Talk:Bioresonance therapy

Untitled

I redacted this from an IP contributor:-

"

However

There is no evidence supplied above that bioresonance therapy does not work, it seems the information has been supplied to undermine the therapy without any facts. Bioresonance is practiced around the globe by individual practictioners and doctors. If the therapy had no merit it would not be widely available. There may be some cases of unscrupulous practictioners however this true in every profession and not exclusive to this practice. The above information claims devices continue to be sold despite efforts by trading standards officers, however suppliers of the equipment are freely available on the internet, it is hardly any underground movement. The above comments should be removed. Why is the site Quackwatch listed as an authority on the efficiency of this therapy? Quackwatch does not perform any in-house scientific blind studies to prove or disprove the effectiveness of the therapy. Articles on the quackwatch page discuss a Mexico clinic that offered bioresonance as a cancer therapy. The site does not give an indepth discussion the basic tenants of the therapy or explore the therapy clitically with any bit of impariality. There may be differences in practitioners, equipment effectiveness, etc. that influence the overall theraputic results. Does this mean the whole system should be labeled as quackery without futher investigation? This site does the same for other therapies; scoffing at them without providing any evidence from in-house studies to back claims. As such, why should this site be listed on the page as a proclaimed authority on what is quackery and what is not? Do they have some FDA certification giving this authority that has not been promlagated? If they do not have such certification, I suggest Quackwatch be removed from all sites as a source of authority on what is and is not good medicine and science.61.230.112.93 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a generally reliable source for altmed topics, as has been determined many times in discussion at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What is a quack? Is it not a non-certified person or entity that makes medical or scientific judgements or proclamations based on unconfirmed or even hear-say evidence. As someone who relies on wikipedia to offer general and reliable information on its pages, I would expect those posting information to present verifiable and reproducible evidence of their claims or refrain from posting such dribble. I am not a supporter of bioresonace. In this case, I referred to this page to find out what bioresonance is, not what 'Quackwatch' thinks it is. Bioresonace may or may not be psuedo-science. Quackwatch offers no evidence that it is not science; only opinion it is not. Quackwatches opinion would be better left for quackwatch's own website, not here. As you mentioned above, quackwatches authority on these matters is determined through discussion. Discussion results depend on who takes part. Did the FDA take part? If not, maybe we should leave those discussion results aside. 61.230.114.102 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

According to National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine's PUBMed database there are scientific papers about bioresonance / bioresonance therapies like, its usage in pediatrics, in rheumatic diseases, lymphedema, about effectiveness of frequency recordings to water, trigeminal neuralgia, Effect of exogenous frequency exposure on human cells, functional gastrointestinal complaints, positive results on rats with Morris tumors (hepatoma), Effect of bioresonance therapy on antioxidant system in lymphocytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in treating chronic prostatitis, treatment of fibromyalgia, Outpatient bioresonance treatment of gonarthrosis, atopic eczema, acute inflammation, rheumatoid artritis, chronic bronchitis, The efficacy of using an electromagnetic field of extremely high frequency (54-78 GHz) in treating patients with chronic nonspecific lung disease,

The certificates of MORA Bioresonance devices in Europe

of MORA Therapy devices of MORA Therapy devices of MORA Therapy devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bioresonance Explained

All cells, organs, bones, muscles and tissue vibrate at their own rate or frequency and in complete harmony and make up the Body Energy Field (BEF). Therefore the whole body has a complex frequency make up which can change or become distorted when affected by illness or toxic substances.

Bioresonance makes use of a the body's own electro-magnetic signals, alters them and then feeds them back into the body as therapy to restore health or combat illness. Usually the signals are inverted so that peaks of electro-magnetic waves become troughs and vice-versa. Feeding this altered signal back into the body cancels out the pathological electronic information coming from viruses, bacteria, and chemical toxins. This causes the cells of the body to start pushing out and eliminating these disease-causing factors, and so the root causes of disease are removed from the body and healing can take place.

Bioresonance therapy can deal with the real, underlying causes of chronic and degenerative diseases. According to a scientist, Pschinger, the real cause of chronic disease is the accumulation of different kinds of toxins in the connective tissue, i.e. the space between the cells in the tissues of the body. Accumulated toxins block the cells' ability to receive oxygen, nutrients and eliminate metabolic wastes. The toxins eventually enter the cells and produce symptoms of chronic illness.

The human body generates long-wave magnetic fields itself, e.g. when our heart beats. The oscillation energy of such fields results in regeneration, circulation and defence against infections in our cells. Best known of these are the currents flowing in the heart. They can be recorded on an ECG and from the curve produced it is possible to ascertain a normal function or to recognise heart diseases. In the same way that the heart produces its own bioelectrical signature pattern so do the other organs and systems within the body (e.g. brain,muscles, respiratory system etc).Bioresonance is a biofeedback therapy which can target, stimulate and boost the various bioelectrical signature patterns produced by the body to restore health and combat illness.

" I think it is complete bollux, and certainly taking someone with an abnormal ECG (electrical, not magnetic) and throwing electricity at them in an effort to make their heart normal again is not a technique of any credibility, but someone may wish to pick at it piece by piece, identifiying and listing the logical fallacies and seeking citations for those things adduced as facts. Midgley 11:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the quoted text comes from the Bioresonance Therapy page at www.newwaysclinic.com. Tearlach 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is unreadable and makes not a lot of sense.

Rewrite should include + objective description of the theory of Bio Resonance. + How it is applied (reiki, reflexology, electrical-based solutions, ...) + Benefits + Scepticism could be added. This is healthy when proof is difficult. However since Bioresonance is used by such agencies such a NASA there may be some grounds behind it (doesn't necessarily mean anything though).

swear words and unwarranted accusations do not help people make their own mind up as to whether the subject is believable or not

---

Hello ! The german article is far better in my humble opinion. i may translate it into "ugly" english. but a native english-speaking person must correct my spelling after my translating. BTW: the french article is also better than this english stub version. michael Redecke 11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i just translated it. please check for errors. Redecke 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--> I have just reviewed it. Tried to add some impartiality to the document, too. (it is not for the writer to pass judgement)

--> I can't find the French page - can you point me to it?

sorry, was a mistake. there is no french page, but a dutch one. i was working for another german article and i confounded them. michael Redecke 13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

g1970: Made some further improvement but in general agree with your modifications.

g1970: I contest that the link to quackwatch is incendiary and biased and just as much without identifiable proof but then so are the other links to external sites. (I'm new to working on content so I don't yet do things according to the rules). I think we're done for the moment, thanks for the help.

hello g1970 !

