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.
Category Archives: Independent review or assessment
Systematic reviews, validity tests, professional position papers and regulator statements about bioresonance, produced by bodies with no commercial link to it. Most are critical. They are here so the record is complete.
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.
Kelso (2018), Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. Review. Classes electrodermal (Vega-type) testing among unproven tests for adverse reactions to foods.
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.
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).
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.
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.
- 1
- 2