|
Achatstr. 12a, 55743 Idar-Oberstein, Germany, Dr. Phil. Michael Galle
Is the statement, 'the MORA bioresonance therapy has been scientifically accepted on the basis of the existing clinical human researches and the extensive researches on animals and plants’ admissible?
Before I proceed with my answer to your question, the two terms in question, namely “scientifically accepted" and "bioresonance therapy", must be explained in detail.
The epistemological point of view
The meaning of "scientifically accepted", which is equivalent to "scientifically proven", is undisputed epistemologically and has been authoritatively influenced in the 20th Century by the internationally renowned philosopher of science Karl R. Popper, to whom I mainly refer.
In principle, scientific knowledge is always hypothetical. It must be possible to falsify a scientific model. This means that it must be possible to test it empirically from the refutability point of view. In the case of empirical natural science, one cannot provide a proof in the logical sense.
If a potentially falsifiable model is not falsified clearly and definitely and/or a series of verifications (empirical validations) exists and the scientific method has been applied suitably, it must be logically accepted (temporarily) as scientific knowledge. It should ideally be the common practice as far as science is concerned. The provisional nature is thus an inherent characteristic of scientific knowledge.
The meaning of the term "generally accepted scientifically" is identical to the meaning of the term "scientifically accepted" from the epistemological point of view. A potentially falsifiable model is either empirically proven provisionally and thus accepted for the time being or not accepted at all.
The social reality
The socially accepted scientific knowledge (see Appendix 1) however often depends on the cultural situation, social power relations and the currently dominating, theoretical explanatory mode of world (conception of the world, paradigm). This often means that new and unconventional theoretical models that are scientifically verified satisfactorily, but contradicts the dominant conception of the world are not acknowledged by the “official" (self-proclaimed) social administrator of science or simply rejected with alleged reasons that are not legitimised epistemologically. In the history of science, one can find numerous such examples.
The term - "Bioresonance therapy"
Dr. Franz Morell and Mr. Erich Rasche (electrical engineer) developed the classic bioresonance therapy in the form of the MORA bioresonance therapy in the Nineteen Seventies. Thanks to the visible therapeutic success of this method, it has been copied by many others (e.g. BICOM and MULTICOM in Germany, IMEDIS in Russia).
The term "bioresonance therapy" is currently used for a series of additional methods that differ from the classic bioresonance therapy considerably to some extent as far as methodology and instrumentation are concerned.
These include the biophysical information therapy, the VITATEC devices by Dr. Kiontke (Mitosan, Bemisan, Actisan), the Zapper device by Dr. Clark, the so-called bioresonator devices (e.g. by Rayonex), biotensors as well as kinesiologic methods. Many people even consider the Radionics (psychobiophysics) as a part of the bioresonance therapy. Radionics devices (as well as bioresonators and kinesiologic methods) do not have any classic physical-technical hardware (e.g. QUANTUM device, QUANTEC device, VITA-SCAN device). According to the founder of these "devices", they are merely an instrument or aid to strengthen the human mind with the objective of better interaction with other individual and universal fields of consciousness.
In view of the evaluation of the aforementioned methods, common people (authorities, federal ministries, medical associations, Federal medical commissions, courts, conventional doctors, many naturopathy practitioners, non-medical practitioners, patients, etc.) are helpless to a great extent. They do not understand the fundamental theoretical working models and correlations.
At present, we only know about the classic bioresonance therapy, positive, controlled clinical human researches and controlled experiments on animals and plants that substantiate clinical and biological effectiveness. The level of evidence of these experiments complies with the standard of the university. (See "Comment on the initial question")
One can refer to the following clinical human researches:
- For the indication of "Functional gastro-intestinal pains": Nienhaus 1999, Nienhaus and Galle 2006
- For the indication of: "Therapy for indigestibility and allergies":Morell 1988, Schumacher 1994, Hennecke 1994, Chervinskaya et al. 1997, Kofler et al. 1996, und Schöni et al. 1997.
- For the indication of "Rheumatic disorder": Islamov et al. 1999 und 2002, Maiko und Gogoleva 2000, Gogoleva 2001, Schuller and Galle 2007.
- For the indication of "Obstructive respiratory tract diseases": Trofimov et al. 1997, Saweljew et al. 2001
- Other researches for different indications: Papcz and Barpvic 1999, Machowinski and Kreisl 1999 and Wille 1999.
