About Herbs

Bottom Line: Bioresonance therapies are based on unproven theories. They are not recommended for diagnosing or treating cancer.

Bioresonance therapies (and other therapies that use electronic devices) usually 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. This theory is problematic for a number of reasons:

Electric current is not the same thing as electromagnetic waves. Devices used in Bioresonance measure electric current and resistance on the skin, which vary with the amount of moisture on the skin and with how much pressure the probe is being applied. Electromagnetic waves, on the other hand, are used in MRI diagnostic imaging and have been used experimentally to reduce pain in the joints.

These devices are often promoted for treating cancer. However, cancer is a disease caused by the accumulation of irreversible genetic mutations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Therefore, the idea that electric currents could reverse the fate of cancer cells does not hold.

Diagnose 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.

In a second study, 57 patients underwent allergy testing with three different methods: electrodermal testing (EDT), skin prick testing, and serial dilution end-point titration. As in the previous study, skin prick test and EDT diagnoses agreed in only 41% of cases.

Treating atopic dermatitis (eczema):
The use of bioresonance therapy in treating severe eczema was studied in a clinical trial in Switzerland. Thirty-two children were randomly assigned to receive conventional therapy in combination witheither real or placebo bioresonance therapy twice a week for at least four weeks. (Placebo bioresonance therapy uses the same machine, but the machine is off, at incorrect frequencies, or is applied to incorrect areas of the body). Children in both treatment groups experienced immediate improvement of their disease bioresonance therapy did not appear to have an additive beneficial effect. The researchers concluded that, in light of its high costs, bioresonance therapy has no place in the treatment of children with eczema.

None known

The Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted numerous purveyors of electrical devices for making unsubstantiated health benefit claims.

Electrodermal testing, bio-physical information therapy, BIT, bio-energetic therapy, energy medicine, vibrational medicine

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

Bioresonance therapy is available in clinics in Europe, Mexico, Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. This questionable method 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." The Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted numerous purveyors of electrical devices for making unsubstantiated health benefit claims ⁽⁹⁾. 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⁾. No clinical trials evaluate bioresonance therapy for use in cancer, likely due to its spurious scientific basis. The American Cancer Society advises patients not to seek treatment with unproved electronic devices ⁽⁴⁾.

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)}. Proponents of bioresonance often confuse electric current with electromagnetic waves, which have different physiological effects.

The American Cancer Society urges cancer patients not to seek treatment with bioresonance or other electronic devices.
⁽⁴⁾

None known

None known

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.

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.
An evaluation of the reliability of electrodermal testing (EDT) as compared to skin prick test and serial dilution end-point titration (SDEPT) in predicting allergy to dust mites in 57 patients with undiagnosed multisystem allergic disorders. Subjects were tested first with a Vegatest II, followed by a skin prick test and a SDEPT test. While SDEPT and EDT positive diagnoses concurred in 91% of cases, skin prick test and EDT positive diagnoses agreed in only 41% of cases. The study did not control for patient characteristics, diet, or seasonal variation in allergies, and presenting conditions ranged from migraine to irritable bowel syndrome to diabetes. While the authors question the reliability of skin prick tests in favor of EDT, it seems more likely that EDT and SDEPT both have high false positive rates.

Schoni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schoni-Affolter F. Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1997;112:238-46.
A double-blind parallel group study in 32 children hospitalized with persistent atopic dermatitis in Switzerland. Patients were randomized by sex, age, and severity of disease to receive conventional therapy and either active or placebo bioresonance (BIT) therapy twice a week for at least 4 weeks. Outcomes measured were skin symptom scores, sleep and itch scores, blood cell activation markers of allergy, and a 1-year follow-up questionnaire. Both treatment arms experienced immediate and sustained amelioration of disease; BIT did not appear to have a significant additive effect on any outcome. Schoni et al. conclude that, in light of its high costs, BIT has no place in the treatment of children with atopic dermatitis.