Common Name
Electrodermal testing, bio-physical information therapy, BIT, bio-energetic therapy, energy medicine, vibrational medicine
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 various 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 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, double-blind trial of bioresonance in 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 the 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).
Warnings
The American Cancer Society urges cancer patients not to seek treatment with bioresonance or other electronic devices.
(4)
Adverse Reactions
None known
Herb-Drug Interactions
None known
Literature Summary and Critique
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.
A randomized, double blind evaluation of electrodermal testing in reproducing allergy diagnosis made 2-16 weeks prior by skin prick test in 15 atopic and 15 healthy controls. Subjects underwent 9 sessions of electrodermal testing with the Vegatest protocol by 3 different experienced operators, 6 allergens per session. Vegatest “allergic” diagnoses did not differ significantly between atopic and control groups: 24% versus 22% for cat dander, 28% versus 29% for dust mites, and 26% versus 23% for distilled water, respectively. No operator was more reliable than any other, and no subjects were consistently correctly diagnosed.
References
- New Hope Clinic web site. Available at http://newhopeclinic.com. Accessed May 5, 2011.
- Barrett S. ‘Electrodiagnostic’ devices. BioResonance Tumor Therapy. Quackwatch web site. Available at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/
Cancer/bioresonance.html. Accessed May 5, 2011. - Schoni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schoni-Affolter F. Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1997;112:238-46.
- American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: electronic devices. Ca: Cancer J Clin 1994;44:115-27.
- 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.
- Royal FF, Royal DF. Homeopathy and EDT: upheld by modern science - with case histories. Am J Acupuncture 1992;20:55-66.
- 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.
- 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.
- Federal Trade Commission. Bogus Cancer Cure Guru Settles FTC Charges. October 28, 2002. Accessed May 5, 2011.
How It Works
Bottom Line: 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 scientific evidence. - To treat rheumatoid arthritis
This claim is not backed by research.
Research Evidence
Allergies
One study used 15 people with atopic dermatitis (eczema) and 15 people with no allergies (these diagnoses were made with the skin prick test, the “gold standard” for diagnosing allergies). All 30 subjects underwent electrodermal testing with the Vegatest machine, operated by trained individuals who had no prior knowledge of whether the subjects had allergies or not. About half the time, the Vegatest operators were wrong in their diagnoses, which suggests that electrodermal testing is not useful in diagnosing allergies.
Patient Warnings
- The American Cancer Society urges cancer patients not to seek treatment with bioresonance therapies or other electronic devices.
Side Effects
None known
Special Point
The Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted numerous purveyors of electrical devices for making unsubstantiated health benefit claims.
Aliases
Electrodermal Testing
Energy Medicine
E-mail your questions and comments to aboutherbs@mskcc.org.