• lets take a look to this sentence: ...The device then emits alternating currents...(your version). my comment: this is possible. but where is the proof ? and i agree that it should be possible to measure easely such currents. (i studied electric engineering and human medicine), i left medicine however a long time ago, i am not a doctor anymore and i am working as the owner of a company producing measuring equipment. so its my job... but: where are the results of such a test you are talking about ? i havent seen any so far.

g1970 -> Agreed, I am not in Bioresonance field and I have not looked for this. However, if you mention electrodes, you know something will be receive, and a receiver is very easily transformed into a transmitter...

• other issue: quackwatch-link by barrett. the shown instruments on that page are in part bioresonance-decvices. so this page is clearly related to this article.

g1970 -> Linked (which is why I leave it now) but clearly inflamatory (ie not trying to demonstrate anything, but bringing personal judgement into the equation)

• other question: ...The concept commonly explained is that the cells' natural resonance (ie bio-resonance) modulates the signal when it travels through the human tissues, and the response is monitored.... here your commonly means: view of the manufacturer/user, not science or medicine.

g1970 -> agreed. Only people involved would be sensible to try and propose an explanation. I agree to not being one of them although I have had a Bioresonance scan and the reading, without the person knowing any of my background, was surprisingly personal (ie could not apply to anyone like common horoscopes) and pinpointed highlight. I had never met the practitioner before either. I am a skeptic at the best of times, too, but ready to give things a go to judge for myself. I have to admit I was surprised.

a cell's natural resonance is a completely unknown feature in biology or medicine, its travel also.

g1970 -> Cell's natural resonance. I'm not sure it is completely unknown, but not often measured. More info on magnetic resonance at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/MRI . g1970 -> Magnetic interference is a known phenomenon too. example here: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/26612 g1970 -> However, since I'm not an expert, I can of course confirm that bioresonance is supposed to work from this.

what do you mean ? travel of what ? what are your references ?

g1970 -> Travel refers to the signal. that's why it is refered to as current ;-). Physically speaking, electrical current refers to the short displacement of electrical charges, but this is transmitted over a long distance easily through a conductor, like the body. Magnetic current is directly linked to electrical current (I don't remember the equation though).

we may agree saying: in the view of bioresonance device manufacturer, cells are to considered as resonating objects (with unknown frequency and energy however).

g1970 -> partly agree. 1. the resonating objects are not only the cells but the elements of the cells as well as the whole of a cell group etc... and 2. although I don't have the time to look for reference I'm sure cell resonance has been measured already (although since I can't back up my claim I'll shut up).

g1970 -> In addition, this sentence removes the indication that there is an interference caused to the signal by the resonance of the cell, which is, in magnetic or electrical terms, a subject demonstrated in many schools.

(btw i wrote my tesis about problems related circadian rhythms in man, so i known a bit about rhythms)

g1970 -> sounds interesting, and partly related?

Hypotheses of FA.Popp, George Lakhovsky hould not be the base for a wikipedia article. michael Redecke 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

g1970 -> I don't understand the hypothesis reference here (in fact it would be useful if there references in the document could be linked to an outside website, ideally, if possible.

g1970 -> Actually I'm wondering if we should add these for good measure: http://www.theqxci.com/faq.php#1 http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/xrroidsuit.html

==Membrane fluctuations in erythrocytes are linked to MgATP-dependent dynamic assembly of the membrane skeleton.

S Levin and R Korenstein study

this study is interesting, but has nothing to do with bioresonance. The word bioresonance can not be found in that text, and this is also the case for the word electric. The authors are not describing any electric or resonance phenomenon at all. Redecke 00:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Partially correct. However the study clearly mentions " the observation of low-frequency fluctuations of the cell membrane in erythrocytes and in several nucleated cells '(white blood cell)' suggest that this phenomenon may be a general property of the living cell". The term frequency is evident. The article , as it stands, states " cells are to considered as resonating objects (with unknown frequency and energy however) ". What the researchers have observed is that cells membrane fluctuate at a low-frequency. The word fluctuation means a motion like that of waves, recurrent and often more or less cyclic alteration, that implies a frequency and energy. The study clearly shows that these fluctuations have a pattern and occur at a low-frequency so it does provide some evidenciary support for what manufacturers are saying. To rule out the study because it does not include the word electric or bioresonance is being too selective and certainly showing a POV in the editing. It is likely that the researchers in the above study were not trying to prove bioresonance as such and they simply observed, as good researchers do, what happened under their instruments. Finally if you read the study you will note that the authors suggest that the dominant component of cell membrane fluctuations depends on the mechanochemical dynamic assembly of the membrane skeleton induced by the presence of mgATP, clearly they are talking about a mechanism involving energy. While the exact nature of that energy is not yet determined, you cannot rule out the possibility that there could be an electrical component to this effect. In fact other study have shown that mgATP not only produce energy but also act as a cyclotron at a molecular level and that such a cyclotron interact in a resonant manner with electrical fields in biological systems.NATTO 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ( added comment merged )

I agree with Redecke that it's irrelevant. In any case, it's WP:OR - assembling background material to argue a novel interpretation ("A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article). [1]. (And very shaky background at that; the cyclotron citation tracks back to Corentin Louis Kervran's transmutation theory, which is hardly accepted science). If you can find a reputable third party source saying the Levin and Korenstein study is relevant to bioresonance, fine. Otherwise... 86.142.249.213 07:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon 86.142.249.213|86.142.249.213. No argument was made in the article - only results of research on biological system listed. Of course we would not want to let facts get in the way of prejudice. Interesting to note that the only references in this article are one sided. I wonder why ? Hum let me think ? AR NATTO 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

