Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
1874-2971/19 Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.net
1
DOI: 10.2174/1874297120190800001, 2019, 8, 1-8
The Open Epidemiology Journal
Content list available at: https://openepidemiologyjournal.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Effectiveness of Bioresonance Method on Human Health
Periklis Karakos*, Tripsiannis Grigorios, Konstantinidis Theodoros and Lialiaris Theodoros
School of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece
Abstract:
Introduction:
Bioresonance is a holistic physical method that can be used diagnostically and therapeutically to treat various diseases. Bioresonance uses the
electromagnetic waves it receives from the patient. This biophysical method of treatment alters the energy field of the affected organism,
increasing the effectiveness of the autoimmune system, thus improving the patient’s overall health.
Methods:
A quasi-experimental design was used to examine whether bioresonance had an effect on the symptoms of the patients. Statistical data processing
involves a study of various parameters such as age, gender, studies, occupation, intolerance or illness as well as the existence and balancing of
allergic charges. The study included 311 patients from doctors and bio-coordinating laboratories in Athens, Thessaloniki, Volos and Xanthi. The
sample of the study included both men (120 subjects - 38.58%) and women (191 subjects – 61.42%), aged from 2 to 76 years old. The age group
with the largest number of patients included those aged from 31 to 45.
Results:
The patients under treatment came forward with symptoms mostly nasal (61.09%), followed by eye, respiratory, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal
symptoms. Most of the patients (90%) observe no symptoms at all or show significant improvement of their symptoms after a period of 12 months
of bioresonance treatment. These results show that bioresonance intervention had a significant effect on the improvement of symptoms and this
improvement is even obvious 12 months after the intervention; p<.01.
Conclusion:
We believe that the forthcoming results contribute to a better understanding of the effect of bioresonance on the human body and its affect in
preventing and restoring health issues.
Keywords: Bioresonance, CAM, Holistic medicine, Allergy, Public health, Autoimmune system.
Article History Received: August 20, 2018 Revised: March 06, 2019 Accepted: April 01, 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
It is scientifically proven that our body cells emit and
receive electromagnetic signals [1]. When normal cellular elec-
tromagnetic communication is disrupted, due to interference of
some pathogenic microorganism, diseases appear [2]. Such
“parasites” in cells’ electromagnetic communication can be
caused by stress, fungi, bacteria, hormonal disorders, as well as
allergens such as pollen, dust, various food anomalies, bee
sting poison, anxiety, atmospheric pollution, heavy metals,
radiation and other similar aggravating factors, resulting in the
onset of symptoms or even the disease itself [3]. In the history
* Address correspondence to this author at the School of Medicine, Democritus
University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece;
E-mail: periklis_karakos@yahoo.gr
of medicine, the 20th century will be referred to as the century
in which medicine was based on cellular pathology, bio-
chemistry, advances in surgery, and increased life expectancy
thanks to the development of new treatment methods that are
based on chemical, antibiotic or other methods. We will face
the need for the use of Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (CAM) in order to relax, improve our subjective
well-being, preventative care and we will meet the need for
more individualized and holistic care [4]. Bioresonance is a
holistic method, the basic principle of which is that each
human is an individual being. Therefore, each disease of a
specific organism is an individual case and as such it should be
treated accordingly. Bioresonance treatment must be spe-
cifically adapted to each patient [5]. One can say that bio-
resonance is the modern “Phaistos disk”, as the scientific
2 The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 Karakos et al.
community has neither managed to clarify its aetiology, nor to
fully elucidate its pathogenic mechanisms so far.
In recent years, our everyday life has changed, becoming
even more stressful and difficult and as all things around us
have changed, we have to change the way we approach the
human body. Therefore, what we expect from medicine in the
21st century is to dissolve the prejudices and pave the way for
us to accept certain new approaches in our way of thinking [6].
