"Scientific proof of efficacy for the bioresonance method Result of a multicentre study"

David: Welcome to Bioresonance Health Secrets! I’m David, and my brilliant co-host, Sophia, is joining me today. Chris will announce the main headlines as we move through the discussion. Please pay attention to the disclaimer at the end. 

Sophia: Hi, everyone! Today, we’re delving into an extraordinary scientific breakthrough—the results of a multicentre study that finally provides the robust evidence many have been waiting for: proof of the efficacy of bioresonance therapy.

David: This is huge, Sophia. For years, bioresonance therapy has been surrounded by debate. While countless practitioners and patients have shared success stories, scientific validation has remained elusive—until now.

Sophia: But, the technology and use of the Bicom has been around for decades, surely there must have been some trials conducted before this, or how would it have ever been classified as a medical device? 

David: As many know, this is not the first study. As early as the beginning of the 1990s, Dr.Schumacher conducted practice studies with children suffering from neurodermatitis and asthma and documented a success rate of over 90%.

At that time, Dr Hennecke also successfully carried out a practice study on more than 200 allergy patients, using questionnaires, which is a form of study still carried out today.

Numerous practice and clinic studies followed at home and abroad. Especially in China, clinical studies were conducted at that time with high patient numbers and remarkable success rates. In addition, there were a number of in‐vitro studies on cell cultures that proved the effectiveness of the "bioresonance wave patterns". Most recently, 2 studies by Prof. Dartsch were published which proved the acceleration of wound healing in cell cultures. Nevertheless, scientific recognition has so far been lacking. There was criticism of the study design and the non‐European studies were viewed with scepticism.

Sophia: OK, David. So this new study focused on the effectiveness of bioresonance therapy for treating allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, and the results are both statistically significant and highly encouraging. 

The motivation for the study was described by Jürgen Hennecke in his opening speech at the Bicom Congress was:

"The effectiveness of the bioresonance method has not been scientifically proven and is therefore not recognised!" We have all heard such statements for decades, however from this year onwards this should be a thing of the past.

This is because a new multi‐centre practical study, has shown that with statistical significance, the bioresonance method is effective and harmless in patients with allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. This study was carried out according to the currently required and recognised standards and evidence‐based scientific criteria.

Sophia: Let’s break it all down for our listeners.

Overview of the Study:

David: Sophia, can you kick things off with an overview of the study?

Sophia: Absolutely. This multicentre study was conducted between January 2021 and February 2022. It involved 111 patients across eight medical practices, including 28 children, 14 adolescents, and 69 adults. The aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the BICOM Optima device in treating allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis.

David: These “centres” though, could they have been viewed as biased? 

Sophia: A recognised institute specialising in clinical trials and research was chosen to conduct the study. The tasks were:

1 Approval procedure with medical associations/health authorities/ethics commissions.

2 Preparation of the study design

3 Preparation of the information/questionnaires

4 Creation and maintenance of a computer programme specially programmed for this purpose

5 Guidance / assistance for the participating practices

6 Control of the correct execution of the study (monitoring)

7 Statistical evaluation and processing of the study results

Suitable practices had to be found. Only medical practices, no naturopathic practitioners were allowed to participate. These practices would have sufficient experience with the method and a large patient population to be able to recruit, if possible, at least 10 to 15 patients during the observation period.

Sophia: For one, it was designed to meet the highest scientific standards, addressing criticisms that previous studies faced. It utilised a prospective, single-arm, open observational model and included stringent approval processes from medical associations and ethics commissions. Most importantly, the study demonstrated clear, statistically significant results.

Prevalence and Impact:

David: Before we dive deeper, let’s set the stage. Allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis are common conditions. Just how widespread are they?

Sophia: They’re incredibly prevalent, David. Allergic rhinitis affects up to 30% of the global population, with conjunctivitis often co-occurring in many cases. These conditions may seem minor, but they significantly impact quality of life, leading to sleep disturbances, reduced productivity, and even social isolation.

David: That’s a staggering number. And they’re not just inconvenient; they can escalate to more severe health issues if left untreated.

Sophia: Exactly. This is why treatments like bioresonance therapy are so critical—they offer a way to manage symptoms effectively and potentially improve overall well-being without heavy reliance on medications.

Study Design:

David: Let’s talk about the nuts and bolts of the study. How was it structured?

Sophia: The study followed a rigorous design. Patients underwent up to eight therapy sessions over a 15-week period. The treatments were carried out in real-world practice settings to ensure the findings reflected everyday conditions. This is a key strength, as it makes the results more applicable to real life.

David: What about the tools used?