hello natto ! I started to collect data related to bioresonance many years ago, and I never saw any scientific study supporting the bioresonance-concept. That is the simply reason why I am unable to add any neutral pro-bioresonsnace link. Morell (who died in 1990) was a senior scientology member here in Germany, and many companies producing BR-devices over here are linked to scientology (Regumed/Brüggemann). Morell was described in a german scientology-newspaper (College) as a high rank scientologist, and Brüggemann is member of IAS international association of scientologists as a Patron (>40.000 USD donations to COS). Redecke 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Redecke. I do not know if there are studies directly corroborating bioresonance as described above. You say there are none and that is fine because I do not have a point of view on the issue and I am more or less neutral regarding Scientology. People can and will believe what suits them. However I always remember the words of Carl Sagan " Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ", in addition there is at least some scientific evidence to support the fact that human red and white cells do "resonate" at a low frequency and that this cyclical fluctuation is driven by energy though the mgATP mechanism ( a well accepted scientific mechanism ) and that electrical energy may be involved. That is what the studies mentioned showed. Whether this cell "resonance" has anything to do with what the manufacturers of bioresonance devices claim, that is another matter entirely. I simply think that valid studies in peer-reviewed journals should not be ignored because there are no studies supporting the effectiveness of bioresonance devices. Please lets keep an open mind on this issue so we do not throw the baby with the water. :-) NATTO 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We put things in an encyclopaedia becuase there is evidence they happen, not becuase there is no evidence they do not. Low frequency and high frequency are less useful descriptions fo this than the frequency, in Hz. The Rife stuff was radio frequency, IE MHz range. I am unconvinced, but without reading the article cited, that the phenomenom of _resonance_ rather than an _oscillation_ is being discussed, teh two being different. Midgley 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My previous discussion was with Redecke who appears to have at least reserched the issue instead of issuing broad statements based on his POV. If you first took time to read the study you would have noted that the frequencies are clearly noted in the study, between 0.2 to 30 Hz. Whether you are unconvinced or not is not the point and certainly humanity is not waiting for that. The point is that there is peer-reviewed research that has been done demonstrating that red and white cells do "resonate" at the above frequencies and that "resonance" is driven by an energy producing mechanism based on mgATP reactions. Nothing more , nothing less. This is published and corroborated by other studies. NATTO 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people have studied BR in the past, especially over here from where BR is coming. So, there has been published a lot of stuff (scientific and not-scientific articles) about that bioresonance, and I am sorry to say that I am unable to present any work showing that BR's results are reproducible or suited for a serious diagnosis in medicine. BR is used in alternative medicine for diagnostic and therapeutical purposes. And for this reason a medical test or therapy must show that it is at the same time harmless and effective. Some people may argue that the effectiveness of a medical test must not be proven in a scientific way, if it has been shown that it is (at least) harmless. A new method must always show it's effectiveness, and I don't ask you NATTO for instance to prove me or to show me a well-made study showing that lemonjuice is not effective for treatment of hair-loss, otherwise I would say: lemonjuice is effective because nobody could prove that it is not. Resonance: every object has ist own (mechanical) resonance-frequency für sound waves, even my computer-mouse on my desktop or a pencil. This fact does not link any pencil to BR. Electric currents-conducting objects have furthermore a high-frequency resonance frequency related to it's length and the speed of light. So every paper-clip made out of metal has it's own frequency and my eye-glasses have also their own. The human body has also a resonant frequency (better to say range) related to the length. I am 1.85 m and my frequency is around 81 MHz (VHF). And a single isolated RBC will resonate the best (7µm) at 21,4 GHz (microwaves). These values may differ a bit (a few percent) because the speed of electromagnetic waves will be higher than in air in this case. I was talking about scientology to show not only the links between Hubbards E-meter and BR-devices, but to show also the link to scientologists (at least here in Germany). Some BR-devices have been opened and analyzed (at least one by an engineer) and reports about their construction were published. In at least two cases, a resistor-measuring circuit has been found (Hörner M 1995 and Lee C 1997). This leads us to suppose that BR is based on the same principle than the well known lie-detector (the classic lie-detector as used in the USA usually uses some more parameters however), E-meter (has also been opened several times) and EAV-devices according to Voll (principle is well known). Again S Levin and R Korenstein study: I repeat: their work has nothing to do with BR. We cannot include a link to every study containing the word resonance or frequency hoping that it has somethink to do with BR. Michael Redecke 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Redecke. Thank you for the information. Resonance is thus an accepted fact in biological systems. My point is that this information, should be included with references from peer-reviewed studies, in the article. The proven scientific reality is one thing. the claims ( unproven or otherwise ) made by the manufacturers of BR devices is another. One does not exclude the other. Again we are not here to present a POV over another but to neutrally present all sides of the issue. By including peer-reviewed evidence that resonance is a reality in bilogical system with evidence as to some of the mechanisms of action involved, I simply wanted to allow the reader to be informed such, with other relevant information, so they can make up their own mind as per WP:NPOV. Thanks again for your open minded approach :-) NATTO 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No; it still falls foul of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. That the Levin and Korenstein study can be interpreted as supporting bioresonance (about which it says nothing) is your original assertion, not that of any reliable third-party source. 81.155.126.4 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Resonance is driven by an external source of energy. Sing into a wine glass, the resonance doesn't depend upon a source of energy within the glass. Spontaneous oscillation is what is being described, and I'm not convinced that it is oscillation in anything like the radio/audio electrical sense that is being discussed in relation to cells. ATP is the cell's main energy source for anything. THe characteristic of this sort of health fraud is that technical terms are used in ways that almost seem to make sense, but eitehr deliberately or due to ignorance are not in fact accurately applied. Midgley 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP used for Scamming

This article is at present offensively bad, not just the semi-literate writing or the pseudoscientific waffle, but the reintroduction of arrant nonsense with the apparent aim of getting credibility in Google searches from WP. Midgley 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs improvements, more balance and less POV based on one's world view, peer-reviewed research posted on Pubmed is valid information that can be cited in WP. It is not the job of editors to decide if they like the research or not. It is verifiable and credible. NATTO 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: this article contains statements I have never heard from a BR-related company or a supporter of bioresonance. I will try to compile a short text citing precisely what the BR-device producing industry is telling us or claiming. At the same time I will write a short text with facts known about BR from a neutral point of view. I will need about 2 days, and I will present these two text here on the discussion page. concerning studies: many are in german only, some have been payed by the manufacturer of br-devices and some have a very low quality. So: not every study is citable. Redecke 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Differentiation

This article is so vague that I doubt most readers could fundamentally separate the article's "Mode of Operation" section from accepted "medical miracle" therapies such as "Electrical Stimulation of Bone Healing"--I'clast 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. According to the article ( as written at the moment ) manufacturers describe cells as resonating objects (with unknown frequency and energy however) having a natural resonance (ie bio-resonance). If there is research to support that explanation it should be provided in the article as it is of relevance to the topic of the article. There is proven evidence that human cell membrane actually "fluctuates" at a frequency between 02. and 30 Hz and the fluctuation are driven by an biological energy producing system called MgATP. That is basically what manufacturers of the device are saying.