We live in a “world of change” [7]. According to recent
studies, chronic diseases have significant financial and social
consequences on global economy. Despite the increasing
scientific efforts to determine the aetiology and mechanisms of
chronic diseases in relation to their treatment, the number of
these diseases is constantly expanding. One concept describing
the aetiology and mechanisms of chronic diseases is based on
“Epigenetic Changes” [8]. Epigenetic changes are permanent
changes in gene expression that are caused by Chromatin
conformation changes and do not involve DNA sequence
changes. Depending on the time-scale, these changes can be
persistent through DNA replication. The nuclear chromatin
cluster has electric oscillation capacity in the eukaryotic
nucleus. The natural frequency of an oscillating chromatin re-
gion is determined by DNA-protein complexes’ physical pro-
perties in that region, which can be changed by its epigenetic
state and associated protein factors [9]. The detection of such
changes is possible using the method of bioresonance, and
therefore they can be used for the early detection of chronic
diseases. Bioresonance works on the basis of living organisms’
magnetic fields spectral analysis, thus allowing the therapist to
differentiate between the normal and abnormal frequencies
emitted by the body. Electromagnetic waves as epigenetic
factors could influence the dynamic changes of chromatin,
resulting in the activation or suppression of the body’s bio-
chemical processes and play a critical role in the development
or treatment of chronic diseases [10]. The principle of electro-
transdermal diagnostic devices was discovered by Dr. Reinhard
Voll, who argued that the human body’s electrical resistance is
not homogeneous, and there are meridians appearing as electric
fields. There is a total number of 1000 points on the human
body corresponding to the 12 classical meridians of Chinese
medicine. Dr. Voll proposed a device that could measure skin
resistance in each acupuncture point in combination with
galvanic skin resistance [11]. In 1922, the Russian biophysicist
Α.G. Gurwitsch discovered mitogenetic radiation. He observed
that the root of an onion during its growth phase can increase
cellular division of another root, even when these two roots are
separated by glass [12]. This observation was the beginning of
the theory of bioresonance method through the development of
the theory of biological information transfer [13].
The German doctor Franz Morell is considered the “father”
of bioresonance treatment. In 1977, having long-term ex-
perience in electro-acupuncture, he thought that his treatments
could be more precise if he could use the electromagnetic
vibrations of the patient’s own body. Thus, the first electronic
device that could receive and return electromagnetic fre-
quencies from/to the body using electrodes was constructed
[14]. Morell introduced the treatment model using the signals
of the patient’s own body, which was initially called the
MORA treatment. Its name was given by the initials of its
inventors MOrell and RAsche, who was an electronic engineer
and designed the first treatment device. The use of the BICOM
device started in 1987, offering many advantages as compared
to the initial device. The body receives the disturbed signal
from the patient through the input of the information from the
abdominal area (as well as any part of the body). This signal is
being processed by the Bicom device and amplified. Following
this, the inverted therapeutic signal returns to the patient
amplified through the modulation mat located along the spinal
cord. Bicom bioresonance device allows the selection of
specific parts of the total frequency spectrum for the treatment
[15]. The device’s scanning frequency range from 1Hz to
800kHz and it is CE certified. To treat allergies, the modified
(inverted) electromagnetic vibrations of allergens are sent to
the body, which are placed in a container attached to the bio-
resonance device.
In the endogenous form of bioresonance, the oscillations
are picked up using electrodes at various parts of the body and
following an electronic inversion they are transmitted back to
the body for therapeutic purposes. In the exogenous form, the
oscillations of bio-active substances are transmitted following
the electronic inversion (e.g. an allergen) or amplification (e.g.
nosodes) for therapeutic purposes to the human body [16]. In
1990, the pediatrician Dr. Schumacher conducted a research
study in his medical practice, including 204 children with
various allergies. The patients completed a questionnaire at
baseline, and then five to nine months after the bioresonance
treatment, the majority (83%) reported that they did not have
any allergic symptoms anymore. The symptoms improved in
11% of the respondents, no difference was reported by 4.5% of
them, and 1.5% could not specify. At that time, this was a
revolutionary finding. The level of evidence for the study was
4-5 [17]. During the same period Dr. Schumacher published
another study with patients with high fever (spring allergic
rhinitis). In the following spring after the treatment, 43.4% of
the patients did not have symptoms anymore, while im-
provement was evident in 50.4% of the patients, indicating that
effectiveness exceeded 90% [18].
