Sending out the wrong signals or is the author

6 Nov 2010: Article on Straits Times,

“Sending Out The Wrong Signals” or is it “Sending Out The Wrong Information”?

With reference to the article written on 6 Nov 2010 in the Straits Times, titled: “Sending out the wrong signals”. Is the author in fact, “Sending out the wrong information”?

A coin has two sides; likewise in every situation, it has two sides to a story. The aim of our media release is to address certain misrepresentations in the article and to shed more light so that the general public can have a better understanding and an unbiased opinion on Bioresonance. Addressing of the issues will be colour coded in
blue, with our conclusion colour coded in orange; we now refer to the article:

Nov 6, 2010
Sending out the wrong signals
By Andy Ho

SEVERAL non-physicians are offering 'bioresonance' as a cure-all for ills ranging from allergies and addictions to autism and cancers.

All for $150 to $300 for one to 1-1/2 hours at a device that looks like any oscilloscope you might find in a physics lab.

Recently, a Bedok general practitioner called Dr Erwin Kay was censured by the Singapore Medical Council for 'treating' patients with the device. He was fined $5,000 for professional misconduct.

From our understanding, Dr Erwin is a responsible medical professional. He knew that conventional medicine has its limitations in treating patients suffering from allergies, autism, and smoking addiction. Through recommendation from fellow medical doctors from Indonesia, he made a trip to Germany to find out and explore this advance technology that is widely and successfully used in Europe to treat patients suffering from allergies, autism, and smoking addiction. After realizing its benefits, he applied Bioresonance therapy on his patients and has received many positive feedbacks and observations from his patients.

He was later banned from using this therapy in his clinic and had appealed to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to allow him to continue using Bioresonance on his patients as the therapy has shown very good results. Unfortunately, his appeal was not successful and he was subsequently fined S$5000 on 20 Sep 2010 for professional misconduct for failing to treat his patients according to generally accepted methods of treatment. (Reference article by The Straits Times journalist, Poon Chian Hui on 30 Oct 2010 titled: Doctor fined and rapped for alternative treatment).

But while Bioresonance is not accepted as a method of medical treatment that trained physicians may use, it is perfectly legal for non-physicians to offer it.
In the United States, by contrast, the extravagant claims that these operators make for bioresonance may see them hauled off to court.

For instance, in October 2002, a bogus cancer cure guru, David L. Walker, had to settle with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which works to prevent consumers from being defrauded, had taken him to court for claiming that he could cure cancer with his bioresonance machine.

What practitioners like Mr Walker claim their 'remedy' can do is based on the unproven premise that cells in the human body have a natural vibration or resonance. Hence, bio-resonance. That is, they vibrate or resonate at 'healthy frequencies' whereas unhealthy cells supposedly do so at different frequencies.

It follows, therefore, that healthy frequencies should be applied to ill bodies to bring them into balance once again. Such rebalancing apparently would free unhealthy cells of unspecified toxins accumulated in the course of ill health.

What is needed, then, is a device that can detect these differences in frequencies, determine which organs are ill and then deliver opposite waves to 'cancel out' the unhealthy frequencies. This is where the bioresonance device comes in.

In use, the electrodes linked to the device are applied to the patient's skin to supposedly diagnose one's conditions. The electrodes send out electrical signals that perform their 'wave interference' work adroitly, thus leading to a rebalancing of frequencies.

The stated frequency range at which rebalancing occurs is said to vary greatly from 10 Hz to 150,000 Hz. Computerised data recording goes on even as the electrodes emit their healing frequencies.

Computer power is also used to analyse the data and interpret the results to give an indication of the patient's health.

Signal intensity is then varied according to these analyses, which may also direct the practitioner to focus the electrodes on a specific part of the anatomy where treatment is particularly needed. Of course, several sessions are needed to achieve re-balancing and healing.

In the USA, the FDA has a strict rule on doctors using “Alternative” treatment for patients. Is this for good or for bad is still a big question for contention. We can find many stories written by famous doctors on their struggle in the USA when they combine alternative treatment such as vitamins in their practice.

We had done some research on the above article concerning Dr David L. Walker (Reference article on Dr David’s cancer research:

From our finding, Dr David L. Walker is using a Bioresonance machine called Vega Check (See picture below) and not BICOM (in Oasis of Hope Centre, we uses only BICOM Bioresonance machine, a machine widely used in Europe and is certified by The Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority of Germany).