If on the other hand there is peer-reviewed research proving that cells do not have this property then it should also be included. Either way it is relevant. NATTO 07:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements made by br-devices manufacturer and supporters

(translation made from german texts into ugly English, citations in ) Franz Morell (inventor) explaining his bioresonance: ...basic principle is deletion of pathologic information, that is stored inside the body - precisely within the body fluids (intracellular and extracellular) or stored in the DNA within the cell nucleus.....and he adds: ......Deletion of pathologic electromagnetic waves by inverting them and retransmitting them back into the body....According to Morell, the human body is able to produce healthy (=harmonic) em waves and pathologic (disharmonic) em waves. A br-device is able to detect these waves, and a Separator called circuit is able to distinguish between them, and able to invert only the diharmonic waves. Morell gives no description of that separator. The addition of the disharmonic waves present in the body and the artificial inverted waves from the br-device should end in a deletion of the disharmonic waves. It is impotant to know that Morell distinguishes between a preceding measuring phase and a later therapy phase The reaction of the br-device transforming the incoming signals into the follwing healing waves is called -bioresonance by own waves- by Morell. Brüggemann who (I suppose) copied Morells idea, and who used the word BICOM instead of bioresonance (I suppose to avoid legal actions) for his devices, said: ...electromagnetic steering waves are surrounding the body and are present in it and via the electrodes and cables they can be transferred into the bicom-device. They contain exactly the physiological and pathologic information needed for a individual therapeutical signal. It is the aim of the therapy to reduce pathologic information or even to delete it, and eventually to reinforce physiological information. Inside a bicom device these signals are separated through a filter and inverted electronically. The inverted pathological signal will be retransmitted to the patient and will overlay the signals present.....regulating forces within the body will be disburded.... Later Morell introduced in the eighties another device, using light (red,yellow and blue), the Mora-color therapy. (voices from not BR-related experts will follow tomorrow) Redecke 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Redecke. There is mention of harmonic waves. We know that healthy cell membranes do produce "fluctuations" at a specific frequency range under an energy producing system . Frequencies are of course characteristics of waves. I have not done a thorough pubmed search on published research on the above topic but there seem to be a reasonable amount of it. As mentioned earlier this in itself does not prove that BR devices are effective or do what they are claim to do but it is still valid evidence that there is a biological reality involved. NATTO 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Frequencies are of course characteristics of waves" is one of those phrases which causes me to wonder whether the person uttering them has any idea what they are discussing. There is a logical fallacy in there of course. As examples of one thing wrong with the idea consider for instance is there an autistic wave? autism (frequency), is Smallpox which declined in frequency after Edward Jenner invented vaccination a wave or even oscillatory in nature? Midgley 21:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I was referring to the number of repetitions of a periodic process in a unit of time Definition of frequency and a : a disturbance or variation that transfers energy progressively from point to point in a medium and that may take the form of an elastic deformation or of a variation of pressure, electrical or magnetic intensity, electrical potential, or temperature b : one complete cycle of such a disturbance Definition of wave. All in the context of the above comments by User:Redecke. NATTO 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What about these studies then ?

Forsch Komplementarmed. 2006 Feb;13(1):28-34. Epub 2006 Jan 3.

Placebo-controlled study of the effects of a standardized MORA bioresonance therapy on functional gastrointestinal complaints

Article in German] Nienhaus J, Galle M. Internistisch-naturheilkundliche Praxis, Mulheim, Deutschland.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Many practitioners of natural medicine as well as a non-controlled study have reported about positive effects of MORA bioresonance therapy on psychosomatic diseases. The present placebo controlled study aimed to test the effects of MORA bioresonance therapy on non-organic gastro-intestinal complaints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, placebo controlled study was carried out on 20 participants (10 in the placebo group, 10 in the verum group). The main outcome parameters were the patients' and the physician's estimation of the intensity and frequency of gastro-intestinal complaints as well as the examination results recorded by the physician: stomach pain by palpation, meteorism by percussion and intestinal noise by auscultation, assessed pre and post treatment. Secondary outcome parameters were the electric resistance between hands and feet, data from feces, urine and blood, and the subjective general condition of body, mind and soul. RESULTS: According to the participants' and the physician's estimation the intensity and frequency of the gastro-intestinalcomplaints were markedly and significantly reduced in theverum group (p < 0.01). This was also true for stomach pain(p < 0.01) and meteorism (p < 0.05), but not for intestinal noise (p > 0.05). The main outcome parameters in the placebo group changed only slightly (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: TheMORA bioresonance therapy can markedly improve non-organic gastro-intestinal complaints.

[2] PMID 16582548 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

And

Effect of bioresonance therapy on antioxidant system in lymphocytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

"Changes in the lymphocyte antioxidant system indicate that bioresonance therapy activates nonspecific protective mechanisms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis."

[3] PMID 12511993

and

Low-frequency electromagnetic stimulation may lead to regression of Morris hepatoma in buffalo rats.

"CONCLUSIONS: We cannot exclude the possibility that LF-EM signals transmitted via BRT into the tumor-bearers may stimulate two separate processes: effective immunological response and/or tumor-cell death. The method appears to be capable of inducing the regression of transplantable hepatoma in vivo, thus is a potential subject of further studies."

[4] PMID 15165406

Or

New approaches to diagnosis and treatment of fibromyalgia in spinal osteochondrosis

"RESULTS: The response was observed in both the groups, but in group 2 it occurred more frequently and earlier, was higher and longer. BRT produces no side effects, has no contraindications, acts on the body systemically. It is rather effective against symptoms of neurocirculatory dystonia frequently diagnosed in FM patients."

[5] PMID 11494446

Does that meet with the approval of anon User:81.155.126.4 and User: Midgley ? NATTO 06:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the above and have yet to receive a reply or feedback....NATTO 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not. Midgley 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Then can User:Midgley explain why the above peer-reviewed studies are not acceptable and why they could not be part of the article on bioresonance therapy as an example of research on the subject ? After all the article already contains numerous references to studies, in the controversy section... NATTO 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it comes under original research: specifically synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. They're not merely examples of research; they're examples cherry-picked because they support bioresonance. This is why, to avoid this kind of POV pushing, Wikipedia doesn't work that way: see WP:RS#Some definitions: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources that have made careful use of the primary-source material".86.141.84.89 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So what about this line in the existing article: " Scientific studies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] showed however that the bioresonce therapy could not show effects suppassing placebo-effects, and that the results were not reproducible." Linking to 8 separate studies showing that BRT does not work better than placebo ( of course placebo indiced results are still results but that is another matter ) ? The studies in question are the only references in the article.... Hum... Looks like a double standard to me, or at least an interpretation of WP policy to suit a point of view from some editors who already have a firm point of view on the subject. Finally the use of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position in this situation is a pure point of view from User:86.141.84.89 since the studies in question all prove that BRT is effective so it is not a collection of unrelated studies to try to make the point that BRT is effective as insinuated. NATTO 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a double standard to me

I: agree. So all concerned should abide by WP:RS and WP:NOR.

Finally the use of synthesis of published material serving to advance a position in this situation is a pure point of view from User:86.141.84.89 since the studies in question all prove that BRT is effective so it is not a collection of unrelated studies to try to make the point that BRT is effective as insinuated.

