Pseudoscience Friday: Bioresonance Testing

Hey, that sounds a lot like my feature Your Friday Dose of Woo.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

Had to laugh when I saw David H Gorski (Orac) commenting .

This lopsided piece sounds like it was written Stephen Barrett or another of the Rag-tag Posse of Snakeoil Vigilantes Gorski and Barrett lurk in. Really, that's their name for themselves ... visit my link below.

"Biased and unworthy of credibility" describes Barrett ... and this piece.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

Please try to have an open mind. Remember how Pasteur was ridiculed when he proposed the germ theory - now its widely accepted. Biophysics is a new science but widely accepted by German doctors. Very interesting report below from a recent conference. (Note BICOM is the trade name of a bioresonance device).

April 28 -30, 2006.
46th International Congress for BICOM Therapists in Fulda, Germany.

The BICOM bioresonance method continues to gain acceptance by German medical practitioners. The introductory lecture by Hans Bruegemann summarised a survey carried out in October 2005 among German-speaking BICOM users. The survey covered 241,664 patients who had exhausted all forms of treatment using conventional medicine in 396 practices. Of these, 46.7% no longer showed any symptoms, 34 % experienced a significant improvement,13.1% registered a slight improvement and only 6.25% showed no sign of improvement. To estimate the worldwide picture, even assuming that only 60% of therapists use the same protocols as those in the survey, then over 1,000,000 patients whom conventional medicine could not help can be expected to have made a complete recovery and a further 780,000 to have experienced significant improvements.

Yeah, remember how they ridiculed Wilhelm Reich for his orgone theory.

Biomed's directors are Dr Andy Barrie and .... Andy has a PhD in Atomic Physics ...

Andy, you must have some facility with numbers. Doesn't Hans's survey look a ittle "cooked" to you? Or, maybe, a lot? Keep in mind, his company sells the device.

So these patients "exhausted all forms of treatment using conventional medicine."

What disease did they have? What outcome measures were used to determine whether or not patients felt better? Was it a double-blind placebo study? Who wrote/ran the survey and where was it published?

All questions you should ask when you read anything about science anywhere. Peer-review is a powerful force! (peers can be jerks sometime though)

Please try to have an open mind.

We've heard that one before. The appeal to be open-minded is no substitutee for evidence. Show us the evidence.

Remember how Pasteur was ridiculed when he proposed the germ theory - now its widely accepted.

It's widely accepted because he brought forth evidence. Just like Galileo, Copernicus, and all those other REAL scientists you pretend to emulate. Oh, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

The BICOM bioresonance method continues to gain acceptance by German medical practitioners. The introductory lecture by Hans Bruegemann summarised a survey carried out in October 2005 among German-speaking BICOM users. The survey covered 241,664 patients who had exhausted all forms of treatment using conventional medicine in 396 practices.

Was there any double-blinding involved, or did you let self-delusion do whatever you wanted it to do?

Of these, 46.7% no longer showed any symptoms, 34 % experienced a significant improvement,13.1% registered a slight improvement and only 6.25% showed no sign of improvement.

And what did the placebo group report?

Sir,
There may be excessive claim over their bioresonance therapy products. Even they may not be able to give right science behind it. IT doent mean their theary is wrong. You are wasting your page simply yelling the frequency count.
"(Just to clarify, the stated frequency range where homeostasis is achieved is 10-150,000 Hz. Telling a girl you make between $10 and $150,000 dollars a year would probably not seem very impressive.)" What is this?
I ask you, can you completely deny the vibration theary and electromagnetic effects in our cells o in microbes.
I have serious doubts on you.
Thanks

