Today, we are seeing a very broad usage and application of the term BioResonance. And I can understand that when we think in terms of Resonance itself. It is through an understanding and application of the concepts of resonance that give us point and medication testing methods and a multitude of various therapeutic methods – everything from acupuncture and homeopathy themselves through to the most advanced technological devices available on the Biological Medicine market today. Since so many devices claim to be based on the principles of BioResonance I thought it important to outline some of the differences between the methods, and let you make your own conclusions about the application of this specific terminology.
For a more detailed discussion of resonance, please see my article entitled Balance à Resonance à BioResonance, or attend a forthcoming seminar to hear my more detailed lecture presentation of that information.
Whether we are discussing EAV, EDS, AMA, BFD, VEGA or any other point and medication testing method, we are reliant solely on resonance. The procedure for interpretation of the measurements varies with the method. However, the basic concept is that if the point is in balance/resonance with the rest of the body or the tested remedy, then the practitioner sees a positive response. When resonance is not achieved, there is no resonance and thus a negative response. This is a very basic description, but the essence is that all these methods depend on the measurement resonating with the energy being measured.
Classical BioResonance Therapy
The term BioResonance was initially coined by Dr. Franz Morell (and of course also with the engineer Erich Rasche) to describe the function and effect of MORA® Therapy developed by them during the late 1970’s. The theoretical concept of MORA BioResonance was that the device would read the energy information of the patient, process that information and then send it back to the patient as therapy. The technical definition of the function of MORA BioResonance was that energy input into the MORA from the patient was sent through a specially designed filter mechanism that included both an electronic and a biological component. That BioFilter separated the physiological and pathological information signals, and then processed those signals separately. The physiological signals were amplified while the pathological signals were first inverted 180° (as cancellation information) and then amplified. Those processed signals were then output to the patient as therapy. All models and devices made by Med-Tronik, GmbH and labeled as MORA Therapy include this exclusive and patented BioFilter.
This, however, is where all the discussions arise. Because the BioFilter is specific and proprietary to Med-Tronik, all other BioResonance or resonance frequency devices must either use an alternate filter mechanism or no filter at all. How the energy is processed prior to return to the patient, is what I want to discuss for you here.
An added comment: A (Pulsed) Electromagnetic Field can be used for therapy specifically and directly (see Advanced Medical Systems), however that field can also become the carrier of information and energy to and from the patient. Thus, there is a component of the electromagnetic field within all devices. Additionally, because light or BioPhotons are the final information carrier between the cells of the body, information and energy can also be transferred to the patient via light, BioPhoton Therapy (see Medical Electronics) and color.
Alternate Bioresonance Therapies
Several companies including BioKat, REGUMED (BICOM), Kindling and IMEDIS have developed devices based on the concepts and applications of the original MORA devices. However, all such devices use an electronic-only filter mechanism for separation of physiological and pathological oscillations.
“The BioFilter separates natural harmonic frequencies and also their overtones via a resonance technique from the incoming signal. As a side effect we get also the “artificial” and non-harmonic (= disharmonic) frequencies. No electronic [-only] device can do that, because it is always different with each test. From the technical side it is not possible to create such a system only with electronic (digital). You have to know, that this Resonance is used in realtime and only functional in realtime with the human organism.” Michael Hummel, Med-Tronik.
Based on extensive experience and many studies (through Regumed and others), these devices are definitely effective. However, compared to the MORA BioFilter results, effectiveness and accuracy are shown to be diminished with the electronic-only filter mechanism.
Recently there has been an entrance into the Bioresonance market by MBA, GmbH Germany with their new BioResonance device called the RESONANCE BioSelect. MBA is also a commercial distributor of the MORA Super device as modified to work with their software and accessories. During the 2018 Medicine Week Congress, MBA made the claim that since the change in ownership of Med-Tronik (which is now owned by a Chinese consortium), that the BioFilter was no longer used with the MORA Nova. It was claimed that same BioFilter is now included in the new MBA device.
This type of controversy is disruptive and misleading for all concerned. Subsequent correspondence with Med-Tronik has confirmed and documented use of the BioFilter in each and every MORA Nova device. There has been no communication, response or documentative proof from MBA to back up their claims, and I can now only consider them very suspect. Until further evidence is seen, I thus place the new BioResonance device from MBA into the same category as the four companies listed above. And, in short, the difference between all of them and MORA is the patented and proprietary BioFilter mechanism.
June 2019 Update: Status of the filter mechanism of the MBA RESONANCE BioSelect remains as suspect, and listed as using an electronic only filter mechanism.
We have in the meantime received fully documented confirmation that the BioKat BioResonance devices do utilize a new form of BioFilter similar in action to that used by Med-Tronik in all MORA devices. For this reason, the BioKat M V and M III are now considered as true Classical BioResonance devices.
