Author Archives: David Franklin

ASCIA position paper: evidence-based versus non evidence-based allergy tests and treatments (2025)

Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (2025). Professional position statement. Lists bioresonance as a variant of Vega testing, unable to separate allergic from healthy subjects, and advises against its use for allergy diagnosis.

UK advertising rules on bioresonance therapy: CAP advice, updated January 2026

Committee of Advertising Practice, updated 6 January 2026. Regulatory guidance. States that CAP has seen no evidence that bioresonance devices diagnose, prevent or treat disease, and cites four upheld ASA rulings: Life Principles (2015), Y and M Holistic Clinic (2018), Wayne Hardwick (2019), Anthony Grant (2021).

Bioscan and similar devices: Cochrane Austria’s assessment of bioresonance diagnosis (2025)

Kerschner for Medizin transparent, Cochrane Austria (September 2025). Evidence assessment of diagnostic scanning devices such as Bioscan. Concludes it found no valid evidence for diagnosis by these devices, citing the Dorsch and Kolt validity test and a 2022 German court case involving Bioscan distributors.

The Leberkäse test: a validity check of bioresonance diagnostic devices (Dorsch and Kolt, 2019)

Dorsch and Kolt (2019), Allergo Journal. Experimental validity test of two diagnostic scanning devices, Bioscan and Vieva, run on volunteers, a cadaver, a meat loaf and a wet cloth. Reports that the devices produced similar readouts for living people and inanimate objects. Concerns diagnostic scanners rather than BICOM or MORA therapy systems.

Systematic review of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine: miscellaneous therapies

Bergh and colleagues (2021), Animals. Systematic review covering cats, dogs and horses, 982 records screened. Bioresonance was one of fifteen therapies for which no study met the inclusion criteria. In plain terms: no veterinary bioresonance study of usable quality was found.

Bioresonance, electrophoresis and RT-PCR compared in the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis

Farsijani, Safi and Shirazi Beheshtiha (2023), Archives of Razi Institute. Diagnostic comparison in 30 cats. Reports 100 per cent sensitivity and 81.8 per cent specificity for the specific modulation frequency test. The reference standard included the index test itself, which is a design flaw.

Chat on WhatsAppUsually replies during business hours