One can refer to the following researches on animals and plants (only a sample):
Hutzschenreuter and Brümmer 1991, Endler et al. 1996, Pongratz et al. 1996, Galle 1997 and 2002, Sakharov et al. 1995, Lednyiczky et al. 1996, Aissa et al. 1996, Benveniste et al. 1998, Federowski et al. 2004.
Numerous documents regarding isolated cases are available for the corresponding indication fields.
The authors of researches are experienced bioresonance therapy practitioners (doctors) or medical scientists in universities or government-aided institutes who work on the therapeutic effect of this type of low-energetic information transfer.
Side effects were not observed in any of the researches that were conducted.
According to the authors, all researches in the indication groups listed below substantiate the positive effects of the classic bioresonance therapy for the corresponding indication. This is not applicable for two researches (Kofler et al. 1996 and Schöni et al. 1997).
Functional gastro-intestinal pains:
Adequate evidence ("conclusiveness" or better still "conclusive verification") is available since a level-5 research (Nienhaus 1999) was corroborated by a level-2 research (Nienhaus and Galle 2006, Medline, peer-reviewed). (Please refer to Appendix 2 for the definition of levels of evidence.)
Indigestibility and allergies:
After the three level-5 researches by different researchers (Morell 1988, Schumacher 1994, Hennecke 1994), a level-2-3 research (Chervinskaya et al. 1997) confirmed the earlier positive results. Although researches by Kofler et al. (level 3, Medline, peer-reviewed) and Schöni et al. 1997 (level 1, Medline, peer-reviewed), which are positive only in parts, lower the overall evidence, adequate evidence is available if they are considered collectively.
Rheumatic disorder:
The positive evidence was substantiated through a level-2 research (Maiko and Gogoleva 2000, Medline, peer-reviewed) and four level-3 researches (Gogoleva 2001, Islamov et al. 1999 and 2002, Schuller and Galle 2006, all Medline, peer-reviewed) by four different researchers.
Obstructive respiratory tract diseases:
A level-3 research (Trofimow et al. 1997) has been corroborated through a level-2 research by another researcher (Saweljew at al. 2001). Adequate evidence is thus available.
The researches for giving the evidence that are summarised in the above indication groups fulfil at least two of the following criteria: - At least one research higher than the AHA compiant lLevel 3 exists.
- At least one research has been published in a recognised peer-view journal.
- The positive result of the research has been reproduced at least once by other independent authors.
The research by Kofler et al. has a contradictory result. The average, statistical subjective data of probands significantly speaks for the bioresonance therapy, whereas the average, statistical objective data statistically speaks against it. Authors did not appreciate this contradiction during the discussion. According to Galle (2002), it is the consequence of methodical and evaluation errors. The research must therefore be evaluated as more positive than negative and has thus been included in the above indication group even though the authors consider it as negative.
Based on the research by Schöni et al., the average effect of the classic bioresonance therapy is two to three times stronger on two of the three primary target parameters when compared with the control treatment. However, authors do not think that this is significant. The effectiveness of statistics cannot be evaluated conclusively based on the given data. There is much to be said for elementary evaluation errors. The statistician Lüdtke (1998) does not think that the conclusion of authors indicating that the research disapproves the effectiveness of the classic bioresonance therapy is valid. The improvement due to the classic bioresonance therapy at least shows the tendency of better average effect. This research must therefore also be evaluated as more positive than negative and has thus been included in the corresponding indication group even though the authors consider it as negative.
The important thing is that the content-specific results of both these researches do not falsify the classic bioresonance therapy conclusively as far as indigestibility/allergies are concerned.
Three more trials were conducted for different indication ranges:
- In a controlled research, Papcz und Barpvic (1999) showed the positive effects of the classic bioresonance therapy on the overload syndrome in athletes (level of evidence:level 3)
- Likewise, Machowinski and Kreisl (1999) documented the improvements in minor functional disorders of the liver within the scope of a controlled research. (Level of evidence: level 2)
- Wille (1999) had no success with bioresonance therapy as far as stammering children were concerned. (Level of evidence: level 3)
A series of doctors reported positive results in individual cases that substantiate the clinical effectiveness of the classic bioresonance therapy in the aforementioned and various other indication ranges (level of evidence as per AHA: level 7). This thirty-year experience must be taken into account accordingly.
