Bioresonance Scan

If you speak to any medical doctor and explain the machine to them the chances are they will either laugh or tell you that it’s nonsense. So why are we recommending it as being so valuable when we recognise all the medical disbelief in the device and our treatments are based on medicine too? There are different reasons for this. 

Firstly the considered ‘conventional’ view point of “medicine” is based in the science of biochemistry (the dual science of biology and chemistry together) and does not really consider the physics of it. If you think the pharmaceutical drugs that are prescribed are chemical agents designed to specifically influence our bodies biology. The truth is an X-ray, MRI, CT scanner all rely on frequency (physics) to feedback the information they give out (but I will digress no further). Unfortunately in the real world, science, is science; and it cannot be broken down in to its separate parts (biology, chemistry, physics, physiology, and the many arms within these subjects). Meaning you can’t affect biology without affecting chemistry, and you can’t affect chemistry without affecting physics. I’m going to demonstrate this below.

I don’t want you to get hung up on details here or even worry about remembering this stuff its a just a representation (if your interested) to show that you can’t separate on science from another. 

An example of this is something that is measured in Chemistry at the very basic level of understanding. This is pH and the acid-alkaline balance. So let’s all go back to high school for a minute. Here we are simply taught that a neutral pH is 7.0, anything 6.9 pH and below is considered and acid and anything 7.1 pH or above is considered an Alkaline. Basic right? Well it is. What few people understand though is what this actually means for real; pH is the ‘potential for Hydrogen (H2)’. Potential as we may know it, is more of a physics term in the sense of the charge of an electromagnetic field (here we are with these words again). Therefore something that is acidic has a positively charged electromagnetic field (meaning it has more protons than it does have electrons) and something that is alkaline is the reverse of this (has more electrons than it does protons), making it a negatively charged electromagnetic field. The more strongly the imbalance of protons and electrons the greater the charge and the further away from a neutral pH the acid or alkaline a substance becomes. Well there you have it a clear demonstration of something we all know to be true that is considered chemistry, but seems to have an incredibly strong base in physics. Thus you can’t influence pH without influencing charge of the electromagnetic field and you can’t influence the electromagnetic field without influencing the pH. This brings me to the point that if you are measuring physics you are indirectly measuring biochemistry and vice versa. Therefore is it fair to discredit something that measures in terms of physics because it does not align with the thinking and knowledge base of biochemistry when we have just proven that they are all intrinsically linked and inseparable in terms of effect on each other. 

Secondly scientists of a linear thought process like to deal with definitives and certainties. Meaning that by acting on ‘X’ this is going to have an exact effect on ‘Y’.  Think a blood test showing high cholesterol, this is your ‘X’ and if we think in linear terms we know that statins can lower Cholesterol and this would be the ‘Y'. But as we have seen in the above example that nothing in science is ‘Linear’ meaning that we can’t just affect ‘Y’ if we found ‘X’ and it is going to have much further reaching affects than this alone. When it comes to the human body this means that it is going to have an affect on the ~37.2 trillion cells comprising the human body and the hundreds of trillions of microorganisms that live in harmony within or on our body (sounds gross but its true and this is normal). Unfortunately the information provided by this bioresonance machine is in terms of non linear and doesn’t give us a direct ‘X’ to ‘Y’ comparison and plan. This creates a problem because from the results there is no direct course of treatment to take. The scanner is more focussing on the interrelationship of everything that is going on within the human body and how one system effects another. The problem with this is that the machine cannot give us a clear diagnosis and instead gives us lots of information that has to be carefully interpreted by some one who knows their stuff. Whats great about this is that it places us at a position where we are better able to find root causes of peoples problems and bring their body back into a state of balance taking their whole body and microorganisms in to account. 

Thirdly a bioresonance machine can find things that can’t be shown in lab testing. For example the machine is saying that you have an overgrowth of a bacterial strain in your intestines but it doesn’t show on a stool sample. Therefore the machine must be wrong because it has not been quantified by a lab test and this invalidates this machine right? Well this is where a lot of the dismissive nature and its inability to classify it as a medical device comes in.

If a bacteria is located in large quantities in the upper part of the digestive tract then what do you think the chances of it surviving the pancreatic digestive enzymes, 70% of your immune cells (that’s the ~ percentage residing in your digestive tract), the 1,000,000,000,000,000 (yes thats 10 with 14 0’s after it) microbes and digestive enzymes that they secrete in the large intestine over a period of around 24 hrs until this food is passed as stools? Then to add to that, what are the chances of it being left in great enough quantities with sufficient energy to out grow other strains (it is a race of life in the microbial world) to be able to be cultured in a lab and grown in sufficient quantities to get a positive test on a stool sample? There are countless examples of other things for bacterial culture alone such as when the bacteria is living in Biofilm or L-form that would render it uncultivable or undetectable on lab tests. Therefore can we officially conclude that the machine is invalid because it doesn’t correlate with lab tests based on the many examples we could offer similar to this? Or is the machine just more sensitive than lab testing under certain circumstances and when the results are interpreted correctly by the right people it can provide some very sensitive information that can’t be obtained in other ways. 

The more sensitive a test is the more likely we are of finding something if it is there. The more specific something is, the more focussed the test is to finding a particular thing and may miss others (less sensitive). One thing that is certainly true is that if something is found on a lab test (high specificity) you can know with 100% certainty that bacterial strain, virus, toxin or whatever is found exists, and is likely causing part or all of the symptoms. This way you have an ‘X’ to ‘Y’ nice linear thought process. 

This cannot be said with certainty about the information found by the bioresonance machine (its highly sensitive). One simple example of this is something like E-coli, Salmonella, etc which are bacterial strains known to cause food poisoning in acute bouts. Yet ‘in the right quantities’ they form part of a healthy microbiome. Something like this might be detected by the resonance machine because it is present but it doesn’t mean that is a or the problem. Therefore it is imperative that you have the test interpreted and appropriate treatment taken by someone who really understands the body and the interaction of these many different aspects. What has really led to bioresonance scans getting bad press is that you have people without sufficient qualifications buying these machines and attempting to diagnose and treat without the skills and expertise required to interpret the vast amounts of data that a machine like this gives you. 

In the right hands and interpreted with all the other information available this scan can really help to find the missing link in your treatment plan. It really does produce so much information, and only with all of the pieces of the puzzle can a machine like this prove an effective part of the investigative process. In isolation or in the wrong hands this machine can prove ineffective at best or due to an overwhelming amount of information can lead to the mismanagement of a treatment plan. Therefore anyone seeking this type of test should really vet the persons qualifications, knowledge and expertise before acting on the results.