Why doesn’t conventional medicine currently recognise bioresonance?

Let us take the example of allergies. They represent a challenge and the opportunities for treating them with conventional medicine are often highly unsatisfactory. If there was just the slightest suspicion that new therapeutic approaches could bring relief, ethically oriented research should jump upon them with scientific enthusiasm. It would take very little time to determine whether the new method was a waste of time or whether something genuinely valuable lay behind it. For, ultimately, allergies are a condition which affects millions of people and responsibility for the nation’s health is at stake.
And why isn’t this the case?

Who are the authorities in the UK that determine what is scientifically recognized or not? Their universities and the courts! Universities are traditionally the centers of modern scientific research. Research is costly and becoming ever more so. The funding universities receive from the state for research work has been inadequate for some time. Consequently sponsors are needed. Research work is commissioned and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry and other sectors of industry. University professors responsible for the research can also boost their salaries by this means. It is quite natural to wonder how objective and neutral research actually is today. You would also expect that careful study design would always produce the same or similar results. Far from the truth. How often do we read studies of the same topic with totally different, even contradictory results! There is little interest in alternative methods which are not backed by big investors. Professors who tackle these subjects have to fear of their jobs in certain circumstances.

As experts in their field, university professors are the highest authority for legal opinions. In case of doubt the judges decide, based on these opinions, what is the scientifically excepted standard (and what is accepted by conventional medicine) and what isn’t.

There are plenty of examples from the past of how ‘official’ conventional medicine has long held up progress. Just think of the recommended hygiene procedures to prevent childbed fever and the discovery of penicillin. Ultimately the right methods have gained acceptance in the end. But it takes time. As the physicist Max Planck said: “not only the professors, but their students, need to die out for a new scientific idea to gain acceptance.” But we no longer have this much time today.

The pressure for new developments now no longer comes from above (science and politics) but from below (general public). The studies to recognise acupuncture were not proposed by the universities. The pressure from patients and therapists became so great that it was no longer possible to avoid tackling the subject. But it took nearly 40 years.

So it is not surprising if a relatively new method (although it has already been in existence over 35 years) is not exactly welcomed with open arms, especially if it means the scientific world view will have to be corrected (once more).
Traditionally people initially fight against every new idea since they don’t want to move away from the long-standing structures. If that no longer works they simply ignore the method including all the success stories and studies associated with it. Sometimes it is the opponents who involuntary help a method gain recognition. An ‘admonition association instituted legal proceedings so that, like it or not, the courts had to tackle the subject of bioresonance.

Following a five year legal battle and based on the situation as regards clinical trials, the Munich higher regional court has now officially allowed to claim “the bioresonance method can diagnose and effectively treat allergies” to be used in advertising.

Why wont health insurance funds cover bioresonance?

Let’s just pose a counter question: what would happen if a large number of all the doctors in practices and hospitals treated most of their patients with bioresonance? Many patients would possibly get better quicker with fewer side effects and less costs for the national health system. Far less medication and other medical procedures would be required. There are definitely interest groups who would object to this. This would threaten jobs and the entire health policy would need rethinking. Can we ask this from our politicians? The health insurance funds are not really the restricting factor in this.

In the mid 1990s virtually all the health insurance funds paid part of the cost of bioresonance therapy in Germany, especially if it helped and rendered other procedures unnecessary. Some funds even sent patients, for example children with neurodermatitis, because they saw positive results.

As part of the various health reforms a commission was set up which decides which treatment methods may be reimbursed by the health insurance funds. Who sits on this commission? Along with numerous other alternative methods bioresonance was dropped from the list! The health insurance funds are no longer allowed to reimburse bioresonance, even if they want to! Instead of explaining this political decision honestly to patients, when asked, health insurance employees repeatedly claimed that bioresonance is not reimbursed because it does not work.

Why do we hear so little about bioresonance in the media?

Television, radio stations and newspapers are unfortunately not as politically independence as we would wish. What the public can and cannot be informed about is seemingly subject to selection. The opinion of selected experts is then intended to influence the shaping of public opinion.

In the past there were repeatedly broadcasts on newspaper articles about bioresonance. Some of these were totally dismissive, while others allowed people with positive experiences to have their say. A well-known account was on the Richard and Judy show where two journalists were able to quit smoking after only one treatment. It is surprising that their remarkable accounts and subsequently other patients who were able to quit smoking that all has now gone quiet. Apparently a probable unintentional consequence of this was the even negative reports arouse the interest of the public. Along the lines of, if there is so much opposition to a method, there must be something in it! Then all the reports on bioresonance appeared to stop at once. Instead all the glossy magazines carry reports at regular intervals about the ways of treating allergies with conventional medicine. One cannot help feeling that these articles have been copied time and again with slight differences for over 30 years.

Why does nobody report on the clinical trials of bioresonance or on the verdict of the Munich higher regional court? That would really be sensational! But people wont let themselves be taken for idiots. Today everyone is able to find out about all kinds of subjects on the internet. Here you can find negative and positive reports on by a resonance. Everyone can form his or her own opinion. The influence of the media is often overestimated anyway. Most patients don’t go to therapists practices as a result of reports in the media but because of word-of-mouth, in other words, on the recommendation of other patients who have been helped by this method. And patients treated successfully then recommend it in turn. This development can no longer be stopped.