Researches evaluated here comply with the quality benchmark of the university research to a large extent, i.e. their level of evidence is less than or equal to level 3. Some of them have been published in international journals.
A level-1 level of evidence with controlled, randomised double-blind study is not customary even in university researches. At present, such a quality benchmark of the formal, statistical evidence of causality is requested only in the field of pharmaceutical research for non-tested, highly effective active substances that may have more side effects and whose biochemical effects cannot be understood causally to a great extent. For this very reason, the ideal, formal evidence of causality (randomised double-blind studies) must be given in such cases. Such evidence can however show "only" a highly probable correlation. Causality is not understood extensively at the contextual level.
The globally accepted standard is to publish the research results, even with low levels of evidence, and to derive the "conclusiveness" from the repeatability (reproducibility). Practically, this means that even the researches having a lower evidence class can be considered as "evidentiary" if several different researchers yield the same results through researches having a lower evidence class. This is applicable when a very high number of patients were used in these cases and/or in case of indications with less spontaneous variations and a lower tendency for spontaneous improvement.
Conclusion: Based on the evaluation of the existing clinical researches, one can classify the classic bioresonance therapy and thereby also the MORA bioresonance therapy as clinically effective and scientifically proven and accepted.
Numerous controlled (open and blind) researches having a level of evidence compliant with the university standard that were conducted using animal and plant models in international institutes (in university and government-aided institutes to a large extent) document the biological effectiveness of the classic bioresonance method.
Only a sample overview is given below:
- Hutzschenreuter and Brümmer (1991) showed that scars in sheep can be healed with the significant improvement using the classic bioresonance method.
- Based on several double-blind studies by independent authors, Endler et al. (1996) showed that the metamorphosis of tadpoles can be significantly checked using the thyroxin information obtained through the classic bioresonance method. The digital, electronically stored thyroxin information also had an impeding effect.
- Pongratz et al. (1996) showed that the germination rate of wheat can be specifically and significantly affected using the classic bioresonance method.
- Galle (1997 and 2002) could show that the classic bioresonance method affects the growth rate of wheat specifically and significantly.
- Sakharov et al. (1995) showed that radioactively infested mice could increase their resistance system status considerably with the classic bioresonance therapy.
- Lednyiczky et al. (1996) showed that the low-energetic information transfer using the classic bioresonance method helps in regenerating the fruit fly larvae that were affected due to heat.
- Aissa et al. (1996) could show that the information of acetylcholine transferred using the classic bioresonance method can change the coronary flow rate of isolated guinea pig hearts significantly.
- Using the classic bioresonance method, Benveniste et al. (1998) could show that the digitalised acetylcholine and histamine information can be used to influence the coronary flow rates of an isolated heart of a guinea pig specifically and significantly.
- Fedorowski et al. (2004) conducted experiments for the biological effectiveness of the classic bioresonance method. Tumours (carcinomas) were implanted in rats and then they were treated using the bioresonance method. In 69% of the cases, this treatment resulted in the regression of tumours in the bioresonance group and in delayed progression in the remaining cases when compared with the non-treated control group. There were no indications of tumour regression in the control group.
The research group of Prof. J. Benveniste has corroborated the biological effectiveness of the classic bioresonance method through numerous controlled experiments: Aissa et al. 1993 and 1995; Benveniste et al. 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1999; Thomas et al. 1995, 1996 and 2000. (See Appendix 3)
Conclusion: Based on the evaluation of existing researches on animals and plants, one can classify the classic bioresonance therapy and thereby also the MORA bioresonance therapy as biologically effective and therefore scientifically proven and accepted at this research level.
Dear Ms. Hug, your question ‘whether the MORA bioresonance therapy (classic bioresonance therapy) can be considered as scientifically accepted’ must be clearly answered with a Yes at the moment and to the best of our knowledge, on the basis of the available research material.
The therapeutic model for the "MORA bioresonance therapy" can be falsified at the biological and clinical level, i.e. it can be tested and refuted. A falsification (refutation) within the scope of a randomised double-blind study (Schöni et al.1997) for the indication of indigestibility/allergies could not convince the doctors and scientists who were sceptical about this therapy. Furthermore, it is known fact that randomised double-blind studies have a tendency to disguise the real effects on the treatment group.
