BioResonance Therapy

• How It Works

  Bioresonance therapies are based on unproven theories. They are not recommended for preventing or treating cancer.

  Bioresonance therapies (and other therapies that use electronic devices) claim to both diagnose diseased internal organs and “normalize” the body’s electrical properties and wave emissions. This is based on unproven idea that unhealthy cells or organs emit altered electromagnetic waves and that changing these waves back to normal will heal the body. The electronic devices are often promoted for treating cancer. None of the claims made by the promoters have been proven.

  The American Cancer Society urges cancer patients not to seek treatment with bioresonance or other electronic devices.

• Purported Uses
  • To diagnose and treat allergies
    Clinical trials show that bioresonance therapy and electrodermal testing are not successful in diagnosing allergies.
  • To treat atopic dermatitis (eczema)
    One clinical trial in children showed that bioresonance therapy was not effective in treating atopic dermatitis.
  • To treat asthma
    No scientific evidence supports this use.
  • To treat cancer
    This use is not supported by clinical data.
  • To treat rheumatoid arthritis
    This claim is not backed by research.
• Brand Name

  (Devices): Dermatron, Accupath 1000, Vega, Interro, Hubbard E-Meter, Electro-Acuscope 80, Qi Gong Machine

• Clinical Summary

  Bioresonance therapy, available in clinics in Europe, Mexico, Florida and elsewhere in the U.S., is used to diagnose and treat cancer, allergies, arthritis, and chronic degenerative diseases. A variation known as electrodermal testing was developed as an aid in prescribing homeopathic remedies, and is used in Europe for the diagnosis of allergies. Bioresonance therapy is based on the claim that electromagnetic oscillations emitted by diseased organs and cancer cells vary from those emitted by healthy cells due to their differences in cell metabolism and DNA damage. No evidence supports these claims. Treatment may involve removal and replacement of dental alloys or amalgams, which are said to carry currents that “alter the body’s electromagnetic circulatory system.”

  A randomized trial of bioresonance for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in children showed no efficacy ⁽³⁾. Clinical trials evaluating electrodermal testing show no reliability in diagnosing allergies ⁽⁷⁾.

  The Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted numerous purveyors of electrical devices for making unsubstantiated health benefit claims ⁽⁹⁾. The American Cancer Society advises patients not to seek treatment with unproved electronic devices ⁽⁴⁾.

• Purported Uses
  • Allergies
  • Asthma
  • Atopic dermatitis
  • Cancer treatment
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
• Mechanism of Action

  Bioresonance is based upon the unproved premise that electromagnetic oscillations emitted by damaged organs and cancer cells vary from those emitted by healthy cells due to their differences in cell metabolism and DNA damage. An electrical device supposedly detects these differences and can determine which organs are affected and “cancel out” their diseased signal via destructive wave interference ^(1) (2).

  Electrodermal testing developed as an aid in prescribing homeopathic remedies; medicines are tested “to determine how well they resonate with the individual or how similar they are to the body frequencies needing enhancement to overcome an illness.” Practitioners claim the wave emission from homeopathic medicines or allergens is measured through the device and is modulated through the patient’s autonomic nervous system, influencing skin resistance ^(4) (6). No evidence supports any of these claims.

  Some proponents claim the device naturally kills tumor cells by releasing “suppressed” tumor suppressor genes or attenuating overactive oncogenes. This hypothesis is untenable because of the irreversibility of most cancer-causing genetic mutations. An evaluation of one device found that a galvanic skin response of low resistance was not a reliable indicator of vertebral pathology, and that the device produced a low-resistance reading after 5 seconds of application to any point on the body ^(7) (8).

• References

  1. New Hope Clinic web site. Available at http://newhopeclinic.com. Accessed August 12, 2019.

  2. Barrett S. ’Electrodiagnostic’ devices. BioResonance Tumor Therapy. Quackwatch web site. Available at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/
     Cancer/bioresonance.html. Accessed August 12, 2019.

  3. Schoni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schoni-Affolter F. Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1997;112:238-46.

  4. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: electronic devices. Ca: Cancer J Clin 1994;44:115-27.

  5. Nansel DD, Jansen RD. Concordance between galvanic skin response and spinal palpation findings in pain-free males. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1988;11:267-72.

  6. Royal FF, Royal DF. Homeopathy and EDT: upheld by modern science – with case histories. Am J Acupuncture 1992;20:55-66.

  7. Lewith GT, et al. Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomized block design study. BMJ 2001;322:131-4.

  8. Krop J, et al. A double-blind comparison of electrodermal testing with serial dilution end-point titration and skin prick tests for allergy to house dust mite. Am J Acupuncture 1998;26:53-62.

  9. Federal Trade Commission. Bogus Cancer Cure Guru Settles FTC Charges. October 28, 2002. Accessed August 12, 2019.