What side-effects are observed with bioresonance?

Bioresonance is a regulatory method of treatment, similar to homoeopathy, acupuncture and physiotherapy.  Medication triggers biochemical processes in the body at the material level. The effects on the various organs are mostly well-known and reproducible biochemically. It is possible to clearly distinguish between the desired therapeutic effects and the adverse side-effects.

With methods of regulatory therapy such as a bioresonance, the body is given an impulse to which it should react. The right impulse triggers a chain of biochemical reactions in the body which activate the organisms powers of self healing to take countermeasures against the cause of the disorder. An incorrect impulse has no or minimal effect. Consequently, if using the bioresonance method properly, it is difficult to do something completely wrong.

Side effects in the conversational medical sense have not so far being observed by bioresonance therapists. Adverse reactions following therapy may be initial exacerbation of primary immune responses. They are encountered in all methods of regulatory therapy.

An initial exacerbation is generally a sign that the therapy impulse was definitely the right one but the strength of the impulse was too intense. This leads to a temporary worsening of the symptoms, intensification of the pain or the skin eczema, for example. It can also happen that old symptoms from the past, from which the patient had apparently recovered, reappear. Sometimes teeth, which were chronically inflamed yet previously displayed no symptoms, also make their presence felt. If old foci flare up, this can give therapists important clues about hidden therapy blocks.

Reactions such as this in which the patient’s condition deteriorates usually subside within one or two days yet may last longer in individual cases. At the next treatment session the therapist will adapt the therapy according to the individual patients responsiveness. Constant over treatments can, in the worst case, lead to reaction blocks. But even these can generally be overcome with treatment to restore the energy balance.

It is not unusual therefore for the symptoms of chronic disorders not to improve continuously but rather for the patient’s condition to fluctuate somewhat at the start of the treatment. The therapist and the patient may need to be patient at this stage.

Patients with autoimmune disorders should be treated with care as they often have tendency to hyper intensive reactions. Patients should not be given bioresonance therapy during the first three months of pregnancy for forensic reasons.

If therapy fails to be successful, although not as a side effect, this can be problematical in certain cases. If a patient who is known to have violent reactions, e.g. asthma attacks or shock reactions, is treated for allergy, any exposure test should only be conducted under clinical conditions. No test, neither conventional medical nor energetic allergy test, can predict with a 100% certainty whether exposure to the allergen will cause a reaction in the patient or not. Emergency medication should continue to be carried as a precaution.

Does bioresonance therapy help everyone and with all disorders?

There is no medical method in the world which will help everyone. Man is not a machine which runs according to technically reproducible rules. Every person is an individual and disease should be regarded as a largely multifactorial product of physical, psychological and social circumstances. Organs and tissue, which are completely destroyed or missing, cannot be restored by any method, not even bioresonance. Deficient enzymes, vitamins and nutrients must also be physically supplied. Applying a foods biophysical information to a patient will not satisfy their hunger! Provided responsive tissue is still president, an improvement can often be brought about in the patient’s condition through bioresonance. Oscillation patterns, which are superior to matter, will often produce an effect where chemical substances are no longer effective at the physical level.

Severe psychological trauma cannot be treated with bioresonance either. A difficult childhood, abuse, traumatic events and chronic frustration can cause or encourage illness or impede its treatment. The bioresonance device cannot change mother-in-laws or partners! There are also patients who derived benefit from their illness, usually subconsciously. While they are ill, they are guaranteed the affection and care of their partner and family. Or they have a reason not to have to go to work. There are patients who run from one therapist to another and try everything to continually receive confirmation that they are incurably ill.
When they feel that they are getting better, the therapy is discontinued with often-flimsy excuses. Patients who’ve applied for sickness related benefits are often untreatable.

You may have noticed through the content of this website that the word ‘cure’ is never used. Bioresonance can relieve the symptoms of many medical conditions or even make them disappear. Whether the patient is completely cured depends largely upon his mental attitude to the disorder and upon other psychological and social factors. Many therapists combine the bioresonance method with other conventional medical and naturopathic methods of therapy. A sensitive therapeutic discussion can often work wonders!

Experienced bioresonance therapists report an 80 to 90% success rate, depending on the patient group. One patient in nine or ten unfortunately cannot be helped. Every, otherwise good, practice has its share of failures. All therapists must learn to deal with this. For we aren’t ‘gods in white coats’. We should learn to except failure and concentrate on the success stories. The 80:20 rule is well known in economics. We spend 20% of our working time on 80% of our routine patients and 80% of our time on 20% of our difficult patients.

The reason for therapy failing may be an undiscovered or untreated physical or psychological therapy block. Or perhaps the right allergen or toxin that is responsible hasn’t been found? Or it may be that the therapist is not sufficiently experienced. We should not be afraid of referring the patient to another therapist. Patients and therapists not only enter into a treatment contract enshrined in law. The chemistry, or as we would now more accurately say, the vibes must be right.

To sum up, bioresonance is a method of diagnosing and treating patient’s, which provides a relief to very many disorders and can help restore the patient’s health.