What is Bioresonance Testing? – 2 (Feature)

Just How Objective And Reproducible Is Bioresonance Testing?^

In Part One of this article, I introduced the general concepts and practice of bioresonance testing, providing an overview of the subject. Here I would like to deepen our consideration of the subject by posing a question which I have many times heard people asking, and particularly those who are new to bioresonance testing: Hold on a minute, this procedure sounds a bit wacky to me! Just how objective, scientific and accurate is this whole thing in practice?

Below I will go on to explain how the form of bioresonance testing used in part of the patient testing procedure of the medical system called Field Control Therapy (FCT) is one which has practically removed the subjectivity from the actual muscle-testing procedure – an improvement on more standard forms of bioresonance testing and/or Applied Kinesiology.

It has achieved this using a muscle-testing method not invented by Dr Yurkovsky, but which he learned from a chiropractor and integrated into FCT, even though it is a relatively little-known improvement on more traditional forms of muscle-testing. I will also go on to explain, however, why this reduced subjectivity is actually not such a big deal. Really, these “hardware” distinctions, as Dr Yurkovsky has often explained, are far less important than “software” issues, as I shall aim to elaborate on below.

Among the great advances, then, which have been made in Field Control Therapy diagnostic procedures, above previous types of Bioresonance Testing and Applied Kinesiology, is that a muscle-test is performed in FCT which involves no application of force (nor a probe) on the part of the practitioner, and no resistance of force (or any other voluntary activity) on the part of the patient. This represents a significant improvement on past methods, and in particular the elimination of potentially subjective factors such as force, resistance, the ‘patient fatigue factor,’ and/or probe usage – thanks to being able to measure involuntary muscle-responses at the patient’s ankles in a way which does not involve pressing the muscles.

In FCT testing, the bioresonance test procedure can be done on a patient while in a coma, and it would make no difference whatsoever to the procedure. Clinically, I find this to be a real boon.

What Actually Is FCT, Then?^

I’m asked this question a lot, and mostly people are innocently imagining that FCT is some sort of technique or bioresonance machine or muscle-testing method. I’m not surprised, since there’s so much of it about! In a shop filled with spanners, who would expect the next “spanner” might turn out not to be a spanner after all, but instead a manual of carpentry?

Thus when in search of FCT as a box of nuts and bolts, they couldn’t be further from the truth. They might then take a look at Dr Yurkovsky’s website and notice that there are no pictures of machinery, gadgets or devices, and thus they conclude that maybe it is being witheld from view – that FCT is somehow being hidden from the website – “Will the real FCT please stand up and show himself?!”

Therefore it’s worth repeating that when I refer to “the FCT test method” I am not referring to the muscle-testing technique, but to the entire sequence of test steps used (which we call the “algorithm” – more on that later). By comparison, when I mix celery with a range of other vegetables into a broth on my stove, perhaps based on a complicated, delicious recipe, I won’t call it “celery” but “soup.” Yes, my soup contains celery, but it is not celery. The reason I’m pausing to explain this is because I have, on occasion, encountered some degree of misunderstanding about “what FCT is.” FCT is not a muscle-testing technique, any more than soup is celery. However, FCT makes use of a muscle-testing technique as though it were one of the many “ingredients” that form the soup. I hope that makes some kind of sense – even for those of you who aren’t that keen on celery or soups!

It may also be worth noting, partly in a tongue-in-cheek manner, of course, that I am not trying to sell you any sort of physical hardware in this article, either – neither a stick of celery nor a box of nuts and bolts nor a gadget or machine!

What my FCT teaching colleagues and I are offering – some of it for free and other parts at cost – is something entirely different: It is a medical education – a manual of carpentry – a sailor’s experience at navigating the seas and tying ropes.