Bollocks. If you have no intention to spin the article, why cherry-pick examples that "prove that BRT is effective"? We've seen this all before. The question is, who to trust to be objective? Editors who edit a wide variety of articles, or those who join up and devote all their efforts to altie axe-grinding? (in your case, rubbishing QuackWatch and puffing bioresonance and Andrew Weil). 86.139.254.189 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if User:Midgley could post comments under his user name instead of using anon edits... I fully agree with applying WP policies including ASSUME GOOD FAITH instead of making accusations at other editors ! The article as it stands it clearly POV displaying the personal view of some editor(s). The way it is written there is no evidence in favor of BRT - This is clearly not true since there is such evidence. I have place a NPOV tag on the article as it stands NATTO 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Midgley; can't you tell the difference? There comes a time when it's difficult to assume good faith. We are supposed to be writing articles that reflect the best consensus of what reliable sources say about the subject. You, however, are persisting in collecting sources that reflect a pro-bioresonance view rather than sources of maximum reliability (ie real medical ones). The article isn't displaying the unsupported personal view of editors; it's displaying the mainstream view of reliable sources (for instance, the American Cancer Society's Electromagnetic Therapy page [6]).

I agree with you that the polemical tone could be diminished ("no evidence for claims" rather than "fraud"). Incidentally, the ACS page covers most of citation issues; and the The Bioresonance Practitioners Society [7] ought to be a reliable source for bioresonance therapists' own assertions of what the technique involves. If anyone has access to a copy, Edzard Ernst's The Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine: an Evidence-based Approach, has a section on bioresonance. 86.145.94.135 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Especially since you are an anon who use various IP addresses (81.155.126.4., 86.141.84.89, 86.139.254.189, 86.145.94.135 ) and User:86.141.84.89 replied to a question put to User:Midgley. Before lecturing others you should look at yourself and you should also read WP:NPOV , especially the following:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I do not see anything in there about reflecting the best consensus. WP is not about reflecting only the majority opinion but about providing information based on verifiability. You are defending your point of view however your point of view is not the ONLY one. Since there is verifiable evidence as per WP:RS that BRT does work, WP policy dictate that it be included in the article. NATTO 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight covers the situation fine. The big picture is that belief in the efficacy of bioresonance is a minority view and one not supported by the most reliable sources (ie mainstream real medical ones). The overall thrust of the article should reflect that, rather than it being a hand-picked defence of the concept. Incidentally, citation-tagging everything in an article is well in the territory of disruptive editing. It's not necessary to provide citation for things that are generally accepted (except by wackos). 86.145.94.223 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If those studies exist, they should be noted. In the line of: "Some researches suggesting bioresonance can <results>, but these are <reason why they are not valid>. This would be much better than just ignoring them.217.149.211.109 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I kind of have to concur about the "double standards".

• Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460.

is also not only a primary source, it's also a tiny study with 30 participants. I haven't checked the other ones, but this one should be removed.

Also a lot of them seem to deal with the diagnosis (and possibly also treatment) of allergies, which doesn't really cover the wide range of claims made.

It really looks like you tried to leave the impression "there is a plethora of studies that showed bioresonance is useless" and in the process desperately included anything that speaks against it. My suspicion is, that the true picture is much more that all those bioresonance claims are mostly ignored by people with a scientific background as a) the mechanism of action doesn't seem plausible and b) there's no real standards for these "devices" and so you could only say "model xxx was not efficient in doing yyy", isn't very satisfying even as a negative result. That heap of citations should be classified and pruned. Useless studies like the one I named should be removed, in the best case leaving 2-3 reviews. If general-overview reviews to bioresonace are lacking, the article should state what is covered (allergies, stuttering, etc....). 129.105.80.215 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

July 26

On 26 of July I published the following text at the page bioresonance therapy:

The phenomenon of the nuclear magnetic resonance is well known in physics. The atomic nuclei absorb and re-emit magnetic fields with a resonance due to re-orientation of the magnetic moment. The magnetic resonance tomography is based on this phenomenon. The resonance is present in the aqueous medium of man or bio environment. There are conditions for this to be bioresonance. Withresearch of bio-photon emission (200-800 nm), Fritz-Albert Popp has proved the selective (bioresonance) absorption of electromagnetic waves by malignant tumors. The bioresonance therapy is in an electromagnetic range that differs from the range of the electromagnetic spectrum of water. Whether there is a bioresonance in a bioresonance therapy in millimeter and centimeter waves, remains to be proven. These waves have a smaller energy compared to the waves in the water spectrum, which are in the micrometer and nanometers ranges.

There is difference between phenomena bioresonance and bioresonace therapy. The deffininition Body Energy Field is not correct. In my text is clear visible that there is bioresonance in water of biological system. This is bioresonance. If somebody can prooves that this is not that, please explain that in scientific level. The originators of bioresonance devices make strange mix of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borromi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the therapy, so you'll need to stay on-topic.

You'll also need to use reliable sources (RS). Please rethink what you're trying to do, find RS, and then present (here on the talk page) what you'd like to do or add, and then other editors can look at it. We edit collaboratively here, so let's see if your properly sourced and properly worded suggestions can be used to improve the article. We'll be happy to work with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer, in the case of nuclear magnetic resonance we have the same situation as a scientific debate with Professor Hawking. Professor Stephen Hawking stated that the energy in the black hole is lost. An unpopular physicist pointed out that this is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Hawking admitted his mistake.

Statistically reliable results are continuously displayed and demonstrated in each medical clinic, at each congress on nuclear tomography. They are published in statistically reliable sources.

Water in the human body is a biological system with bioresonance. I have already written that electromagnetic waves emitted by bioresonance devices have little effect on the water in the human body. Frequency-wise, they do not fall within the spectral range of water in the body. These are clear laws of physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borromi (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your desire to discuss this subject, but that's not really the purpose of a talk page. We're not a blog or discussion list. Please propose the exact wording you'd like to add, but provide references for each detail of the content. Without that this discussion may as well end here. We're not allowed to just add facts without proper sources. The issue has nothing to do with the truth or accuracy of what you're writing, but of sourcing it to reliable sources that say it VERY specifically about the therapy. Even if the content is related to the therapy, that's not good enough. It must be specifically about the therapy, otherwise we risk a synthesis violation.

I suspect you might be able to find more discussion of this matter in skeptical sources, since this is a fringe, pseudoscientific, subject. Because of that, mainstream science may not bother with it. Such skeptical sources might be allowable as sources because of our rules here. We often encounter this situation because alternative therapists and pseudoscientists create nonsensical explanations for things which are unsupported by known science, and usually contrary to it. Therefore serious scientists don't waste time doing research on the matter. Thus there exist no RS in scientific research. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear BullRangifer, thank you very much for your efforts. I show to 3 publications in eminent journals. It is clear that there is difference between resonance in water and resonanc in water in biological systems or short bioresonance. The biorosonance therapy regarding my scientific analysis is no more than metaphysics. Bioresonace is phenomena and this is different regarding bioresonance therapy.