In 1993 Dr. Hennecke conducted a research study in his
medical practice. He had developed a new treatment method
for allergies with the use of meridians from the Bicom bio-
resonance device. A few months after the use of the new
method, he sent questionnaires to 248 of his patients that un-
derwent treatment. The allergen should not be avoided, which
is the advantage of his method. The group included both adults
and children with atopic dermatitis, eczema, allergy to pollen,
as well as eye, respiratory and intestinal allergic conditions.
Among the 200 cases that were analyzed, 50.4% reported
having no symptoms, and 34.1% showed improvement. Most
patients had a long history of allergies and had also tried other
less effective therapies [19]. In 2002, a study was conducted by
the Russian Institute of Theoretical and Experimental
Biophysics with patients with rheumatoid arthritis, analyzing
results before and during bioresonance therapy. The state of the
lymphocytes of patients receiving pharmacotherapy showed
activation of the key antioxidant enzymes and decreased
content in thiol groups. Patients under bioresonance therapy
increased the content of thiol groups and normalised activities
of glutathione peroxidase. The conclusion of the study was that
The Effectiveness of Bioresonance The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 3
the chances in the lymphatic system indicate that bioresonance
therapy activates protective mechanisms in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis [20].In recent years, similar studies are
conducted in Europe and China, including children and adults
assessing the application of bioresonance in treating allergies
(atopic dermatitis, rhinitis, asthma, etc.) with very promising
results [21]. An initial study in 79 patients with cutaneous
symptoms was published in March 2005. This study also
demonstrated that treatment was effective, with 75% of the
patients showing complete healing and 22% having im-
provement of their symptoms [22]. Another study compared
three groups including 181 children with bronchial asthma or
allergic rhinitis. This was a prospective, randomised, con-
trolled, parallel group study [23]. The patients were divided
into three groups, the first of which included children with a
first-time diagnosis, the second group children for whom prior
medication therapy was not successful, and the third was the
control group, including children with a first-time diagnosis
who received medication only. A further study that was pub-
lished in 2011 included 935 patients suffering from allergies
treated with the use of bioresonance therapy in the period
between 1998 and 2008. Three groups of indications were
specified: patients with allergies, pain symptoms, and in-
fections. The overall assessment of treatment effectiveness was
determined as either satisfactory or non-satisfactory healing.
The results for 83.3% of the total number of patients receiving
treatment were classified as very satisfactory. In particular,
among patients with allergic symptoms, 88.2% of them
demonstrated effectiveness, in patients with pain symptoms
effectiveness reached 85.9%, while the corresponding effec-
tiveness for infections reached 96.1% [24]. In 2002 the results
of diagnosis using EAV were compared to the skin prick test in
31 patients with four allergies (mites, grass, olive pollen, and
nettle). The percentage of correspondence reached up to 95%.
During the evaluation performed as part of this study, it was
observed that “as an objective method, the Bicom device is
particularly appropriate for conducting tests for allergies”. The
level of evidence of this study was determined as 1 [25]. The
treatment of allergies with the Bicom device was “legitimized”
through court decision 6U 2187/06 on May 14th, 2009 by the
Court of Munich.
The purpose of the present study is the preliminary em-
pirical investigation of the effect of bioresonance as an
alternative protective method for the body against harmful
factors, without scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the
method so far. The hypotheses of the study are (1) there is
significant effect of bioresonance as an alternative protective
method for the cells, improvement in relation to aggravating
and harmful factors and (2) there differences are evident
among patient after treatment completion.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study Design
For the purposes of this study, a quasi-experimental design
was used to examine whether bioresonance had an effect on the
patients’ symptoms. The survey lasted for 1 year and the
subjects for the survey were listed as Patients of Bioresonance
Centres in 4 cities in Greece (Athens, Thessaloniki, Volos and
Xanthi) between 1/1/2012 and 30/4/2016.
