Bioresonance

Origins in the 1970s

Sources place the founding of classical bioresonance therapy in the 1970s. An obituary of Erich Rasche, written in German by Michael Galle, says that Rasche and the physician Franz Morell established the classical form of the method in that decade and names MORA, BICOM, HOLIMED and IMEDIS as examples. Galle is also a co-author of two trials discussed below, and the text is a tribute and not independent history. The sources reviewed give a decade, not a specific year, and a 1977 date could not be confirmed in any source that could be opened.

A smoking cessation trial describes MORA therapy as developed by the physician Franz Morell and the electrical engineering technician Erich Rasche in the 1970s, and as applied in complementary medicine for various indications since then. A 2022 Romanian study instead calls Morell a physicist and says the therapy arose from medical tests in electroacupuncture. The sources therefore differ on Morell's profession.

Spread and contemporary use

The literature reviewed shows use of the method in several countries: a controlled trial in Davos, Switzerland published in 1997, a smoking cessation trial in Istanbul published in 2014, and observational reports from Romania (2022), the Netherlands (2023) and Italy (2024). In a population-based study of adults with allergies, conducted in 2000 and 2001, bioresonance accounted for 10.0% of alternative medicine use, behind homeopathy, autologous blood injection and acupuncture.

Names used for the method

'Bioresonance' is the umbrella name. MORA and BICOM are device families, and Galle's obituary lists HOLIMED and IMEDIS as further examples of classical bioresonance. A 1997 trial in children states that bioresonance therapy is also called biophysical information therapy (BIT), and a later study of stuttering uses the same label. A 2022 depression study names the Mora Nova device.

Related labels and contested usage

'Frequency-based therapy' is used on this page only as a generic label for related offerings. None of the sources reviewed treats it as a standardized name for bioresonance. Authors who describe the principle use 'resonance' and 'oscillation' for postulated weak electromagnetic signals of the body or of substances. Allergy specialists writing in 2005 and 2010 list bioresonance among diagnostic tests that they describe as lacking a sound rationale, together with electroacupuncture and applied kinesiology, so the term covers both a treatment and a testing method.

The device principle as proponents describe it

A practitioner-authored 2023 report describes the principle as follows: electromagnetic information is collected from the body, for example with an electrode near a diseased organ, and electronic inversion filters shift the phase of the signals by 180 degrees. The report says that when an inverted vibration meets the original one, both become extinct. A 2022 Romanian study uses similar language, describing destructive interference of rigid, isolated vibrations that it calls pathological. The first report adds that these concepts require more scientific substantiation.

Sessions in published studies

Protocols differ between studies and are not a standard. In the Istanbul smoking cessation trial, a single 45-minute session used a MORA-Super device with electrodes and cigarette material, followed by drops for one month and a chip worn at an acupuncture point; the placebo used different programs with the amplification set to zero. An Italian pilot used eight sessions of 65 minutes, one every 48 hours for about a month. A 2022 depression study used five weeks of treatment, and a stuttering study used ten sessions.

Testing and diagnostic use

Bioresonance is also used to test for allergy and other conditions. A 2021 survey of 24 online companies selling direct-to-consumer food-allergy tests found that one used an accredited laboratory with clinically recognized specific IgE testing, while other laboratories used bioresonance or IgG testing. A 2023 practitioner series selected patients with a working diagnosis of chronic Salmonella cholecystitis using BICOM testing. The sources reviewed do not describe a training standard for practitioners, and none was verified.

Reasons people use it

Allergy has been the best-documented context of use. In the 2000 to 2001 population study of 351 adults with allergies, 26.5% used alternative medicine, most often because they assumed it had few side-effects, wished to try everything, or were unsatisfied with conventional results. The median cost of an entire treatment was 205 euros. A 2004 review states that about 30% of patients with allergies in Europe report experience with complementary medicine and that bioresonance is among the few techniques accounting for most use.

Conditions that have been studied

Practitioners have reported using bioresonance for smoking cessation, atopic dermatitis, functional gastrointestinal complaints, stuttering, depression and low back pain with irritable bowel syndrome. These are uses that were studied, and they are not evidence of benefit. Findings are condition-specific and are described under Research and Evidence.

Atopic dermatitis in children

The best-known controlled study is a double-blind trial in 32 children aged 1.5 to 16.8 years with long-lasting atopic dermatitis, hospitalized for 4 to 6 weeks in Davos. All received conventional inpatient therapy plus either active or sham bioresonance. Both groups improved, and the active treatment had no significant additive effect on skin, sleep and itch scores, blood markers or a questionnaire over one year. The authors concluded that the method had no place in treating children with this condition. A 2017 review found a single study on bioresonance for atopic eczema, which did not show superiority to sham, and judged the overall evidence for complementary treatments limited.

Smoking cessation

A pilot trial in 190 smokers in Turkey compared active bioresonance with a placebo procedure, with patients allocated alternately in order of arrival. Self-reported abstinence was higher in the active group at 1 week (77.2% vs 54.8%), 1 month (51.1% vs 28.6%) and 1 year (28.6% vs 16.1%). There was no biochemical verification, more placebo participants than active participants took antidepressants (14 vs 6), and one author was a consultant to the device maker. It is a single pilot, and the sources reviewed do not report an independent replication. A 2005 Polish review described the effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation methods, including bioresonance, as often disputable.

Other controlled and uncontrolled studies

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of 20 people with functional gastrointestinal complaints reported greater reductions in the active group; it is very small and was available here only as an abstract. A randomized study of 14 stuttering children found no improvement with bioresonance or with speech therapy. A Romanian study of depression compared 40 patients on bioresonance with 40 on an SSRI and was neither randomized nor blinded. An Italian pilot of 20 people reported improvement without a control group. Uncontrolled and non-randomized findings cannot separate treatment effects from placebo response or natural change.

Reviews and the mechanism question

Searches of PubMed for bioresonance with the terms systematic review, randomized, placebo and double-blind did not return a dedicated systematic review of bioresonance. A review of unconventional treatments for atopic eczema found no unequivocal evidence of efficacy even where double-blind studies existed. Authors of reviews on allergy testing and alternative medicine describe the theoretical basis as obscure or the rationale as scarce, and describe results as not reproducible under rigorous testing. The sources reviewed do not include an independent physical demonstration that the body emits the signals the devices are said to detect, so the proposed mechanism is not supported by them.

Direct adverse effects

The smoking cessation pilot reported that adverse side effects were not observed. The sources reviewed contain no systematic data on adverse events and none on contraindications, for example for people with implanted electronic devices, so a lack of reported harm should not be read as evidence of safety.

Indirect harms

Sources emphasize indirect harms. A 2005 review of unproven allergy techniques, including bioresonance, said such methods may lead to misleading advice or treatments. A 2021 dermatology paper described the online allergy tests that it surveyed as largely misleading and from unaccredited laboratories. The Davos authors pointed to high costs and false promises from promoters. In the 2000 to 2001 allergy study, the median cost of an entire alternative treatment course was 205 euros, with a range of 15 to 1,278 euros. A 1998 German review lists bioresonance diagnosis among methods whose use can lead to wrong diagnosis.

Care boundaries

This information is educational and is not individualized medical advice. Evidence for bioresonance is limited to a few small trials, and one trial in children found no added effect on atopic dermatitis. Testing for allergy or other conditions with these devices should not stand in for clinical assessment, and treatment should not delay or replace necessary medical care. The dermatology authors advise assessing food allergy by clinical history, supported by specific IgE testing where appropriate.