Nevoit, Mintser, Potyazhenko and Vainoras; and Barassi and colleagues (2026), in Advances in Bioelectromagnetism, Elsevier. Two narrative book chapters by proponents on proposed mechanisms. Not primary data. Confirmed through Crossref only; chapters not read.
Author Archives: David Franklin
HealthSense UK newsletter 116, correspondence with the MHRA. Regulator statement. The MHRA says bioresonance has no defined regulatory status, that status depends on the claims made for a device, and that a CE mark is not proof of efficacy. Date not shown on the page.
Bobrytska and colleagues (2019), Scientific Horizons, Zhytomyr. Diagnostic comparison against blood chemistry in 35 dogs. Reports 91.4 per cent agreement with laboratory liver markers. Citation confirmed through DOAJ only.
Bobrytska, Ugai and colleagues (2018), Scientific Horizons, Zhytomyr, Ukrainian. Diagnostic study with a Parkes-D device. Reports agreement between bioresonance testing and laboratory findings. Sample not verified; citation confirmed through Crossref only.
Fyk and colleagues (2025), Ukrainian Journal of Military Medicine. Described as a prospective randomised trial, 135 patients. Reports pain, sleep, CRP and IgG changes with a Ukrainian multiphysics device, not a BICOM or MORA system. Citation verified through Crossref only.
Barassi, Pokorski, Pellegrino and colleagues (2022), Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Clinical observational study with an ion cyclotron resonance device; sample not stated in the abstract. Reports pain reduction. Cited by the group’s 2024 Medicina paper as its mechanism basis.
Walach and Marmann (2023), Complementary Medicine Research. Meta-analysis of eight studies of the Healy frequency device. Reports a pooled effect of g=0.76 on well-being. All eight studies were run by the manufacturer. An adjacent frequency device, not bioresonance in the BICOM or MORA sense.
Wong, White, Plant, Shipman and Shipman (2022), Clinical and Experimental Dermatology. Survey of 24 UK direct-to-consumer food allergy test providers, 22 contacted. Finds most use bioresonance or IgG methods in unaccredited laboratories and calls the results misleading.
Schäfer (2017), Allergologie Select. Narrative review of complementary approaches in atopic eczema. Notes that the single bioresonance trial reviewed showed no superiority over sham treatment.
Nowicki and colleagues for the Polish dermatology, allergy, paediatric and family medicine societies (2020), Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii. Clinical guideline. States that bioresonance is not recommended in atopic dermatitis.