Numerous verifications (corroborations) are available at the clinical and biological effective levels that have been determined using suitable scientific methods and hence one must logically classify the MORA bioresonance therapy, at the moment and to the best of our knowledge, as scientifically proven and accepted. This does not change even by the fact that biophysical and physiological mechanisms of action can be explained theoretically only to a certain extent until now and hence only plausible hypothetical explanation models are available.
According to Herbert Pietschmann, internationally renowned academician in physics and philosopher of science: "Reproducibility and predictive capability and not theoretical understanding are the criteria for scientific respectability. Theoretical explanation is a challenge, but not the criterion for scientific respectability."
A rejection of the classic bioresonance therapy owing to the politics in the field of medicine (its consequence, e.g. non-adherence to the statutory health insurance scheme system), as is the case today, need not be justified epistemologically and empirically. On the one hand, it is a result of the political and scientific power interests, but it is mainly a consequence of a "power system in the field of science" that ignores new developments that do not come under the conventional scientific conception of the world (in this case: weak electromagnetic mutual reactions are a causal and integral element of life) or ridicules them or fights against them using all possible means.
Best regards
Michael Galle
The so-called "social reality" or, in other words, reality perceptions of people, is a social construction. It does not portray actual facts. (For this purpose, see the classic sociology of knowledge by sociologists P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann: "The Social Construction of Reality", Fischer, 1980.)
This is applicable for all social sub-groups and also for the "scientific reality". The constructed "scientific reality" of the "official" administrators of science is their basis for handling the evaluation of research results. Actual scientific knowledge matches with this construction only to a certain extent.
Levels of evidence (formal, external evidence) have been classified by the American Heart Association (abbreviated AHA): - Level 1: statistically significant, randomised, controlled double-blind study
- Level 2: statistically significant, randomised, controlled study (e.g. single-blind, placebo-controlled study; open comparison study)
- Level 3: prospective, controlled, non-randomised cohort study
- Level 4: historical, non-randomised cohort or case study
- Level 5: uncontrolled course studies on patients
- Level 6: studies with experiments on animals and mechanistic model studies
- Level 7: sensible exploration of existing data
- Level 8: rational supposition
They have been evaluated conservatively, i.e. the lower level of evidence (e.g. level 3 instead of level 2) has been selected in case of a doubt.
Studies having the level of evidence less than or equal to level 3 are considered as university standard.
The"Benveniste-group"
Prof. Michel Schiff, the French physicists and historian of science, has written a book on the Benveniste group that is worth reading (“Das Gedächtnis des Wassers", 2001, 1997, ISBN: 3-86150-220-8). He had contacted this group and worked as a passive observer initially and later as an active member to analyse the validity of surprising experimental results using the classic bioresonance method. He concluded that these experiments have been conducted using suitable scientific methods and verify the classic bioresonance method.
The second part of the book is an absolute must for every sociologist of science and knowledge. Schiff describes in detail how the highly respected scientist and director of INSERM, Prof. Jaques Benveniste, who violated a “scientific” dogma (“biological effects are associated with substances“) with his unbiased researches, was denied access to all government-aided research opportunities by the “official", self-proclaimed administrators of science.
Since the beginning of the Nineties, the research group of Benveniste from the French INSERM conducted experiments to transfer the information of biologically active substances (e.g. acetylcholine) using the electronic, constant phase amplification (A-mode) to water as intermediate storage and also directly to the living system (cell systems, isolated organs such as hearts) and to document the biological effects.
According to my knowledge, Benveniste came to know about this method through his contact with the Italian doctor and the MORA therapist M. Citro, who conducted initial positive experiments of this type on plants.
Benveniste and his colleagues also used the method of storing the digital information of bioactive substances electronically (“electronic homeopathy") in order to test them in experiments on living systems and sub-systems.
A series of open and blind studies was conducted. According to these studies, substance-specific biological effects are induced in bioactive substances owing to a constant phase electronic amplification and transfer of electromagnetic information fields. The research group also showed that one can store this information digitally and induce substance-specific biological effects after electronically converting this stored information into the analogue form.
As per my opinion, all scientific standards were adhered to when conducting these experiments (also refer to Schiff 1997). |
|