So The Patient Doesn’t Influence The Test – But How About Practitioner Bias?^

As to the practitioner’s own bias, and the question of whether this influences the procedure: The short answer is that it doesn’t (drawing attention to the word ‘procedure’ – as we do influence the interpretation and decision-making process – more on that later!) The long answer to that question will follow a second question, not unrelated to the first: Does this mean that each bioresonance test is fully reproducible under scientific conditions? The short answer to that question is less clear-cut – it’s actually a mixed “yes and no” – because the results are only partly reproducible, but for sound scientific reasons which follow.

The essential thing to understand about bioresonance testing, as taught by Savely Yurkovsky, M.D., is that the practitioner cannot remove him- or herself from the test circuit. He or she is indelibly part of that “circuit.” As such, absolute objectivity and reproducibility of the whole procedure are not possible.

However, even more important than this is the related observation that the same is true in all forms of medicine! Let’s look at this a little more closely. . .

How Objective Is Conventional Medicine?^

No matter what form of medical diagnosis or patient evaluation is used, in any medical approach, there are two key components:

1) Gathering of data

2) Interpreting of that data in order to make decisions for the plan of treatment, and/or for the ordering of further data to be gathered

In conventional medicine, these two processes are largely separated both in time and place. Typically, laboratories gather data based on tests a doctor has ordered, then the results are sent back to the doctor and interpreted. Based on this, he or she may order further tests, then make further interpretations, and so on, until he or she is ready to choose a plan of action.

Each time this cycle is repeated, the whole of the second part of this procedure – the interpretation part – is intrinsically complex – and will never be entirely objective or reproducible.

Let me repeat that: There is a key unavoidable step in all forms of medicine which is not, and will never be, and cannot be, entirely objective and reproducible. Furthermore, it is often very subjective indeed both in conventional medicine and alternative therapies.

For anyone who has seen any episodes of the famous TV series, “House,” about a brilliant but grumpy diagnostician played by Hugh Laurie, this lesson will already be very familiar! Typically there are as many diagnostic interpretations as there are doctors in the team, and usually most of those are also wrong the first time round, and then the team bicker through various cycles of misdiagnosis and misinterpretation before, under Dr House’s unique combination of stellar medical abilities (namely knowledge, experience, intelligence and moments of nonlinear inspiration), finally getting it right and saving the day! Granted, the cases usually brought before Dr House’s “expert” team are the ones which are portrayed as more diagnostically challenging due to being atypical. Nonetheless, as I know myself from clinical practice as an alternative healthcare practitioner, complex “atypical” cases are all-too-common occurrences, particularly because every human being and clinical situation are unavoidably unique.

Why is it so? How is it that medicine is not, and cannot be, a fully objective and reproducible procedure, when we have always been told that it was?

This, in a word, is the “dirty little secret” at the heart of the medical profession: that medicine is, in fact, very far from being an objective or exact science.

Manufacturing the False Appearance of Objectivity^

In an effort to hide this fact, conventional medicine has done very well at creating the appearance of objectivity by separating the objective aspects of medical practice into separate places called laboratories, where there is machinery and it is easier to create an illusion of objectivity. Even there, as any doctor or nurse will tell you, this illusion is easily broken, since there doesn’t exist a lab test in the world which is not at frequent risk of false negatives (i.e., when the results are negative but turn out to be wrong), false positives (vice versa) and/or diagnostic error (margin of error of equipment, or user, or equipment designer, or manufacturer, or fluctuating laboratory conditions, or changeable bodily variables, and the list goes on. . . ) In short, even the most objective part of conventional medicine – the part performed in laboratories – is only an approximation. Yes, it is fairly objective, and fairly reproducible, but that would also have to be qualified by saying it is far less so than most people imagine, and is certainly a long way below 100% in both respects.

The problem doesn’t even stop here! After having looked at the most objective part of conventional medicine – and bearing in mind that the interpretative aspect is far more subjective still – we could go further and consider that in the entire universe objectivity does not, in fact, truly exist in a 100% form. This is not an assertion I am making, but has, of course, been clearly demonstrated in twentieth-century physics experiments. It is, though, completely logical when you think about it: If you could try to imagine an absolutely “objective” thing, then there would be an illusion of separation between the observer (you) and the thing which allegedly is being observed objectively – whereas in reality no such separation is possible. As observers, we are intrinsically part of what we observe.