1. Edzes, H, Samulski, E., The measurement of cross-relaxation effects in the proton NMR spin-lattice relaxation of water in biological systems: Hydrated collagen and muscle, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Volume 31 (2), 1969. 2. Glasel, J., A study of water in biological systems by O-17 magnetic resonance spectroscopy. II. Relaxation phenomena in pure water, PNAS, 1967, 58(1): 27–33, 1967. 3. Beall, P, Nuclear magnetic resonance patterns of intracellular water as a function of HeLa cell cycle, Science, Vol. 192 no. 424228, 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borromi (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Please take a look at this study, as it is but one of many scholarly journals on the subject of alternative medicine, this one with some information about bioresonance specifically, I have found. I don't know if it will be added, considered, or dismissed, but as for a supporting argument to bioresonance therapy, it could start here. Goldura, N., & Gotia, S. (2010). BIOETHICS AND COMPLEMENTARY/ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE. Revista Romana De Bioetica, 8(1) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1286684595?accountid=14667

-University of Michigan student, CAM interestee, concerned for the future of medical practitioner techniques and variety therein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.18.11 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific research about bioresonance therapies

Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) tried to add information about scientific papers published in reputable journals supporting the use of bioresonance therapy in various applications. That edit was reverted, by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) (me), based on the fact that the edit appeared to be an effort to advocate for bioresonance therapy. At the time, I did not take the time to inform Enigma of my reasons for reverting, and I'll take the 40 lashes for that. However, since the edit was reverted, it should not have been reintroduced without discussion (per WP:BRD). When it was reintroduced (by Cbagdatli (talk · contribs)), it was once again reverted, this time by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), after which the edit war ensued.

So, with that history behind us, let's actually discuss the changes. The requested material consists of the following:

According to National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine's PUBMed database there are scientific papers about bioresonance/ bioresonance therapies like:

• its usage in pediatrics,
• in rheumatic diseases,
• lymphedema,
• about effectiveness of frequency recordings to water,
• trigeminal neuralgia,
• Effect of exogenous frequency exposure on human cells,
• functional gastrointestinal complaints,
• positive results on rats with Morris tumors (hepatoma),
• Effect of bioresonance therapy on antioxidant system in lymphocytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,
• in treating chronic prostatitis,
• treatment of fibromyalgia,
• Outpatient bioresonance treatment of gonarthrosis,
• atopic eczema,
• acute inflammation,
• rheumatoid artritis,
• chronic bronchitis,
• The efficacy of using an electromagnetic field of extremely high frequency (54-78 GHz) in treating patients with chronic nonspecific lung disease,
  

My personal assessment (disclosure: I am a software engineer, not a doctor or medical researcher) is that these articles are a shotgun of links, some of which may have something to do with bioresonance therapy, and others of which have nothing at all to do with it. Some of the articles have been translated into English so poorly as to be largely useless. (How do these people get these things published??) (My particular example for this is the article titled "Information-wave technologies: rationale and guidelines for their use in pediatrics". What's an "information-wave"?) Many of the papers are informal observational studies without proper clinical controls, published largely for the purpose of increasing the available data on the topic, but without any critical review or commentary to evaluate whether the described therapies have any real value. I have not had the chance to evaluate each and every article, but based on a sampling, I suspect the bioresonance therapy proponents have tried to find any article that might be remotely related to attempt to bolster the acceptability of the therapy. I believe that the inclusion of such an extensive collection of links would give undue weight to the proponents of this therapy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of junk, worse (if possible) for being marked-up as external links in the body. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have right to put content on wikipedia like any user. I am not deleting your content although this is allowed too without discussing. I will once more put the scientific content you are insistingly deleting and then if you be respectful to the others we may discuss.Otherwise you may be also blocked as you wrote because of preventing us to publish scientific information to correct this nonsense collection of non scientific texts. First do not delete peoples edits and be respectful to others please. Now I am putting once more my contributions. --Enigma9035 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't, or it will be the end of it—for ever. Get wp:CONSENSUS here first. - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, you have the privilege to put content on Wikipedia, a privilege that Wikipedia can revoke if they find you operating outside of their rules and guidelines. One of those guidelines governs consensus. When controversial material is added to an article, it may be reverted, after which the proper course of action is to discuss the material. (This is the famous Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle that governs Wikipedia.) So, you made a change that was found to be controversial, it was reverted (by multiple users), and now we discuss.

I have already stated my objections to the material above. To summarize, I find the collection of articles to be largely irrelevant. They are either unrelated to BRT at all, or they are only small observational studies without sufficient controls to make their results meaningful. Also, the spewing of a bunch of links on the page without any commentary smacks of advocacy -- an attempt to legitimize this subject by shear force of numbers, rather than any actual reporting of the facts discussed in the papers. I would propose that, rather than simply dropping these bare links into the article, you actually propose some prose that summarizes the articles' content: how BRT relates to any of the subject areas discussed. (Propose the changes here on the talk page would be better so as to obtain consensus (that magic word again!) before introducing the material into the article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like someone did an irrelevant pubmed search and copy pasted the results into the article no matter how tangential or how methodologically poor the articles are. No idea why anyone would think that would be suitable content. Violates WP:OR and is basically a WP:SYNTH to give the impression that Bioresonance is scientific, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To me, judging Enigma9035's first edits this did not look like the idea was to give the impression that bioresonance is scientific. On the contrary. There might be some interesting stuff in there. Hence my remark above and here. But on closer inspection, the edit was a serious mess. I should have looked much closer. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the same article copy-pasted again with a list of papers, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear all first of all I am very new to WP and I apologise from the related users cause I didn`t know the discussoin rule about edits and it was surprising for me to see some one is deleting real scientific data.

As a Specialist Family Medicine Doctor with about 20 years of experience, I am still having difficulties why you are resistant to publish the positive medical research which is on PUBMed? It is our (Medically Educated people`s) most respected database, not every publication is listed there, it has it`s rules). But giving a wrong impression to the people Bioresonance is pseudoscience (very big word, how you will prove it? And as normally you are unable to prove it why this text does not still have any positive finding about Bioresonance, but even some TV gossips?), it has no scientific research ?(but there is scientific research and why not to also put the results of these? Are you medical biophysics authors to judge these studies and to decide to put only the negative results... why?)

Even about tobacco cessation there are very good studies with positive results. Will you let me to inform people about these scientific studies or will you only talk about BBC show gossips (very encyclopedic isn`t it)?