As there are several manufacturers, brands and techniques on the use of Bioresonance technology, it is important for patient to distinguish one brand from another and choose only the trusted brand.

There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to support this gobbledegook. The evidence that does exist utterly refutes its theory and practice.

There are now scientific and clinical evidence on the effectiveness of Bioresonance coming from various countries except the USA as the FDA prohibits the use of “alternative” devices in a medical establishment. Unlike what the author claimed, there are also double blind clinical trial results from Germany on the efficacy of Bioresonance.

Every year in the months of April/May, hundreds of scientists, medical professionals, and alternative medicine practitioners from 40 over countries that practice Bioresonance will gather in Fulda, Germany to attend the yearly International Congress for BICOM Therapists. Case studies and research findings on the efficacy of Bioresonance will be presented and compiled into Conference Papers Therapy Advice Information. Next year will be the 51st International Congress.


In a randomised, double-blind trial involving children in Davos, Switzerland, who had an allergic skin condition called atopic dermatitis, Bioresonance was found to have no curative effect at all.

With regards to the randomised , double-blind trial test, the author is referring to a trial done in the year 1997, using the Vega Check machine, on a sample size of 32 children.

Reference article:

Title: Efficacy trial of Bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis

We would like to emphasize again, that the machine used is not the BICOM Bioresonance device. Although Vega Check uses the technology of Bioresonance, however, the effectiveness and methods are different from that of the BICOM Bioresonance device.

The above test was conducted more than 10 years ago and technology would have advanced by now. With outdated information and a small sample size, one would question if the study is “big enough” to produce a result to be scientifically and statistically significant. As we know that, “The number of patients enrolled in a study has a large bearing on the reliability of the results of the study”.


In a separate trial, Bioresonance electrodes were tested for accuracy in the diagnosis of allergies to house dust mites or cat dander. Their accuracy was compared to that of the standard skin-prick test used by dermatologists. There was absolutely no correlation between the two sets of results.

A similar trial published in the British Medical Journal in January 2001 also showed that the Bioresonance machine failed to diagnose skin allergies.

Again, the author is referring to a study which is conducted 10 years ago, with a small sample size of 30, using a method called Electrodermal Testing, which is again the Vega Check device approach.

Reference article:

Title : Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick test for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study From our investigation, we have also found out that the so called similar trial published in the British Medical Journal as claimed by the author is in fact the same trial as above. The former trial is a pre-study trial version (published in Sep 2000) while the latter trial is the finalized version (published in 2001).

Since these are not life-threatening conditions, perhaps the practice of Bioresonance is quite harmless. Not so, however, when it is also claimed to cure cancer.

It is a big question here on who actually claimed that Bioresonance can cure cancer. Is it the author’s own interpretation or is it really the claim by practitioners of Bioresonance ? Certified practitioners of Bioresonance will know that Bioresonance therapy is not a cancer treatment but a cancer suport treatment, like TCM, nutrition, and other complementary therapies. Bioresonance therapy balances the organs of the body, detoxifies the body, and strengthens the immune system of the patients, thereby accelerates the healing process. Most practitioners of Bioresonance believe in an integrative approach towards cancer care. In our centre, we advices patients on nutritional and lifestyle changes on top of our Bioresonance therapy. As an advocator of integrative healthcare, we work with doctors to help our patients minimize the side effects of conventional cancer treatments.

Though there have been no clinical trials to test this claim, it is based on completely erroneous science.

Advocates argue that the Bioresonance device can kill cancer cells by releasing tumour suppressor genes that have become 'suppressed'. Alternatively, or in addition, it is said to attenuate hyperactive oncogenes or genes that cause cancer.

Actually, cancer arises when mutations develop in these genes, not because they are suppressed or become hyperactive, respectively. Once mutations have developed in them, genes cannot be restored to their previously normal state.

The p53 gene helps to regulate when a particular type of cell will divide in two. It also leads defective cells to 'commit suicide'. But when p53 mutates, it can no longer do these things, so cancer develops. But Bioresonance advocates claim that p53 is 'suppressed', not mutated, in cancer cells. For this reason, it is argued, Bioresonance can be used to reinvigorate p53, thus curing the cancer.

But genomics studies show p53 is mutated, not suppressed, in cancers.