There are some peer reviewed articles concerning bioresonance and how it might have a positive effect on human health (Federowski et al [2004]; Serum cathepsin B activity during regression of Morris hepatoma 5123 D). There are other such articles that demonstrate how bioresonance might not demonstrate any positive outcome on ailments such as eczema and asthma. There is a disappointing degree of willingness to sham this type of therapy as quackery. I would personally like to see more research been done to see how bioresonance might be used to help human ailments. This research would require the experience of competent bioresonance practitioners in a well set up university hospital setting. The reason being that there are specific protocols and ways of achieving desired results with bioresonance, which are not akin to that of the more conventional medical practice. As an example, one can not simply start treating a mycoses by directly targeting fungi, when dealing with bioresonance. One would first have to identify and correct the underlying reasons for the presence of the mycoses (such as heavy metal accumulation and elimination), prior to treating the cause for the mycoses. In other words, bioresonance therapy, when conducted by a proficient therapist, involves a more holistic approach that targets the cause of a symptom as opposed to the more conventional medical practice that has decided to attenuate ailments by dampening the symptom and not treat the cause. Therefore, please, more valid research should be conducted and peer reviewed by editors that are not going to be branded as scientific heretics for trying to push this method forward.

Not only was Pasteur ridiculed, but also Darwin for his theory of evolution. Unfortunately, it is the pioneers that have to endure the ridicule for daring to think and approach situations in a different manner. When the evidence comes through, the rest of the world then joins the safety of the ?non-ridicule? zone and point and laugh at people that disclaim Darwinism and Pasteurs?s theories as quackery!

With kind regards

Padmavathi:
The point is that the range of frequencies listed is so wide as to be meaningless. If you didn't like my income metaphor, let's try this: if I told you that the nearest source of water was between 1 and 15000 miles from here, that doesn't really tell you how much water you should carry on you, does it?

Dr Gafan
"When the evidence comes through, the rest of the world then joins the safety of the 'non-ridicule' zone and point and laugh at people that disclaim Darwinism and Pasteurs's theories as quackery!"

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Credible scientific evidence lends validity to your theory. If you're passing off all sorts of outlandish theories as to why your therapy works in the absence of credible evidence, that makes you a quack.

Your claims that the research may only be performed by a select few trained in non-standard techniques already detracts from the validity of BRT. Anyone medical professional with a reasonable understanding of the principles and devices involved should be able to collect repeatable data. At any medical/research facility nationwide. A common pseudoscience technique is to ensure that only a very few specially trained people ever get to play with their therapuetic gadgetry to see how it works.

Please see our Aug. 25th Pseudoscience Fridays post:
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2006/08/pseudoscience_f_6.html

Of course, I'm really not arguing this to change your mind...mostly battling for those who might stumble across this wondering whether they should undergo such nonsense therapy.

I would personally like to see more research been done to see how bioresonance might be used to help human ailments. This research would require the experience of competent bioresonance practitioners in a well set up university hospital setting. The reason being that there are specific protocols and ways of achieving desired results with bioresonance, which are not akin to that of the more conventional medical practice. As an example, one can not simply start treating a mycoses by directly targeting fungi, when dealing with bioresonance.

Bioresonance testing is also useful in the detection of toxins and infections in the pancreas, which we’ll discuss later.

Although many studies have shown that ERCP and fine needle aspiration cytology sampling could show the sloughing of cancer cells and/or precancerous dysplasia prior to the appearance of clinical cancers, it is not a feasible tool for widespread screening. I think that it could be considered in “high-risk”families, along with bioresonance testing.

Why did Jim Jones copy Dr Gafan's comment?? Bizarre..
I heard about BRT and googled to find unbiassed comment or reports and found this. Very interesting and curious but not yet very helpful. Is there any way this site can be brought to the attention of the worldwide 'select few' who are so privalidged to be allowed to play with this gadget, just to find even one of them who has any concrete evidence with references to check the facts. I guess not - in fact, the fact that all the data is pretty woolly would surely mean we are dealing with one big sheep which needs shearing!
If any facts exsisted 12,000km in any direction around this vast planet it would be shouted from the rooftops of every 'clinic'......surely?

Thanks,
Mark Cuthbert