Every method can be used with bad intentions on the hands of dishonest people, (is it normal to emphasize that much in an encyclopedia instead of being neutral), like mammographies, antidepressants (antidepressants has an effect similar to placebo levels by the way), cholesterol lowering drugs (our centuries most shameful medical error)), but the main idea of current text is not neutral giving out an very negative impression instead of being neutral and letting readers of wikipedia to see both sides of the issue and decide themselves, why?. --Enigma9035 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

--178.132.217.42 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Two guidelines which particularly apply to the content here are WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, we need to be in line with their advice. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will read the guidelines in a suitable time. Cause this page like this is completely giving a non neutral impression. I will make a summary of all scientific data in time, here is an other example of scientific study about smoking cessation presented during 4 European Congress for Integrative Medicine - Berlin, October 07 - 08 in 2011.

--Enigma9035 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Enigma: As has been pointed out before, the papers you have listed from PubMed are a largely irrelevant. Many don't discuss BRT at all, but deal with other radio-wave therapies. Those that do relate to BRT appear to be small observational studies ("I've used BRT in my practice for the past 5 years, and here's what I've seen.") While such anecdotal evidence may point others in a direction of further study, it has little value itself in verifying whether BRT is a valid medical therapy. Lacking proper controlled experimental conditions, such papers have little value. The controlled studies that have been done have found BRT largely ineffective. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just had time to read the above talk entries from the beginning. Now I am suspicious about a logical consensus may happen here cause already multiple other users noted very clearly the nonsense and purposeful parts to give an all negative impression of Bioresonance therapies. They already explained their similar ideas to make the article more neutral.And what happened? NOTHING...

This article definitely is not reflecting the truths and not letting the readers to decide by themselves after getting the neutrally presented informations.

If your main point is presenting neutral information to people, can you please read the current ver of this article and ask yourself is this a neutral text?

After reading all above now I lost my all belief to this consensus system. There is either hidden support of pharmaceutical sector here or someone is only having ego satisfaction by using the rule sets of wikipedia. I understand this may also be a need for these editors to play with the rules of WP teasing people with their level of english and get ego satisfaction.

Just for your information, below are the Europian Certificates about one brand of bioresonance devices as Class II A Medical Device. But I know of course these are also irrelevant like PUBMed listed publications, but some how ″According to Quackwatch″ and TV gossips are valuable. Or the same PUBMed search results showing its ineffectiveness for certain indications are welcome :)
Certificate1
Class II A Certificate
I decided as a Medical Doctor to prepare a scientifically neutral page about bioresonanse. I will also post it here as an alternative point of view. But I should mention your responsibility about disinforming people.
--Enigma9035 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this quote from the lede properly sums up the therapy...

"... the therapy is completely senseless and the proposed mechanism of action impossible"

Nothing I could say could better that. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

My main problem with the article as it stands now is that the proposed mechanism of action, while deemed senseless and impossible, is never actually fully described. I'd like to see the article expanded with more information about what the therapy's proponents actually believe it does and how. So long as this information is couched in language that makes it clear that it is the proponents' view, and not the view of mainstream scientists, I believe such information would have merit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Quackwatch piece has quite a bit on this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. And it contains links to websites of practitioners that contain more insight into the proponents' viewpoint. I propose the following modification to the "Methods" section:

BRT proponents claim that the cells of the body exhibit certain natural resonant electromagnetic frequencies with which they communicate with each other.[8] Furthermore, proponents claims that disease processes such as cancer disturb these frequencies[9] in a characteristic manner that can be detected by specialized equipment so as to diagnose the underlying disease,[10] and that the frequencies can be "realigned" in order to cure the disease.[11] With specific reference to cancer, proponents believe that the TP53 gene responsible for programmed cell death becomes suppressed in cancer cases, leading to to the growth of tumors, and that the application of specific resonant frequencies can re-energize the gene.[12]

I believe that language such as this will better inform the reader what BRT is, and allow them to better evaluate the opposing views as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should confine ourselves to citing reasonable-quality secondary sources only (i.e. not regumed.com) . Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I would agree if I could find a complete description of the technique in any more reliable source. I think that, for the purposes of describing what proponents believe about this therapy, a practitioner's website should be considered reliable. Not reliable as a general source, but as a source for this particular information, yes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be concerned about undue weight. If secondary sources aren't including this fringe content, then why should Wikipedia? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll concede that point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@WikiDan61@Alexbrn I am a bioresonance practitioner and as mentioned before, family medicine specialist. May be not very related about our discussion, but let me tell you how it started for me to be interested about brt. The beginning was to search a solution of my mothers 50+ years, lately 2 packs/day smoking addiction. After trying every kind of conventional ways (including zyban and champix they were also quite effective, but she couldn't tolerate the side effects) , I decided to consult to one of my colleague who was known to apply BRT. When we arrive I was surprised to see a weird machine like the ones in old space vehicle of Mr Spak, giving out funny noises. As my colleague relaxed me for the safety, I said lets try and see. After the procedure they gave us a small bottle saying that this is the homeopathic solution and stick a small metal coin below her umbilicus that they call "chip". I thought these are the accessories to create a placebo effect for a consuming programmed mind... But the result was surprising again, for the first time in her life she immediately stop smoking. She said I lost my all desire to smoke. She didn't smoke for a long time about a year then she started again one by one. I started sending patients to my colleague and most of them succeed to stop.
I tried on myself he said now as you see there is a resonance with oxyuriasis and it continues with higher amplications, you have this worm in your intestine. I said yes yes of course :) Two days later I felt the symptoms of it ... I used an antihelmintic drug and problem solved.
I am completely aware of the difficulty to explain it"s effect cause I am having this problem every day.
Now if you let me some time (about 2-3 weeks) I will prepare a web page about BRT, try to be as much as neutral but of course relative to my education and experience on brt. It will be a good source from a brt practicing doctor. In the mean while if I find good sources will write here for everybody's consideration.

  --Enigma9035 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am supporting your idea [[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]] . We should produce a neutral page. I also say that Bioresonance is an alternative medicine therapy method which can be used as a support for conventional medical methods. And this is what the authorities are allowing for Bioresonance therapies. Trying to cure a cancer patient with unproven methods of any kind is something which will not be applied or allowed by us (Doctors). But this article again is completely written in a opponent point of view without caring about neutrality and not presenting the real situation.

Putting a method which has scientific studies, certificates and permissions to practice by component authorities in pseudoscience category is wrong from the beginning, Bioresonance Therapies should be in Questionable science upon the descriptions below

Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Four groups

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

--Enigma9035 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Enigma9035: I'd have to disagree with you on your classification of BRT as "Questionable science" as defined by the ARBCOM. I'd definitely put it into the "Generally considered pseudoscience" category based on the overwhelming opinion of mainstream science regarding this therapy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• ArbCom does not decide content policy, it is specifically outside their remit and they have no implied competence in science. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pertinent source

From Edzard Ernst, a study of the pseudoscientific language used in BT (in German only I think; I'm trying to secure a copy):

• Ernst E (2004). "Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language". Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 11 (3): 171–3. doi:10.1159/000079446. PMID 15249751. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I think this small, but placebo controlled and randomized study is also published in the same Journal, Forsch Komplementmed. 2006 Feb;13(1):28-34. Epub 2006 Jan 3. study of the effects of a standardized MORA bioresonance therapy on functional gastrointestinal complaints.
And in the current version of the article there is the first study, but this one is not.