2.2. Tool of Survey
A questionnaire with 75 questions was used to record the
data and was distributed to all patients. The questionnaire
consisted of 75 questions to be answered by all patients who
used the bioresonance method and completed or stopped
treatment with the Bicom device [26]. The questionnaires for
children under the age of 12 were completed by their parents.
The questionnaire included questions about the patient's de-
mographic characteristics, their symptoms, and the aetiology
causing them. Fourteen (14) questions focused on demographic
characteristics, such as gender, age, education, profession,
smoking status, alcohol-coffee consumption, the use of other
treatment methods in the past, and the reasons for choosing
bioresonance. Ten (10) questions related to patients’ medical
history, including symptom frequency, the time of the onset of
symptoms, if they had undergone any prior surgical operation,
if they used any medication for relieving symptoms, their
family medical history, etc. Twenty two (22) questions
assessed some of the patients’ symptoms, such as stuffy nose,
itching, sneezing, and runny nose among others. In addition,
nineteen (19) questions assessed whether certain aggravating
factors affect the patients’ symptoms, such as alcohol, per-
fumes, air-conditioning, seasonal changes, etc. More speci-
fically, a scale 0-3 was used for allergic rhinitis relating to
patients’ type of symptoms, TNSS (Total Nasal Symptom
Score) [27]. The last page of the questionnaire included certain
questions examining whether patients had any symptoms after
the completion of the bioresonance therapy after a period of
three (3) months, six (6) months and one year. Thus it was
possible to monitor patients’ symptoms and specify whether
their symptoms had improved or not. Furthermore, the patients
were asked if they continued medical treatment along with
bioresonance, the number of aggravating factors that were
positive, and the number of treatments required, while one
question was for those patients who did not complete the
treatment, so that to specify the reason of discontinuation.
2.3. Participants
At total 360 patients were selected for bioresonance
treatments using simple random sampling. As a criterion for
inclusion in the survey was the visit to the bioresonance centers
and the initiation of some treatment with bioresonance method
to deal with their health problems. Patients who did not
correctly complete the questionnaire and did not continue
treatment were not included in the survey. Patients completed
anonymously the questionnaires given to them and signed their
consent to use the information for research purposes only in
accordance with medical confidentiality. Furthermore, the
treatment results were rechecked over a period of 3, 6 and 12
months with the completion of 10 additional questions by the
therapist. Following a careful check, 311 correctly completed
questionnaires were included in the study. The sample of the
study included both male (120 in total - 38.58%) and female
(191 in total – 61.42%) patients, aged from 2 to 76 years old;
their distribution based on age.
2.4. Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed in the Statistical Package for
Social Science version 24. For the purpose of the study,
4 The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 Karakos et al.
descriptors were used to evaluate the symptoms of patients, the
causes that caused the symptoms and the causes that may have
stopped treatment. The main outcome of the survey was the
evaluation of the symptoms by the therapist. The effectiveness
of bioresonance was analysed using non parametric Friedman
test. Moreover, post-hoc analysis using Wilcoxon test was used
in order to research the exact times of a statistically significant
differenciation. The significance level of the survey defined to
be α=0.05 (95% confidence interval).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The symptoms in the survey refer to various health
problems such as nasal, respiratory, gastrointestinal and or-
thopedic issues. Based on the results of the research it seems
that health conditions which are treated with bioresonance are
to a large extend allergy-related illnesses. This fact signifies the
effectiveness of bioresonance in the treatment of allergies and
its acceptance by patients who used treatment of this method.
The results indicate that women are more positive in
selecting alternative treatments, and it is also worth noting that
a great percentage of men had a positive attitude towards
bioresonance therapy after being advised by their wife or
spouse. In a survey that took place in 2013, women were more
likely to use CAM than men (67.0% vs. 50.9% for men) [28].