The use of inversion in BioResonance is what makes the method so very effective for allergies and intolerances. Here the basic concept is that you are using the 180° inversion of the pathological/disharmonious energy to “cancel” it. This is somewhat similar to the concept of those fantastic noise cancelling headphones that we all love when flying. But we cannot cancel energy! Energy is. The best conceptual description I can give is that by using the inverted information of, i.e. an allergen, is that we are ‘weakening’ the disharmonious energy signal and teaching the body what the harmonious information should be.
But this is a very limited approach. Straight inversion is inverting all the incoming information, and we do not want to ‘cancel’ the harmonious information. Thus, the application of inversion must be very specific.
With BioResonance (classical or alternate), the filter separates the harmonious and disharmonious. Thus, the disharmonious is first inverted (teaching corrected energy frequencies) and then amplified while the harmonious are automatically amplified prior to returning to the patient. A BioResonance and bio-energetic loop.
Older models of the Holimed devices offer information pass through or inversion. All devices of this nature should be used with limited application. This is a similar concept to the older Remedy Information Transfer Units (RITU).
Resonance Frequency Bioresonance
There is considerable research currently available and being developed on the use of frequency specific resonance. The book “The Resonance Effect” by Dr. Carolyn McMakin gives a clear picture of her research and work with “Frequency Specific Microcurrent Stimulation.
Here we see the use of resonance devices to deliver specific frequencies for specific parts of the body, organs of the body, disturbances of the body, disorders, and so on. This method has proven highly effective and is the basic functionality of a number of different devices such as Precision Microcurrent, some TENS devices, AURAMAX and NeurotriS.
My concern with this method is that a very specific frequency has been determined and assigned to, for example, a headache. And while this is very effective for most people, it is not an individualized therapy that is measured or tested for that individual. Are there abnormalities or disharmonies that are not being addressed by the assigned specific frequency?
In many ways this is similar to the radionic frequencies that were found for remedies and other items. The radionic rates were never really “proven” and while they worked for some, they didn’t work for others. These radionic applications were very much linked to the sensitivity (and belief) of the practitioner and in many ways very esoteric rather than technical. I wonder if there have been any comparisons done of the recommended frequencies of the two methods?
Dr. McMakin has done extensive research and work with this method and I would encourage it’s use when unable to measure or assess the patient individually for source and/or when immediate treatment is needed – “Oh my head hurts how can I answer your questions?”
The primary example of this therapy method is ONDAMED. It is almost a combination type of device in that it is biofeedback with a PEMF carrier and the use of some specific frequencies and colors. But it is primarily biofeedback. This is where the energy information of the patient is input into the device and carried back to the patient with specific frequencies via PEMF. Quite brilliant in many ways, and highly effective. The incoming information is not processed or altered prior to delivery back to the patient. Thus, the healing information comes through the biofeedback loop with the addition of specific PEMF and frequency information. The therapy is individualized for the patient because of the immediate biofeedback loop.
One of the buzzwords during current seminars is “quantum physics”. And it’s true – and I do believe – that we will find some of the explanations for the assessment and therapy concepts we now call resonance within quantum physics. I also believe that pursuing this is like falling into Alice’s rabbit hole. Delving ever deeper and smaller and into more minutiae is following the “scientific” and explanatory methods of allopathic and pharmaceutical medicine. For myself I prefer to leave research in this field to the physicists who have preceded us like Burkhardt Heim, Fritz-Albert Popp, Roeland van Wijk and the many others who are now working in this field.
Many of the legitimate devices listed in previous categories are based on this reproducible and high level of research and development, and for which we all owe a great debt of gratitude.
However, where this intersects with our work and the quality technology that aids us daily in healing our patients, is the fantastical claims now made by some of the equipment manufacturers of the so-called “quantum” technology. Devices falling into this category are the many “global scanning” devices, or devices that can diagnose absolutely everything about you, your ancestors and your children but which require no practitioner participation beyond inputting name, gender and age into the computer. Results are primarily (often solely) based on a comparison to a statistical database and certainly not on the measurements of the individual.
Let us be very sceptical of devices for which the technical development cannot be reproduced or replicated. Some of the devices in this category include Rayonex, MetaVital, Oberon, Scenar and sadly so many more. Some – many – radionics devices also fall into this category.
In closing I will reiterate that I am no longer a commercial or contracted distributor for any of the German device companies. Although I have rambled briefly into other methods, the purpose of this article was to show you the differences in the variety of devices available under the current definitions of “Bioresonance”.
Before the purchase of any device, I urge you to first of all approach the project as a “consumer”. Determine what your needs are, then ask questions and consider all the possibilities. I can offer suggestions and recommendations based on my decades of experience and research with Occidental Institute, and am able to discuss the possibilities from a neutral and unbiased perspective.
In view of the changes to registration and certification of medical therapy devices that will fully come into effect in 2020, I urge all interested in adding some form of BioResonance Therapy to their practice to act now and take advantage of this narrow time-window of opportunity. It is time to remember and learn from the history of this field of Biological and Complementary Medicine. In the words of Dr. John Wilson, it is time to be very vigilant not only to watch for the coming registration and certification changes – but to be prepared within our practice.