--Enigma9035 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure we should attach too much credence to a study that purports to have measured the "general condition of body, mind and soul" of the subjects. As far as I'm aware, the soul has proved somewhat resistant to scientific investigation, beyond initial inconclusive attempts to determine its mass AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, if we are giving reference to a Journal that only the abstract of the study can be read and when we read this abstract still we can not understand the method and findings of the author to achieve the decision he mentioned in the caption of the text, why we can not give reference to the same journal again for a placebo controlled and randomized study? This pattern, which is noticeable in the current version of the text will only reflect the opponent views and is against neutrality. When you read the current text you don`t get a neutral impression to think on and see both sides.
By the way I tried to read the Quackwatch web site about the subject and see that it is talking about bioresonance cancer therapies, cancer therapy with bioresonance is not proven and we doctors have almost no experience about it, we recommend proven methods. But as an integrative medical approach bioresonance therapies may help people without motivating out them from their conventional medical therapies. The problem here is how a method is used, I guess.
As an instance, there are thousands of medicines in conventional medicine if you use them without their indications, this is your error not the medicine`s. Or if someone crazy use a conventional therapy procedure (and the authorities do not audit him enough), let`s say Gamma knife to treat a bacterial abscess in liver, can we then write a text to introduce Gamma Knife Method to millions of internet users, talking about only that Gamma Knife Bacterial Liver Abscess Therapy which is a wrong medical procedure, but not the other areas of use?

--Enigma9035 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Enigma9035: The availability of the full text of the journal article is not the question here. The journal article exists, and can be accessed through various means. The Resource Exchange exists to help users gain access to full sources when needed]]. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes WikiDan61 it is not the problem here to see the full text or not I agree fully to this. But the problem is this there is a supporting study (placebo cont. and randomized) in the very same Journal which is mentioned as pertinent source. If we will be neutral this article also must exist. Why to hide it and just use the opponent one??? --Enigma9035 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Any biomedical content we include should be in line with WP:MEDRS. A single trial, is not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn So it is the same for opponent studies isn`t it or NO :) ? I believe we should include both type of studies, but our emphasis should not create an opinion like bioresonance is the miracle therapy method which the patients should stop their conventional therapies and continue with BRT.

--Enigma9035 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We (generally) don't use primary studies for biomedical information, whatever their outcome. Ernst's paper would seem to be a review of language however, not a biomedical study. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn WikiDan61 Yes WP:MEDRS says `Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies], use secondary studies in general (if there are). But as you may see on the references part of current text there are primary studies which the above text is based on. For example the reference 6 the study group is only 32 patients and it is a primary study??? And the in 5th reference there is only a summary paragraph about bioresonance (which is apparently written by someone has no idea about quantum physics or biophoton emissions) that mentions back again the same the primary study (small sized and single study as it is described in the abstract) in reference 6. So now this two reference and the content based on them are against WP:MEDRS ? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma9035 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ref 5 is a secondary source. It cites the article of Ref 6, which I guess is provided here for that reason - one okay use of primary sources is to flesh-out the details of secondaries. I wouldn't argue with its removal, though. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncited relation to acupuncture

"It is claimed to be related to similar concepts in Traditional Chinese Medicine, especially acupuncture."

There has been no citation added for two years, and I'm considering removing this sentence. In the greek translation of this article, I didn't include it at all. Thoughts? --Mg009 (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What is written about Bio-resonance in the main Wiki Article is very basic and misses extremely important fundamental principles of bio-resonance and the mechanics of science it is based on, in fact there is nothing what so ever that even addresses this point, the only attempt to explain this is, Quote: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance therapy might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[5] Scientific studies did not show effects above that of the placebo effect.[6][7]

Looking on a far larger scale, consider the HARRP Field in the perspective of scalar wave transmission, scalar proves that ELF can be manipulated that can effect the weather or other, military uses in targeting crowds with electromagnetic waves provoking disorientation etc..

Bio-resonance is based on vibration, sequencing and scale harmonics, the ability to write algorithms of signature resonance expressing the actual vibration of a pathogen or microorganism, then using a filter, amplifying the vibration. This is many ways is no different than capturing sound waves is field geophysics using geophones and seismographs, the geophones are placed in an array pattern and the reflected sound is collected and processed simply because we have the controls in place. This does not differ from bio-resonance technology by the fact there are mathematical algorithms that have already been tested and the matrices are within the filter, the radio similarity or signature resonance is triggered through the sensor and placed within the filter to identify it's wave expression.

One extremely good testimony is my own, my son Oliver was 2 months old, he received the DPT 3 Vaccine at the hospital as standard protocol, that night at home he gained a fever and was extremely irritable, throughout the entire night we could not sleep, at 3:00 am we took him to the nursing station, the nurses on shift told us it was normal that he was having a reaction to the vaccine, there is nothing we can do and he will be fine.

The following morning a partner of mine brought a bio-resonance device to my house and scanned him, no electrodes, only a sensor, a 2 month old boy cannot speak, the way he communicated was with his discomfort. During the scan for the first time he feel to sleep almost immediately, after the scan was complete, we tested the program of Vaccines, the signal of the 3 components of the DPT3 were present, in Red indicating strong signals, if this is a hoax technology how can a device detect the exact vaccination that was injected into a 2 month old child be detected exactly, I did not tell my partner the name of the vaccines, but, the report of the scan told us, we used the invert control that inverts the wave pattern. He awoke within a few minutes, his fever was gone, he acted completely normal. My wife witnessed this with incredible surprise. This is a standard result with bio-resonance depending on the system, this particular system was Russian and does not utilize electrodes. There is far more to this than what the mainstream scientific or medical society give it credit, then again, Russians and Germans are far more advanced in certain areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psephophorus terrypratchetti (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP as well as WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Thanks --McSly (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the anon edit, but you're "amazed" that a magic device was able to tell that the vaccine your kid received was the one it's standard protocol to give a kid his age? 202.67.85.61 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bioresonance therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512182250/http://www.centropediatrico.ch/Data/w%C3%BCthrich%20unproven%20techniques%20in%20allergy.pdf to http://www.centropediatrico.ch/Data/w%C3%BCthrich%20unproven%20techniques%20in%20allergy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)