Lesedauer 7 Minuten  

For several years now, the number of therapists and animal practitioners offering bioresonance has multiplied like algae in a summer water trough. The idea sounds compelling: a device that can diagnose metabolic diseases, allergies, and other health problems using hair, blood, or saliva samples — and in some cases even generate complete therapy plans or automatically treat the patient. This is particularly attractive to practitioners without solid training, because they can offer diagnoses and therapies in areas where they actually have no expertise — since “the device does everything.” For that reason, it is worth taking a closer look at what is really behind the impressive, professional-looking casing of such a bioresonance device.

What Exactly Is Bioresonance?

According to manufacturers, bioresonance is a method for capturing the patient’s “energy information” and rendering it visible and interpretable. The method goes back to a system developed in 1977 by physician Franz Morell — co-founder of the Frankfurt section of Scientology — and his son-in-law, electrical engineer Erich Rasche.

The original name of the method was MORA (from the initials of the inventors). Today, the same method appears under many different labels and device brands: bioresonance, radionics, biocommunication, Bicom, BRT, Mora-Color, Audiocolor, diagnostic resonance therapy (DRT), sequential frequency diagnostics, Lykotronic therapy, SomaDyne, VegaSTT, matrix regeneration therapy, electroacupuncture, EVA, and many others (1).

There are now more than a dozen companies offering various devices across a wide price range — from inexpensive entry-level models to professional units costing tens of thousands of euros. The basic principle behind all these devices is the same: the device supposedly captures “pathological vibrations” and displays them as “diagnoses” or findings.

Some devices also claim to invert these vibrations into “healing frequencies” and return them to the body. Others allow access to additional “positive” frequencies from sources such as colors, healing stones, herbal remedies, trace elements, or medications to support healing.

They claim to diagnose and treat virtually everything: allergies, cancer, organ diseases, orthopedic problems, autoimmune defects, and chronic pain; the method is also advertised for “detoxing” after medication, removing heavy metals, or resolving emotional trauma.

Following the basic principle of energy work — that the whole is contained in every detail — many devices, according to manufacturers, do not even need to be applied to the animal itself. No patient history or bloodwork is required. It is enough to place some part of the animal (hair, saliva, blood drops) into the device. Based on that sample, a diagnosis is supposedly made, and “new information” can be imprinted — either onto the sample for “direct treatment,” or onto inert globules or water, which is then mailed to the horse owner for oral administration.

What Do Science and Research Say About These Claims?

A study conducted by the University of Innsbruck took a close look at how bioresonance devices actually work (15,16). The researchers found that these devices are nothing more than Fourier frequency analyzers (explanation here). In other words, they measure naturally occurring electronic noise or microcurrents — not bodily frequencies. Measurements are typically taken via two electrodes that the (human) patient holds, that are attached to the horse, or between which the sample (hair, saliva, blood) is placed. Depending on the device, either skin resistance is measured (as in electroacupuncture according to Voll – EVA), or low-frequency waves — which exist everywhere — are amplified (similar to a stereo amplifier) and made “visible. The supposedly measured “scalar waves” are entirely fictional; such waves do not exist in science (2,16).

Since bioresonance entered mainstream alternative medicine, many scientific studies have been conducted (3–6). Particularly in the field of allergy testing and treatment, numerous studies all come to the same conclusion:
Bioresonance is completely unsuitable for diagnosing or treating allergies or “intolerances.” (7–14)
The same applies to other diseases (17). Because of the lack of proof of effectiveness and concerns about fraud, bioresonance has been banned in the United States since 1986.

One of the most striking studies showing how absurd and arbitrary bioresonance diagnostics is was conducted by Walter Dorsch and Andreas Kolt in 2019 (18: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15007-019-1859-0). For this study, two state-of-the-art bioresonance devices were tested on: 9 healthy volunteers (4 women, 5 men), 2 male patients with medical diagnoses, a corpse, a Leberkäse (Bavarian meat loaf), a damp cloth.
Using identical or falsified information about name, date of birth, sex, height, and weight, repeated individual measurements and comparison tests of volunteer/patient/corpse/Leberkäse/damp cloth were carried out. The procedure strictly followed the manufacturers’ instructions.

The result:

“Existing diagnoses of severely ill patients were not detected. The corpse was certified to be in excellent health, along with a multitude of potential health risks — the same findings seen in all volunteers. Measurements on fresh Leberkäse and on a damp cloth under varying information about age, sex, height, weight, and name produced widely differing findings with relative standard deviations of over 200%. Conversely, results obtained for the damp cloth and the meat loaf under identical personal data were virtually identical to those achieved for the volunteers and patients.” (18)

Thus, the bioresonance devices were unable to distinguish between the very different test materials. A device that cannot even distinguish a living being from a non-living object (damp cloth, Leberkäse) is certainly not a suitable basis for complex diagnostics of allergy causes or metabolic disorders.

Manufacturers of the devices keep the exact working principles secret. However, based on the findings of Dorsch and Kolt as well as earlier investigations, it can be assumed that this “secret” lies simply in a software program that uses a random generator to produce arbitrary diagnostic data based on basic personal details (age, weight, etc.), creating a “report” that unfortunately has nothing to do with the actual health problems of horses.

We highly recommend the Leberkäse method to test a therapist who offers bioresonance examinations. For example, send in a few lint clippings from your high-pile living-room carpet as a “hair sample,” along with information about the breed and age of the fluffy four-legged creature (e.g., Icelandic horse, 6 years old). Then see what fascinating allergies and other health issues the carpet is diagnosed with…

Sources

  • 1. Federspiel K, Bioresonanz-Therapie, Der Skeptiker
  • 2. Kerschner B, Bioscan, Vieva Vital Analyser & Co: Zur Diagnose nutzlos; Medizin transparent, 2020
  • 3. Ernst E, Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language; Forschende Komplementärmedizin Und Klassische Naturheilkunde, 2004
  • 4. Hümmler, HG, Relativer Quantenquark: Kann die moderne Physik die Esoterik belegen? Springer Verlag 2017
  • 5. Wüthrich B et al., Bioresonanz – diagnostischer und therapeutischer Unsinn; Dermatologie, 2014
  • 6. Berggold O, Der sogenannte Medikamententest in der Elektroakupunktur; Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 1976
  • 7. Bresser H, Allergietest mit der Elektroakupunktur nach Voll; Der Hautarzt, 1993
  • 8. Hörner M, Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung; Allergologie, 1995
  • 9. Kofler H et al., Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit; Allergologie, 1996
  • 10. Niggemann B et al., Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative?; Allergologie, 2002
  • 11. Schönie MH et al., Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis; International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 1997
  • 12. Schultze-Werninghaus G, Paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie; Allergo J., 1993
  • 13. Wandtke F, Bioresonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST; Allergologie, 1993
  • 14. Wüthrich B: Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis; J. of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology, 2005
  • 15. Cap F, Bioresonanz: Diagnostik und Therapie. Vortrag im Rahmen einer Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Allergologie, ÖGD Innsbruck, 1993
  • 16. Cap F Bemerkungen eines Physikers zur Bioresonanz; Allergologie 1995
  • 17. Püschel K et al., Scharlatanerie mit tödlichem Ausgang; Münchner Medizinische Wochenzeitschrift, 1996
  • 18. Dorsch W et al., Testverfahren zur Überprüfung der Aussagekraft von Bioresonanz-basierten medizinischne Befunden – der Leberkäse-Test; Allergo Journal, 2019
Team Sanoanimal
Latest posts by Team Sanoanimal (see all)