Sophia: Practitioners used the BICOM Optima device along with specialised allergen ampoules. They also employed comprehensive questionnaires to track symptom severity, medication use, and quality of life over time.

David: And how were the results quantified?

Sophia: Great question. They used three main scores:

1. Mean Weekly Symptom Score (wSS): Measured the severity and duration of symptoms.
2. Weekly Medication Score (wMS): Tracked the frequency of allergy medication use.
3. Quality of Life Score (QoLS): Assessed how symptoms impacted daily life.
4. Acute Symptom Score or ASS: Therapist observations after therapy

In each case, lower scores indicated improvement.

David: I’m a little confused about the scoring, can you explain it more for me?

Sophia: Sure, The study used a series of questionnaires to measure allergic symptoms, medication use, and quality of life, assigning numerical scores to evaluate improvements over time:

Symptom Severity was measured using WSS and stands for Mean Weekly Symptom Score

Patients rated symptoms like sneezing, runny nose, and itchy eyes as "none," "mild," "moderate," or "severe."

Scores were calculated based on severity multiplied by the number of symptom days, averaged over a week. Higher scores indicated worse symptoms.

Then it was important to understand the Medications Used by the patient WMS means the Weekly Medication Score

Patients noted whether they used medications such as antihistamines or nasal sprays, and how often.

Scores reflected the number of medications taken per week, with higher scores showing more frequent medication use.

Thirdly came the Quality of Life score or QOLS

Patients rated how allergy symptoms affected activities like sleep, work, and social interactions, from "not at all" to "strongly."

Scores were calculated based on the level and duration of impairment, averaged over a week. Higher scores indicated a greater impact on daily life.

Finally the Therapist Observations Score called the Acute Symptom Score or ASS

Therapists objectively recorded observed symptoms before each therapy session. Higher scores reflected more severe symptoms.

A decrease in these scores by at least two points indicated a significant improvement in symptoms and overall well-being.

Key Findings:

David: Let’s get to the heart of the matter—the results. What did the study reveal?

Sophia: The findings were remarkable. Across all age groups, patients experienced significant improvements:

• Symptom Score (wSS): Dropped from 7.0 to 2.1—a reduction of 4.9 points.
• Medication Score (wMS): Decreased slightly from 0.142 to 0.08, indicating reduced reliance on allergy medications.
• Quality of Life Score (QoLS): Fell from 9.4 to 2.5—a 70% improvement.

David: That’s incredible. And these improvements weren’t just subjective?

Sophia: Correct. Therapists observed similar trends, noting reductions in acute symptoms and overall allergy severity. The consistency of results across different measurement tools adds weight to the findings.

Type of allergens and number of therapies

David: I’m sure, like me, our listeners will be wondering what type of allergies were involved, what therapies were delivered and how many did they need?

Sophia: Very important to know! So, A minimum of 3 and a maximum of 8 allergy therapies were prescribed for the study after the optional pre-treatments.

In one clinic 12 patients, 9 of them with single allergens: 2 dog, 3 cat, 3 house dust, 1 early blossom; and 3 patients were treated two allergens: 1 house dust and dog, 2 house dust and mould. As a rule, 3-4 therapy sessions were sufficient. Only in one case were 7 sessions required. In the other test practices, between 3 and 8 treatment sessions were needed too.

The treatment in the study was terminated when the patient no longer reacted subjectively to the allergen treated. Any further necessary therapies were then no longer carried out as part of the study. According to other investigators, in some practices sev- several allergens were treated in different patients and of course more therapy sessions were needed.

Therapy Programs used

David: For our therapists listening or people with a Bicom, what was the protocol?

Sophia: The basic therapy was selected according to the conductance value, but was usually only on in the first 2-3 therapy sessions. This was followed by "blockage therapy" in the same session, which was selected according to anamnesis and energetic testing.

Typical examples of programs used were:

For radiation exposure - programme 700

For scar interference fields - programmes 910 + 900.

This was followed by the "detoxification therapy": after testing, therapy programmes for the liver, kidneys, lymph, lungs or the general detoxification programme 970 were carried out.

After this the actual allergy therapy was carried out. The original allergens as well as the corresponding CTT or Schumacher ampoules were placed in the input cup.

Dr Henneke exclusively used the proven programme sequence 11310 (which includes pro- grammes 963, 944, 998). In the subsequent processing and counting of the therapy programmes used in all practices, it turned out that these "old" programmes were used most frequently in the test practices, followed by the use of programme sequences 10325 which is Ai, all frequencies inverted and 10326 Di only disharmonious frequencies inverted, based on protocols according to Riffel. Some practices also used both programme sequences or other existing allergy programs depending on the energetic testing. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the different therapy programmes cannot be deduced within the scope of the study.

