During more than 20 years of research, carried out by well known scientists in Germany and abroad, it was found that each individual possesses a unique spectrum of ultra-fine electromagnetic vibrations which can be electronically detected, processed and then utilized as therapy.
No claims are being made that Bioresonance can cure any medical condition.
Today, it is known that the chemical processes in the bodies of humans and animals are controlled by the “information” carried by and within these oscillations.
A YouTube presentation covering the theory of MORA Bioresonance Therapy
The Individual’s Unique Regulatory Forces Set Free
Damage or disturbance to the body of any sort may alter the internal milieu, so that the biophysical and biochemical functions are affected and sickness results. For example, harmful substances (like the heavy metals commonly found in food, drinking water or environmental pollution) not only affect the body with their physical-chemical nature but also affect it on the regulatory, informational level by way of the ultra-fine oscillations that they too possess.
Functional disturbances occur whenever the delicate guidance of bodily processes is influenced too greatly by interfering and unnecessary (pathological) oscillations. These malfunctions may eventually cause physical manifestations of disease if the body cannot adequately compensate for them
Dr. Morell had the brilliant idea to specifically eliminate these interfering oscillations by utilizing their own “mirror images” to cancel them out, thus unburdening the body and facilitating natural self healing.
The patient usually receives treatment from a MORA device via a hand and a foot “electrode”: the electrodes are electrodes in name only as no electricity passes through them during bioresonance therapy.
The patient’s own oscillations enter and exit the bioresonance device via the electrodes and cables in the same way as nerve impulses are conducted into ECG or EEG devices. Specialized electrodes may also be used to target specific skin areas or pain sites and sometimes a headband type contact is placed around the head.
During the therapy no sensation is felt but it promotes a feeling of relaxation.
Bioresonance YouTube Presentation Part 1
Bioresonance YouTube Presentation Part 2
Clinical Based Studies - Bioresonance
Are there evidence-based studies on the efficacy of bioresonance therapy?
Before we begin; its good to see that you have arrived at this page and you are interested in clinical studies. It is interesting, in our experience that if a recommended form of treatment has has not come from a conventional medical practitioner, other forms of treatment are often dismissed as suspect. But how often are drugs accepted and digested for many years by a patient just on the suggestion of a doctor. If you are serious about researching a treatment you must also apply this effort for conventional medicine, with the following questions for research, you may be surprised to find that your doctor has not all the information on a drug to make a sound judgment.
Just because a drug has been approved, is it safe for you or will it benefit you?
How many clinical trials were conducted, were these by the manufacturer, industry or government?
Out of all the trials which ones were published, including ALL negative results?
Have you a copy of the cumulative meta-analysis?
The phrase "level of evidence" is often used nowadays when attempting to prove the efficacy of drugs and medical devices. It describes the level of scientific proof and presence of meaningful data. The nature of this evidence is based on findings but more particularly on the construction of a scientific study, now also known as a "design".
Various schemes have been proposed for classifying the level of evidence. We are using here the 8-level scheme of evidence according to the American Heart Association.
Classification of the levels of evidence according to the American Heart Association (AHA), modified according to W. F. Dick: Evidence based emergency medicine (abridged):
• Level 1: Statistically significant, randomised, controlled trials (double-blind studies) or meta-analyses
• Level 2: Statistically insignificant, randomised, controlled trials (double-blind studies) or meta-analyses
• Level 3: Prospective, controlled, but not randomised cohort studies
• Level 4: Historic, not randomised cohort or case control studies
• Level 5: Human case series
• Level 6: Animal or mechanical model studies
• Level 7: Reasonable extrapolations from existing data
• Level 8: Rational conjecture
Health insurance companies, public bodies and courts have however increasingly adopted the extreme view that only level 1 randomised, controlled double-blind studies provide scientific proof of efficacy.
However, this is also a very narrow way of looking at the matter and does not do it any justice. One of the leading lawyers in the pharmaceuticals industry admits as much:
A doctor’s opinion is no longer worth anything. The authorities are increasingly turning to policy recommendations. Medicine has been reduced to natural science. The randomised double-blind study is being used in an increasingly restrictive manner.
As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between – or needs to be looked at in a different way.
Human case series (level 5) are certainly not meaningful for medical indications with major spontaneous fluctuations and where success is assessed subjectively. But for an indication with spontaneous fluctuations and less pronounced trends towards spontaneous improvement, this type of study has a high level of evidence, however. In this sense a slight improvement in hay fever during a particular season is not meaningful, whereas the recovery or part-recovery of a large number of patients certainly is.
We commissioned Dr. Volker W. Rahlfs, C. Stat. (RSS), Head of the Institute for Data Analysis & Study Planning from Germany, founded in 1966, to carry out an expert analysis of the studies available on BICOM bioresonance therapy. Dr. Rahlfs has 40 years experience as a biometrician/biostatistician in the area of clinical research and has given expert advice and opinion to 140 pharmaceutical companies and university institutes and led more than 400 scientific studies in Germany and overseas.
Dr. Rahlfs was given studies on the use of BICOM Bioresonance Therapy to assess. In his expert report he uses the aforementioned 8-level scheme of evidence classification.
I would now like to give you a more detailed insight into the studies with their results and classification using this scheme of evidence (i. e. assessing the scientific evidence).
The assessor makes the following concluding remarks about the studies:
All previous studies and research work indicate that the BICOM procedure does not only show statistically significant (and in the sense of random statistics, demonstrable) effects. These are to be interpreted in a clinical context as demonstrating efficacy. Undesirable side effects, particularly those that are serious, are not found in any study.
The work discussed and assessed here corresponds in principle to the quality standard of university research. Evidence level 1 with controlled double-blind studies is not the norm in that area. This quality standard is currently only required in the area of pharmacological research. The documents presented correspond to the requirements of the clinical assessment of medical products. Clinical assessment requirements of "known" medical products from the point of view of a Notified Body, Medizintechnik 121 (2001) 9-13.
The assessor goes on to sum up his assessment as follows:
“It is standard practice worldwide to publish your own results, even those with a low level of evidence and, as demonstrated in the present report, to derive the level of evidence from the reproducibility. In practical terms this means that even studies with a lower level of evidence are considered as providing proof if other researchers – who are also carrying out studies with a lower level of evidence – come to the same conclusions."
This generally recognised technique of external validation can be seen in the studies appraised here, carried out by Huang S. et al. (2005), Yang J. Zhang (2004) and Zhang X. et al. (2005) in which the named authors each compare their findings with the results of other authors in their publications.“
Summary: The studies carried out using the BICOM method were appraised by experts Dr. Volker W. Rahlfs, C. Stat. (RSS) and Dr. med. Andreas Rozehnal from the idv Institute for Data Analysis & Study Planning as follows.
4 studies were awarded a level of evidence 1
1 study was awarded a level of evidence 1-2
1 study was awarded a level of evidence 2
1 study was awarded a level of evidence 3
4 studies were awarded a level of evidence 4-5
4 studies were awarded a level of evidence 5
Is it now possible to claim that the efficacy of BICOM Bioresonance Method is scientifically proven? Yes. Anyone suggesting otherwise is ignoring these studies.