Monday, February 2, 2009

Bioresonance bollocks

I first came across the following article in the paper copy of The Aucklander in July 2007. I didn't have a blog or know what I really wanted to do with my skeptical brain at that point. Now I do and, quite by accident, I found it again.

However time hasn't eased my disbelief - reading the article again just makes me shake my head. I just can't believe it was published:

http://www.quitsmokingclinic.co.nz/aucklander-article.html

Although the article is old, it's still being linked to on an active website and it's an indication of the scientific illiteracy prevalent in New Zealand media. Heck, I'm a scientist and I ended up as a sports reporter.

But this piece of 'reporting' is perhaps the most credulous piece of nonsense I've ever had the misfortune to read. And given we've had to put up with credulous psychic"Sensing Murder" reports in the past that's saying something.

There are just so many warning signs in this story that as soon as I read it, I knew bioresonance therapy was bollocks. But being the good skeptic I did my research and - surprise, surprise - the websites I found which actually looked at the science said it was total bollocks.

Here are the things I picked up on as being signs something wasn't right, along with my thoughts in parenthesis:

"two electrically charged balls" (Hmmm. It'll be magnets next. Would I be surprised to find something about it affecting blood flow because of the iron in the blood)

"85 per cent success" (Holy shit. This has 85 per cent success rate and I've never heard of it before. I must try and find some proof for that.)

"rebalancing energies" (Oh oh. Woo! I'm pretty much convinced that it's bollocks.)

"bioresonance inverts energy patterns" (Does it? But even if it does, what the hell does it have to do with nicotine addiction?)

"it's about desensitising and detoxing your body" (Ah, detox. Bollocks)

"four energy quadrants" (Bingo!)

"the Bicom can determine the energy pattern from this post-hoik and sets about reversing it" (What the?)

"All this is doing is helping the body heal and rebalance itself by connecting to healthy frequencies." (Oh my flying spaghetti monster, he's serious.)

"the machine dignfies me with a microwave like ping to confirm my new status as a freshly rolled non-smoker" (Wow, how easy. This is either a scam or every smoker in New Zealand should get a free treatment. Sarcasm in my thoughts - I really must get out more)

"It's the toxins leaching out of your skin" (Oh, holy shit. No. Please not. This is the worst thing I've ever read.)

"their bathwater turns brown" (Perhaps they're covered in the bullshit you've just spoken and it's washed off.)

"I'm cured" (yeah, I wonder how you're doing now a little while after the story was written. I'd lay good odds that you still smoke.)

Now I'm not saying the author of this article lied. It's possible he really has been cured of smoking and puts it down to the bioresonance therapy. However, there is a much simpler explanation. This is a clear example of someone volunteering and therefore already willing to give up smoking. He's most of the way there.

The placebo effect of using a geeky, scientific-sounding therapy then kicks in and bingo, his own willingness to give up smoking mixed with some woo and he's given up smoking.

My biggest issue with the article is that the author failed to do the simplest of research about bioresonance. A Google search brings up Ben Goldacre's colum in the Guardian from 2005 on bioresonance bollocks. That should have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

But no. No research, no science and no amazing cure for smoking.

I just hope that no-one in New Zealand has read this article and paid $350 for a treatment. I'd just feel guilty for not having shouted my mouth off about it sooner.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

Not only science works. That much any skeptical know even if they do not admit. Have a look at the results of bioresonance for allergy treatment for instance, it does work and better than any orthodox drug (that will certainly give you a side effect, even if you can't see for years). We are much more complex than science can ever explain. Just because the explanation is not spot on does not mean does not work. What would the world have said if someone had described an iphone 20 years ago? BULLOCKS

Unknown said...

Thanks for your comment Veri.

But please excuse me for being well... skeptical about your claims.

If the results for bioresonance for allergy treatment are so good then show me the clinical studies. I'd be delighted to review them. You can e-mail me at the title of this blog @ gmail.com.

Unknown said...

just Google it... I found this one for instance, (you can get the full article by registering)
http://www.europeanintegrativemedicinejrnl.com/article/S1876-3820(09)00148-6/abstract
http://www.bioresonance.net.au/bicom_therapy.htm
This one has a few links.
I know it is hard to believe what can not be fully understood. The good news is this will work if you believe it or not!
FYI I did bioressonance for quit smoking and although i did not quit immediatelly, something changed which that is giving me hope. It is not a miracle though. Happy reading!

Unknown said...

Please don't make the mistake that because I criticise something I don't know how it 'works'. I'm perfectly aware of how bioresonance therapy is supposed to work and it's complete pseudoscience.

I've found studies which categorically state that bioresonance is no good for identifying allergic reactions but I'm not prepared to pay the $31.50 to read a meta analysis of studies when the vast majority of bioresonance studies I've read aren't double blinded controlled studies.

I'm trying to track down access to the journal so I can read the full analysis.

And a link to a site advocating bioresonance therapy is hardly unbiased. I read one of the 'clinical studies' it linked to and it cleary wasn't a controlled double-blinded study meaning factors like the placebo effect and any natural cycling of allergic reactions (ie allergies dependant on the seasons of the year).

It doesn't take in to account any medicines they may also have been taking.

If this is the best bioresonance has to offer then it has a heck of a way to go.

Jaz said...

A drug detox center provides drug abuse rehab to counter the effects of drug abuse.

Unknown said...

There is scientific explanation for the operation concept of bioresonance..
First of all, it doesn't emit any kind of electricity..
It channels electromagnetic impulses that is generated in accordance with human physiological and pathological oscillation via electrodes designed to fit designated areas of the body..
There are scientific studies carried out by practicing doctors and professors, yet the bioresonance requires specially designed clinical study to prove efficacy.. This is not seen as a disadvantage for the bioresonance treatment as practitioners are satisfied in providing positive results for complaints that they receive from clients.. For the smoking treatment, the concept works in combination of few applications.. In simple words, pathological oscillation of the harmful substance from the tobacco smoke is inverted and sent to the body of a smoker to be eliminated where this will have the same effect of detoxification.. The smoker will experience unpleasent odour and dirt excreted from the body.. At this point, the physical craving for nicotine and withdrawal symptoms will be terminated and allowing the smoker to give up smoking easily.. This is acheived where the dopamine receptor of the smoker loses the information on nicotine and other substance form the tobacco smoke..
Bioresonance is an application of electromagnetic impulses..
Please view the link below for reference..
Thank you, hope i have given enough information..

http://www.health-spy.com/Life%20Electromagnetic%20Energy%20and%20Your%20Well-Being.pdf

Martin said...

Dear sir or ma'm.

I've been seeing a lot of skeptics with scientific education asking for double blinded control studies of bioresonance/frequency medicine. Couldn't you easy get together, two to five of you, try to get funding for such research, starting with mammal diagnostics, moving on to humans? (and maybe you wouldn't even have to do research on the therapeutic parts if the results from these studies were totally random)

Best wishes from a non-english speaking skeptic who yet was diagnosed with casein-wheat-soy sensitivity and light mercury poisoning with such a device.

marcanddaina said...

Why bioresonance is not 100% effective?