Bioresonance is an alternative therapeutic and diagnostic method employing a device developed in Germany by Scientology member Franz Morell in 1977. The bioresonance machine was further developed and marketed by Morell’s son-in-law Erich Rasche and is also known as ‘MORA’ therapy (MOrell + RAsche). Bioresonance is based on the notion that one can diagnose and treat illness with electromagnetic waves and that, via resonance, such waves can influence disease on a cellular level.
On this blog, we have discussed the idiocy bioresonance several times (for instance, here and here). My favorite study of bioresonance is the one where German investigators showed that the device cannot even differentiate between living and non-living materials. Despite the lack of plausibility and proof of efficacy, research into bioresonance continues.
The aim of this study was to evaluate if bioresonance therapy can offer quantifiable results in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder and with mild, moderate, or severe depressive episodes.
The study included 140 patients suffering from depression, divided into three groups.
- The first group (40 patients) received solely bioresonance therapy.
- The second group (40 patients) received pharmacological treatment with antidepressants combined with bioresonance therapy.
- The third group (60 patients) received solely pharmacological treatment with antidepressants.
The assessment of depression was made using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with 17 items, at the beginning of the bioresonance treatment and the end of the five weeks of treatment.
The results showed a statistically significant difference for the treatment methods applied to the analyzed groups (p=0.0001). The authors also found that the therapy accelerates the healing process in patients with depressive disorders. Improvement was observed for the analyzed groups, with a decrease of the mean values between the initial and final phase of the level of depression, of delta for Hamilton score of 3.1, 3.8 and 2.3, respectively.
The authors concluded that the bioresonance therapy could be useful in the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder with moderate depressive episodes independently or as a complementary therapy to antidepressants.
One could almost think that this is a reasonably sound study. But why did it generate such a surprising result?
When reading the full paper, the first thing one notices is that it is poorly presented and badly written. Thus there is much confusion and little clarity. The questions keep coming until one comes across this unexpected remark: the study was a retrospective study…
This explains some of the confusion and it certainly explains the surprising results. It remains unclear how the patients were selected/recruited but it is obvious that the groups were not comparable in several ways. It also becomes very clear that with the methodology used, one can make any nonsense look effective.
In the end, I am left with the impression that mutton is being presented as lamb, even worse: I think someone here is misleading us by trying to convince us that an utterly bogus therapy is effective. In my view, this study is as clear an example of scientific misconduct as I have seen for a long time.
Retrospective design of this sort of studies can be a way how to bypass legislative rules of clinical research. I don’t know how is it wordwide, but in my country (Czechia), retrospective analyses are out of scope of our regulatory agency (Státní ústav pro kontrolu léčiv) and ethical committee might approve only using or publishing of existing data instead of the study as whole.
true, but foremost it opens the door wide to all sorts of biases and confounders
Is “bioresonance therapy” even a definite technique? There are various different manufacturers.
If “bioresonance therapy” isn’t well-defined, researchers could only test a bioresonance device from a particular manufacturer and say it works or it doesn’t.
I’ve heard some of those machines don’t seem to be doing anything with their input, other than checking that it could plausibly come from a human being. If so, those machines would be just plain scams. No point in spending lots of research money testing *them* for efficacy.
So is there some well-defined thing that “real” bioresonance therapy does with the input? Or do different manufacturers design the electrical circuits and software as they see fit?
What would your thoughts be on all of these positive studies?
they are mostly rubbish
show me the one that you think proves bioresonance to be effective and I will give you a more detailed assessment
Well other than you saying they are mostly rubbish, could you substantiate your answer?
Here´s another link from a TED talk, over 1.6 million views, proving that sound can shatter a microorganism. I feel TED is a pretty well established ethical platform.
Bioresonnance is the applied therapy so I´d love to hear your view on how this is utter rubbish?
Bioresonance is not only rubbish but much more. It is a fraud, as stated by a German court in a ruling.
You left out the most telling paragraph:
You are correct. The part with the Leberkäse is the most telling and also most funny part. The German skeptic scene was hilariously amused.
Here´s another link talking about the Schumans resonance, which is the frequency that surrounds the earth created by the lighting in the atmosphew 7.83 hz, and how it effects the human body. Schumans frequency is broadcast in space shuttles now to ensure that astronaughts can reintegrate back onto the planet when they land otherwise their body´s frequency is different having been off planet.
Resonance is everywhere because everything is energy and vibration. What are you thoughts on this?
my post is about bioresonance as a treatment of disease.
show me a single study that in your mind proves bioresonance to cure or improve a single disease, and I will look at it.
I do not have time to wade through dozens of papers that are rubbish.
You do know the difference between sound and electromagnetic radiation, don’t you?
From the linked article, hosted by a naturopath and acupuncturist: “Quantum physics has shown that everything in the universe vibrates and resonates with a unique frequency. Resonance occurs when a given system tuned to a certain frequency begins to oscillate or amplifies the presence of a preferential external frequency.”
My reply to another promoter of BS including Schumann resonance:
And a TED talk showing results from an experiment of how sound shatters a cancer cell. Over 1.6 Million views.
a TED talk is no evidence for anything other than that there has been a TED talk
Sound waves are real, and have been used for many years to shatter kidney stones. And yes, there are new developments under way to treat solid tumours in a similar way, see e.g. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/using-sound-to-kill-cancer/ .
Bioresonance, however, is NOT real. Bioresonance posits that organs and cells have certain characteristic frequencies that can be measured to assess their state of health, and can also be adjusted via the very same device.
This is complete nonsense. Cells and organs do not have characteristic frequencies at which they resonate or emit any kind of vibration or ‘energy’, and the tiny electrical currents that are applied from outside the body don’t do anything at all.
And the thing with bioresonance is that the makers of these devices usually KNOW that they are defrauding people with their fake devices.