Patients varying from 2 to 76 years of age were included in the
study, covering a wide range of age scale. The age group with
the largest number of patients included those aged 31 to 45
years old. In an investigation which took place in Denmark,
people with MS who used CAM treatments were more likely to
be of female gender, 18-40 years of age [29]. This indicates
that in these age groups patients seek to find new methods and
new ways, apart from traditional medicine, to treat their health
issues. This result strengthens the view of the great power of
advertising, which is evident today both on the Internet and
other media.
As far as participants’ educational level is concerned, it is
evident that most participants had secondary and university
educational level (48.23%). Patients with graduate and post-
graduate education were also more likely to use CAM than
those with primary education (63.9% vs. 53.5%) [30]. It is
evident that patients selecting alternative treatment methods
and bioresonance are usually young, educated individuals,
seeking for an alternative treatment for their symptoms. The
answers given to the question: “Have you used other treatment
methods? Please specify” indicate that most patients (39.87%)
answered that the first choice to treat their symptoms was
medication, while a significant percentage (32,8%) of the
patients did not use other methods, but chose bioresonance
therapy as their first choice to manage their symptoms.
Furthermore in 2002, about 62% of U.S. adults used some
form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)
[31]. This also demonstrates a significant increase in the
preference of CAM use for the treatment of patient symptoms.
A significant number of patients select bioresonance as their
first choice for the treatment of their symptoms, indicating the
emerging awareness for bioresonance. When examining the
symptoms reported by patients, it is evident that most
symptoms are nasal (61.09%), followed by eye, respiratory,
cutaneous, and gastrointestinal symptoms. It is also evident that
most symptoms concern the upper respiratory system, in-
dicating allergic rhinitis as their cause. Fig. (1) presented the
reported symptoms and Fig. (2) presents the reported causes of
symptoms aggravation. The most frequent of which include
humidity, dust, and pollen from flowers, which are mainly
observed during spring, again indicating allergic rhinitis as
their cause. Fig. (3) presents patients’ state immediately after
the completion of treatment. It is evident that 38.26% do not
have any symptoms at all, while 28.29% had significant
improvement of their symptoms.
Fig. (1). Symptoms.
61.09
42.12 41.8 44.69 42.76
14.46
22.83
18.32
35.69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
The Effectiveness of Bioresonance The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 5
Fig. (2). Causes aggravating the symptoms.
Fig. (3). Symptoms immediately after intervention.
The results regarding the effectiveness of bioresonance are
presented in Table 1. The results indicate that the percentage of
patients with small improvement immediately after in-
terventions was 20.9%, and only 2.3% had no improvement at
all. Moreover, 42.8% of the patients did not show any
symptoms following their intervention. Symptoms recorded
after a period of 3 months indicate that no symptoms are
present in 39.9% of the patients and 37% of the patients show
significant improvement. The 21.2% of the patients had small
improvement and the percentage of patients with no
improvement at all was 1.9%. The feedback after 6 months was
no symptom present in 37% of the patients, while significant
improvement was evident in 51.1% of the patients. In follow-
up measurement 12 months after intervention, 43.4% of the
patients had no symptoms, 46.6% showed up significant
improvement and 10% showed up small improvement. The
Friedman test indicate that there is significant effect of
bioresonance intervention; χ2(3)=33.94, p<.001. In more detail,
post-hoc analysis indicate that there is significant difference
between the improvement immediately after intervention and 6
moths after intervention; z=-4.930, p<.01, there is significant
difference between the improvement immediately after
intervention and 12 moths after intervention; z=-4.831, p<.01.
These results show that bioresonance intervention had a
significant effect on the improvement of symptoms and this
improvement is even obvious even 12 months after the
intervention.
30.22
14.14
45.01
27.01
54.34
38.58
40.51
49.83
24.11
22.51
31.51
28.29
38.91
50.48
25.72
15.75
18.97
32.47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6 The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 Karakos et al.
Table 1. Symptoms pro and post intervention (3, 6 and 12 months after treatment).