The above explanation on genomic studies on p53 by the author is gotten from the following URL:

It is written by Stephan Barrett, a retired Medical Doctor (M.D.). When we investigating further about Stephan Barrett, several alarming news were found. He is found to be a de-licensed M.D. who is declared by the US Court System to be “Biased, and unworthy of credibility”.


If the author claimed to have done his “extensive research”, one would question again, why would one present data from a M.D. who is a quackpot himself?

In sum, bioresonance is junk science.

We are unsure what the author meant by “junk science”. The question is - Would “junk science” have clinical trial proofs? Will “junk science” produce results? Lastly, will “junk science” be used by medical professionals all over the world?

Advocates may trot out testimonials from satisfied customers, but testimonials are not data.

We recalled a recent interview by a Journalist from The Straits Times where one of our many satisfied patients told her : “If BRT paid me money to tell you the effectiveness of Bioresonance Therapy, then it is an advertisement. But, if I am the one that paid BRT money for my treatments and I tell you the effectiveness of Bioresonance Therapy, then it is called testimonial”. (Reference article by The Straits Times journalist, Poon Chian Hui on 30 Oct 2010). This explained the how valuable is a testimonial, because testimonial is to be earned (outside-in) and not based on research and presentation (inside-out). That’s why people believe in testimonials.

Its efficacy can be proven only with trustworthy data obtained from rigorous trials with blinded controls.

We have good news to share. Bioresonance does indeed have data obtained from rigorous trials with blinded controls though, not from the USA (the FDA in USA prohibits the use of “alternative” devices in a medical establishment).

[Reference: BICOM evidence based studies file]

But since anyone may make and sell these devices - that is, the technology can no longer be patented since it is widely available - no one has any incentive to invest in such studies.

Be that as it may, unless and until such studies are done, one should stay away from this 'therapy'.

We do agree that it is difficult for the technology to be patented, just like TCM and other natural healing therapies. However, we do not agree with Andy that no one has any incentive to invest in such studies because we believe that a true healthcare professional should look beyond the monetary incentive. Thank God that there many healthcare professionals in Europe who are able to look beyond the financial benefits and have invested their time and money into Bioresonance studies. Closer to our home, in Asia, apart from Oasis of Hope Centre (also known as BRT Centre), there are also other healthcare professionals who have invested their resources into Bioresonance studies alongside integrative medicine studies.

In summary, the author claimed that he did an extensive research on Bioresonance prior to writing this article. But by looking at the above examples and explanations given, it shows that his analysis is biased, and outdated. Advertently or inadvertently, he has omitted the dates, the sample sizes, and the brand of the Bioresonance machine of the trials quoted in the above article (The device that he was mentioning throughout this article – Vega Check – had long been phased out and bought over by another company). Instead of showing the picture of Vega Check, Andy has chosen to show pictures of BICOM2000 Bioresonance machine in his article. Any reader who has not researched further into his article would possibly be misled into thinking that BICOM Bioresonance machine is responsible for all the claims he made in the article.

Below is a picture of the BICOM Bioresonance machine (left) that was published with this article, but the cited cases by the author are referring to the Vega Check machine (right).

Bicom Bioresonance 2000 Vega Check

Once again, we would like to emphasise that there are many brands and techniques on the use of Bioresonance, it is therefore important for patient to choose only the trusted brand with credential and testimonials.

We are proud to share that BICOM Bioresonance machine is extensively used by medical doctors throughout Europe, China, Austrialia and Indonesia. Patients who believe in BICOM Bioresonance see results; that is why they continue to treat their chronic problems using this therapy.

In our centre, we use only BICOM Bioresonance machine. We have patients travelling from as far as the USA, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, India, and the UAE to Singapore to seek treatment. We also have many patients from our neighbouring countries; Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia. To serve our regional patients more efficiently, we have established our centres in China, Hong Kong (established together with our collaboration with Quality Healthcare Group or click here – one of the largest healthcare organization in Hong Kong), and also Malaysia (opening in Mar 2011) In conclusion, nothing beats trying and experiencing it for yourself.

See Newspaper Article:

1) 30/10/10 – Doctor fined & rapped for alternative treatment
2) 06/11/10 – Sending out the wrong signals
3) 19/11/10 – Mainstream doctors shouldn’t be insensitive to alternative medicine

back to top ↑

Call us at 6397 6826

News & Media