Challenges in Implementation:

David: Of course, no study is without its challenges. What obstacles did the researchers face?

Sophia: There were several, David. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted patient recruitment and in-person monitoring. Participating practices faced additional stress from changing regulations and safety protocols. There were also natural disasters, like the catastrophic floods in July 2021, which displaced some patients.

David: Despite these hurdles, the study was completed successfully. That’s a testament to the dedication of the researchers and practitioners involved.

Ethical Considerations:

David: Let’s touch on the ethical aspects. Were there any concerns raised during the study?

Sophia: Yes, one ethics committee expressed reservations about the study design, citing the potential for placebo effects. However, the researchers acknowledged this possibility, noting that a placebo effect is a factor in all scientific studies. Interestingly, they estimated that a placebo effect of 70% would still be a respectable outcome.

David: That’s an important point. It underscores the value of rigorous design and transparent reporting in overcoming scepticism.

Case Studies

David: Have we time for a couple of experiences from those involved in the trial?

Sophia: Sure, here are some patient examples

A 55-year-old patient had been suffering from allergic rhinitis for about 4 months, triggered by a new dog. He complained of mild (but annoying!) symptoms such as a runny and blocked nose, as well as sneezing attacks. He also had a long-standing house dust allergy, but this hardly bothered him. The ideal patient for the study!

In the first sessions involved basic therapy and integrated some "preliminary programmes". There were 4 allergy therapy sessions with the original dog hair and the Schumacher and STT ampoules labelled "dogs".

Afterwards, the patient had the impression that he no longer reacted to his dog, but according to the questionnaire, he was not yet free of complaints. It was decided to add three more sessions of "house dust". After that, the nose was completely free with a score "0"! 

Another 59-year-old patient also came to the practice because of a dog hair allergy. As expected, the patient did not react to his dog anymore after 3 therapy sessions, but the information in the questionnaires was very fluctuating and even at the end of the allergy treatment he still showed symptoms. He was also allergic to pollen, mould, house dust and food. Here, the "allowed" 5 more therapy sessions would not have been sufficient. The final score therefore did not represent the effectiveness of the allergy therapy carried out!

David: Great, I bet they were really happy! Were there any that suffered negative side effects? 

Sophia: In order to assess the safety of the bioresonance method, "side effects" – officially known as Adverse Events AE - should also be carefully documented. In the entire study, 4 such events were reported that were classified as "mild" to "moderate". As expected, serious adverse events did not occur. Only female participants were affected with the following symptoms: transient marked exacerbation of rhino-conjunctivitis, migraine, diarrhoea, skin dryness with fissures of the upper lip and right eyelid. All reactions disappeared within a few days. From the Doctors point of view, these were "initial aggravations", as they can occur within the framework of any regulative therapy method as a "detoxification reaction".

Implications and Future Directions:

David: What does this study mean for the future of bioresonance therapy?

Sophia: It’s a game-changer, David. Not only does it provide scientific validation, but it also paves the way for broader acceptance of bioresonance as a legitimate therapeutic option. The study’s findings are already being prepared for publication in recognised medical journals, which will further bolster its credibility.

David: And what about future research? Are there plans to explore other applications of bioresonance therapy?

Sophia: Absolutely. While this study focused on allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, there’s potential for research into conditions like neurodermatitis, food allergies, and even gastrointestinal disorders. The challenge lies in balancing the time and resources needed to conduct these studies.

Conclusion:

David: As we wrap up, what’s the key takeaway from this study?

Sophia: The key takeaway is that bioresonance therapy has been scientifically validated as an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. This is a major milestone for practitioners and patients alike, offering a safe, non-invasive alternative to traditional treatments.

David: Thank you, Sophia, for breaking it all down. And to our listeners, we hope this discussion has shed light on the exciting advancements in bioresonance therapy. If you’re curious about how it might benefit you, consult a qualified practitioner.

Sophia: Thanks for tuning in to "The Science Behind Bioresonance." Until next time, take care and stay curious.

The content of this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. We discuss complementary health therapies, including bioresonance, as part of a fully integrated approach to health and wellness. While we aim to provide valuable insights and practical advice, this podcast is not intended to replace professional medical consultation, diagnosis, or treatment.

We strongly encourage listeners to seek the guidance of qualified healthcare professionals for any medical concerns and to use complementary therapies as a supportive addition to professional medical care. Always consult your healthcare provider before starting or modifying any treatment plan.