Not Anymore Significant Improvement Low Improvement No Improvement
Immediately after n 133 106 65 7
% 42.8% 34.1% 20.9% 2.3%
After 3 months n 124 115 66 6
% 39.9% 37.0% 21.2% 1.9%
After 6 months n 115 159 37 0
% 37.0% 51.1% 11.9% 0.0%
After 12 months n 135 145 31 0
% 43.4% 46.6% 10.0% 0.0%
The main diagnosis of allergies and their treatment are
based on traditional allergy tests, which include well-validated
diagnostic methods and proven treatment methods. Further-
more several tests have been proposed that have not been tested
adequately in the evaluation of patients with allergies. Accor-
ding to the results of our study it is evident that bioresonance
can help significantly as an alternative treatment of diseases
and allergies. No clinical study or experimental protocol
assessing the effect of bioresonance was used. To the contrary,
a special study with questionnaires was conducted, so that to
investigate the different factors among the 311 patients, such as
age, gender, studies, intolerances and/or diseases, as well as the
presence and balancing of allergy burden. Based on the study
results, about 61.13% of adults used bioresonance therapy or
other CAM as their first choice to manage their symptoms.
Also, women in our study, were more likely to use bio-
resonance than men (61.42% vs. 38.68). As far as the
participants’ educational level is concerned, it is evident that
participants with secondary (31.51%) and postgraduate edu-
cational level (48.23%) were more likely to use bioresonance.
It is evident that patients selecting alternative treatment
methods and bioresonance are usually young, educated
individuals, seeking for an alternative treatment for their
symptoms. Young people between the ages of 31-45 are
informed and educated as well as they are looking for new
alternative ways of coping with their symptoms, either because
they don’t rely on classical medicine or because they are
looking for a new permanent and non-prescriptive way to cope
with their symptoms. The charges that humans now receive are
much more intense than those accepted 20-30 years ago. Of
course, there is much more information on health issues. This
has led young people to turn to alternative therapies as a more
painless and meaningful solution to their health problems. As
reported by the study results, it is evident that one year after the
end of treatment, the percentage of patients without any
symptoms is 43.4%, while 46.6% of the patients showed sig-
nificant improvement. The total percentage of patients (90%)
observe no symptoms or significant improvement of the
symptoms, which indicates that bioresonance is a very
effective method, while no aggravation of patients’ symptoms
is observed. The harsh life rhythms and the burdens that our
body receives from stress, atmospheric pollution, poor
nutrition, aggravating radiation, etc. have increased over the
previous years. This results in new diseases in human body
such as autoimmune diseases, obesity, allergies or psy-
chosomatic disorders. Diseases that in many occasions classic
medicine cannot find a permanent and painless solution. Based
on the results of the research, Bioresonance can be a holistic
way of addressing and finding the primary causes of symptom
manifestation.
The key point of this research is the high efficiency of the
method on humans. It is also worth noting that bioresonance
can be applied to a wide range of diseases without medication
or side effects. It can be applied to anyone, regardless of their
age or gender. This promising method is a new scientific
holistic method, the encouraging results of which can be a
source of knowledge for dealing with many malfunctions of the
human body.
The conclusions of the study cannot be generalized to the
extent of the general population, since of course there was a
limitation in people examined. Accordingly, the part of re-
examining the patients' symptoms was conducted by telephone
and questionnaires were completed by doctors and therapists
according to the decription of the patients’ symptoms. No
microbiological examinations and patient measurements were
performed to evaluate the symptoms of patients as there was a
wide variety of symptoms from the randomized patients who
participated in the study. For this reason, it was not easy to
evaluate them in total, thus only using a questionnaire response
from the patients themselves. However, the high rate of success
of the bioresonance method has given us the incentive to
further research into more complex symptoms and specific
applications.
