of a living organism such as the eye, cellular cilium
or bacterial flagellum, etc.9 These and other most complex
organizations could not possibly emerge by random (undirected) mutations. Emergence
of a new species is associated not with just one mutation but with a long chain
of mutations that are clearly not random and must occur simultaneously. Until
the whole chain is accomplished, the individual, leave alone a population or
the whole species, would not have any advantage in adaptation selection, as J.
Bockris noted in his book.10
This was understood by many distinguished biologists like Lev S. Berg who wrote
his Nomogenesis in 1922 — there must be laws determining ontogenesis
(life cycle of an organism) as well as phylogenesis (evolutionary development)
and there is no place for randomness in
the biological evolution.11
problem with the current discussion is that it seems more ideological than
scientific. Darwinism from the beginning enjoyed an overwhelming support of the
scientific community because it presented an alternative to the religious
creationism. Then, it became a dogma with the same function as any religious
dogma — to keep the social organization stable, in this case the scientific
community. However, the actual alternative to Darwinism is not Intelligent Design
but the broadening of the scientific paradigm. An ‘Omnipotent Designer’ would
not ‘play dice,’ in Einstein’s words—He would know what He wants to begin with.
He would not leave the abundant ‘dead ends’ on the branches of the evolutionary
tree still providing a reasonable food chain for the “Omega Point” in terms of Teilhard d’Chardin. And indeed in the religion mythology He starts with
Adam and Eve.
cannot exclude intelligence behind the whole Universe but this intelligence
must have produced all the physical forces, laws of their interactions and
universal constants, including those yet unknown interaction that are
responsible for emergence of life. The idea of such intelligence is not more
unreal than the Big Bang
theory or Chaos as the starting point of
postulated concept of the biofield control system may bring the biological
evolution back into the realm of science. Considering the obvious “mother’s” —
the egg, the ants colony, etc. — role in the embryonic development (see development
program above), one can assume that the mother’s BCS (her reproduction program)
can cause changes in the biofield control system of the embryo and consequent
simultaneous genetic changes in the embryo. This is what can explain not only
the Lamarckian examples of the giraffe’s neck and the bird’s legs elongation
but the whole evolutionary process. Back in 1954 biologist Curt Stern mentioned
the possibility of the biofield participation in the mutagenesis and evolution.12 Thus, the proverbial question
“What came first — the chicken or the egg?”— remains open: the chicken’s mother
might have been a pre-chicken with a transformed BCS.
might have occurred in biological evolution is that some global factor(s)
periodically interfered with the biofield control systems of many living
organisms changing the mothers’ reproductive programs and these, in turn,
substantially and simultaneously changed genomes of the prodigy organisms. Global forces that caused directed mutagenesis,
for instance during the Cambrian period, most likely did not work at the
chemical (genes) level. This is another reason to learn the physics of the BCS.
The cost of health care in the United States is skyrocketing
and there is no political will to stop it. The process will continue leading to
a crisis if biomedical science and pharmacology holds on to the current
theoretical and methodological basis — compensating for wrong or missing
signals of a deregulated or aging organism. This approach has proven to be
viable in many cases such as diabetes, saving millions of lives. However, the
deeper into the organizational levels of the organism it goes — organs,
tissues, cells — the more inadequate and unpredictable become reactions of the
organism. Anticoagulants used by cardiologists can kill patients by brain
hemorrhages; anti-cancerous drugs can kill by destroying the immune system,
etc. The growing rate of adverse effects and
mortality associated with the current medico-pharmacological practices
were reported in the Journal of American Medical
Association.13 Also, an increasing number
of newly developed drugs will not pass safety tests and the society will be
pressed to pay for this.
Further progress of biomedical
science requires a revision of the current scientific paradigm so that it can
include the physical basis of life, mind and life-related phenomena. Studying
the bricks and building blocks cannot lead to the comprehension of architecture
and aesthetics of the edifice of life.
Credible scientific publications,
including those published in our book, suggest that the operation of the
organism cannot be reduced to chemical interactions since contemporary
chemistry knows only electric and thermodynamic forces; that the biological
nuclear synthesis presented by Louis Kervran in 1960-80’s is not a myth; that
the non-structural memory of water manifests itself at organism, cell and
enzyme levels; that human intent and/or expectation may cause bacterial
mutations or affect cellular equilibrium, etc. One of the practical applications
of these findings is that in studies on the effect of new drugs on
animals, the experimenter should be ‘blinded,’ i.e., the experimenter must not
know what to expect of a given sample.
We hope that our book will lay the
ground work for an international scientific symposium with the objective
of forming an international scientific consortium on advanced biophysics. No
immediate gratification may be expected but there are no other ways leading to
significant progress in biomedical science.
And finally let’s return to the beginning of this article
and point out that many people have the ability to interact with BCS of humans
and other organisms but, as in all arts, this ability varies from nothing to
mediocre and to genii like Romy Bugarin. Sometime, when physics will know
better than “this is impossible,” gifted healers will be used in the healthcare
system, though I must admit that am not holding my breath that this will occur
1. Gurwitsch, A.G. The Theory of the
Biological Field. Sovetskaya Nauka, Moscow, 1944, (in Rissian)
2. Robert Rosen. Essays
on Life Itself. Columbia University Press. NY, 1999, pp.17-24
3. Snyder, Evan.
Stem Cells: Interviews. QUEST, Invitrogen Publication for Discovery, V
2, # p.54, 2005
Eugene. The Nature and Structure of Living Matter. Romanian Academy of
Sciences, 1976 in Russian. Translated from Romanian version. Bucuresti, 1972.
5. Longo V.D., J.
Mitteldorf and V. Skulachev. Programmed and altruistic aging. J.Nature,
V.6, 2005, pp.866-872
6. Madeo, F., E.
Harker et al. Apoptosis in yeast. In Current Opinion in Microbiology,
Elsevier Ltd., 2004
7. Lewis, K.
Programmed Death in Bacteria. Microbiol. and Molec. Biol.Reviews. Sept.
8. F.A.Popp, J.J.Chang, A.Herzog, Z.Yan and Y.Yan
Evidence of non-classical (squeezed) light in biological systems. Physics
Letters A 293, 2002, 98-102
M.J. Darwin’s Black Box. The Free Press, NY, 1996
10. Bockris, J. O’M. The New Paradigm. D&M
Enterprises Publisher, 2005
11. Berg, L.S. Nomogenesis,
or Evolution Determined by Law. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969 (original
Russian edition 1922
12. Stern, C.M.
Two or three bristles. Am. Sci. V.42, 1954 pp. 213-247.
13. Starfield, B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World?
J.Amer.Med. Assoc. July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5
Published in Townsend
Letter for Doctors and Patient, #285, April 2007, pp. 136-140