CONCLUSION
Bioresonance does not intend to replace traditional
medicine, but in many cases it provides significant help, even
in cases with no effective medications. It is important to
highlight the fact that even patients who did not show complete
healing, discontinued medication. This demonstrates another
potential of Bioresonance, to be combined with a standard
medication treatment in order to be better assimilated from
patients and minimize side effects from the effects of the
conventional drug. This is an opportunity to use data for further
research in the future with a perspective of making better use
of the method in humans. Bioresonance is a method that can
help both in identifying and in preventing and restoring health
status, through the identification of the underlying causes of a
disease. The aim of bioresonance treatment is the restoration of
the body’s energy flow, the elimination of pathological con-
ditions, and the enhancement of health to restore the body’s
auto-healing system and to treat pathological conditions cau-
sing the disease. Bioresonance is neither a panacea nor it is
The Effectiveness of Bioresonance The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 7
intended to replace conventional medicine. However, it is of
great importance since it 'comes to complement' traditional
medicine as it is a new approach, which in future times can
prove to be a new diagnostic and therapeutic method to prevent
and deal with the hidden causes that can cause a disease in the
first place. Bioresonance is a new development in the field of
medicine that covers the need for early detection of disorders
and organism malfunctions that can potentially develop into
ailments.
ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO
PARTICIPATE
Not applicable.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
No animals/ humans were used for the studies that are
basis of this research.
CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION
Informed consent was obtained from all the participants
prior to publication.
AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS
Not applicable.
FUNDING
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or
otherwise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Declared none.
REFERENCES
Prasad A, Rossi C, Lamponi S, Pospíšil P, Foletti A. New perspective[1]
in cell communication: Potential role of ultra-weak photon emission. J
Photochem Photobiol B 2014; 139: 47-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2014.03.004] [PMID: 24703
082]
Alberto F, Mario L, Sara P, Settimio G, Antonella L. Electromagnetic[2]
information delivery as a new tool in translational medicine. Int J Clin
Exp Med 2014; 7(9): 2550-6.
[PMID: 25356108]
Krouham AO, Martínez MC, Chiver RM. Magnetism in medicine:[3]
ONDAMED. A new diagnostic and therapeutic modality. Anales
Medicos 2011; 56(2): 91-8.
Kemppainen LM, Kemppainen TT, Reippainen JA, Salmenniemi ST,[4]
Vuolanto PH. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in
Europe: Health-related and sociodemographic determinants. Scand J
Public Health 2018; 46(4): 448-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494817733869] [PMID: 28975853]
Wolański L, Stanisławek A, Kachaniuk H. Knowledge of the term and[5]
methods of alternative medicine in the example of the patients of one
bioresonance practice. Pol Merkuriusz Lek 2007; 23(138): 430-4.
[PMID: 18432126]
Norman RL, Dunning-Davies J, Heredia-Rojas JA, Foletti A. Quantum[6]
information medicine: The future direction of medical science:
Antimicrobial and other potential nontoxic treatments. World J
Neurosci 2016; 6(3): 193-207.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wjns.2016.63024]
Capra F. Wendezeit, Bausteine fur ein neus Weltbild. Bern: Scherz[7]
1983.
Angrish MM, Allard P, McCullough SD, et al. Epigenetic[8]
Applications in Adverse Outcome Pathways and Environmental Risk
Evaluation. Environ Health Perspect 2018; 126(4)045001
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP2322] [PMID: 29669403]
Montagnier L, Aïssa J, Ferris S, Montagnier JL, Lavallée C.[9]
Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures
derived from bacterial DNA sequences. Interdiscip Sci 2009; 1(2):
81-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12539-009-0036-7] [PMID: 20640822]
Mehdipour P, Ed. Ebrahim i M, Sharifov S, Salili M, Chernosova L.[10]
An Introduction to Impact of Bio-Resonance Technology in Genetics
and Epigenetics.Epigenetics Territory and Cancer. Dordrecht: Springer
2015.
Begher FJ. Elektroakupunktur nach Voll und Allergie ML-Verlag.[11]
Uelzen 1989.
Gurwitsch A. The mitogenetic radiation. Spinger-Verlag Berlin 1932.[12]
Bassett CA, Bassett L. Beneficial effects of electromagnetic fields. J[13]
Cell Biochem 1993; 51(4): 387-93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcb.2400510402] [PMID: 8496242]
Markov MS. Expanding use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapies.[14]
Electromagn Biol Med 2007; 26(3): 257-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15368370701580806] [PMID: 17886012]
Pihtili A, Galle M, Cuhadaroglu C, et al. Evidence for the efficacy of a[15]
bioresonance method in smoking cessation: A pilot study. Forsch
Komplement Med 2014; 21(4): 239-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000365742] [PMID: 25231565]
Galle M. Bioresonance therapy with children suffering from allergies.[16]
Eur J Integr Med 2009; 1(4): 234-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2009.08.023]
Schumacher P. Results of biophysical allergy therapy.Biophysical[17]
therapy of allergies. Thieme 2005; pp. 102-9.
Schumacher P. Biophysical hayfever therapy results in: Biophysical[18]
therapy of allergies. Thieme 2005; pp. 123-7.
Hennecke J. Energetic allergy therapy – possibilities and ex-periences[19]
with bicom bioresonance therapy. Med J Naturopathy 1994; 35:
427-32.
Islamov BI, Balabanova RM, Funtikov VA, Gotovskii YV, Meizerov[20]
EE. Effect of bioresonance therapy on antioxidant system in lym-
phocytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Bull Exp Biol Med
2002; 134(3): 248-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021599216581] [PMID: 12511993]
Walker S, Khan-Wasti S, Fletcher M, Cullinan P, Harris J, Sheikh A.[21]
Seasonal allergic rhinitis is associated with a detrimental effect on
examination performance in United Kingdom teenagers: Case-control
study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120(2): 381-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.03.034] [PMID: 17560637]
Häfeli U. The History of Magnetism in Medicine.Magnetism in[22]
Medicine. 2nd ed. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley–VCH Verlag GmbH
2007; pp. 3-25. l
Gramowski-Voß A, Schwertle H, Pielka A, Schultz L, Steder A, Jügelt[23]
K. Enhancement of Cortical Network Activity in vitro and Promotion
of GABAergic Neurogenesis by Stimulation with an Electromagnetic
Field with a 150 MHz Carrier Wave Pulsed with an Alternating 10 and
16 Hz Modulation Frontiers in Neurology 2015; 14: 6-158.
Herrmana E, Galle M. Retrospective surgery study of the therapeutic[24]
effectiveness of MORA bioresonance therapy with conventional
therapy resistant patients suffering from allergies, pain and infection
diseases. Eur J Integr Med 2011; 3(3): 237-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2011.05.051]
Giannazz E. Catania University: Diagnosi Allergologiche con[25]
Tecnologie Biofisiche, Catania Medica 9-11.2012;
Karakos P, Lialiaris T. Investigation of the effect of biosynthesis on[26]
the human body by methods of Data Analysis Data Analysis Bulletin
(Greek Society of Data Analysis) (Issue 18): (under publication)
Downie SR, Andersson M, Rimmer J, et al. Symptoms of persistent[27]
allergic rhinitis during a full calendar year in house dust mite-sensitive
subjects. Allergy 2004; 59(4): 406-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2003.00420.x] [PMID: 15005
764]
Rafferty AP, McGee HB, Miller CE, Reyes M. Prevalence of[28]
complementary and alternative medicine use: State-specific estimates
from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J
Public Health 2002; 92(10): 1598-600.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.10.1598] [PMID: 12356602]
Skovgaard L, Nicolajsen PH, Pedersen E, et al. Differences between[29]
users and non-users of complementary and alternative medicine among
8 The Open Epidemiology Journal, 2019, Volume 8 Karakos et al.
people with multiple sclerosis in Denmark: A comparison of des-
criptive characteristics. Scand J Public Health 2013; 41(5): 492-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494813481646] [PMID: 23548494]
Garland SN, Valentine D, Desai K, et al. Complementary and[30]
alternative medicine use and benefit finding among cancer patients. J
Altern Complement Med 2013; 19(11): 876-81.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/acm.2012.0964] [PMID: 23777242]
Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary[31]
and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv
Data 2004; 343(343): 1-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.003] [PMID: 15188733]
© 2019 Karakos et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is
available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited.