The very word ‘objectivity’ presupposes some sort of separate observer, looking in on something ‘objectively’ from outside – yet in reality there is no ‘outside’ as the observer is not separate from that which is observed.

If we observe life, or the world, we are a part of it and cannot extricate ourselves fully out of it. On the other hand, I am not saying that the opposite extreme – absolute uncertainty – is called for, either! Instead, I am suggesting that all human knowledge lies somewhere on a spectrum in between these two extremes, but that absolute objectivity can never actually be accomplished! I realize that this may make some readers uncomfortable, if you are the type of person who is keen on facts and figures, but let me assure you that this is simply the nature of reality: There are degrees of “relatively more or less objective,” but at the same time, a certain amount of subjectivity is always present as well - including, of course, for all scientists and doctors, who are constantly interpreting data and designing studies or ordering lab tests based on their own prior mindsets. It’s unavoidable.

Yes, we can and do aim for relatively higher objectivity wherever possible, but while bearing in mind that our mindsets are always following along behind as well.

I am not “knocking” conventional medicine or science here, though. I am simply exposing all forms of medicine to the cold light of reason.

The reason why it is necessary to expose the truth on these issues is that modern medicine has (whether unwittingly or not, and whether it’s partly the fault of the mass media or not) exercised a mass deception on the general public whereby the average person has been led to believe that medicine is a scientific, objective, reproducible, exact discipline. Sadly, the truth is very, very different, and it cannot be any other way. Dr House’s fictitious team is a good case in point, and anyone working in medicine will be able to confirm the many grey areas which make up daily decision-making in clinics or hospitals.

Why Medicine Can’t Be Automated^

The reason is this: The target of medicine is the state of health or disease not of mechanical entities like cars or computer cables but of human beings, which are open living systems. As such, every living system, in any given moment, is unavoidably unique, individual, nonlinear, dynamic and above all unfathomably complex.

These are among the universal properties of living systems – as understood in Living Systems Medicine – and there is no getting round this. As a result, medicine is, and will always be, an inexact science. Naturally, we are jealous of the engineers, mechanics and electricians who, working with machinery parts instead of human beings, can enjoy the luxury of being able to practise an exact science, with a much higher degree of objectivity and reproducibility when “fixing parts”!

Sadly, medicine cannot fully replicate the objectivity of the exact sciences like mathematics, because human beings are complex, inexact, individual systems.

As much as we may find this fact disagreeable to us, numbers and human beings are very different entities. A human being could never be equated to a series of numbers in precise equations; the degree of complexity, openness, interaction with its surroundings, and ever-changing dynamic nature of a human mean that the nearest mathematical equivalent would have to be something that cannot fit into normal equations, such as infinity – that unspeakable element which mathematicians cannot handle in any sort of consistent or predictable way – because it is not a wholly consistent or predictable figure. Don’t get me wrong, I love mathematics myself, and in fact it was one of the subjects I excelled in back at school. I love its elegance, and to this day I love to play logic puzzles too, in my spare time. But this doesn’t change my recognition of the limitations of mathematical precision to describe or predict human behaviour and nature in fields such as medicine. Medicine is not an exact science. It is a mathematician’s nightmare.

This, indeed, is also the reason why another human being (or more than one) is always a necessary part of any medical evaluation: Diagnosis can never be fully or even substantially automated by any sort of machinery or equipment – only a small part can be. It will never become possible because there is no machine that can match a human being’s system properties or even come close: In other words, as each patient at a medical clinic is a complex open system by definition, and as each machine is a limited closed system by definition, there will always be a discrepancy, hence it takes a human being to have the capability of doing a full assessment of another human being. This unfortunately dispels the common illusions that many people have concerning the idea of “automated medicine,” where somehow a machine or robot will one day be invented which can analyze a person’s health and give medical treatment, without a doctor needing to be involved – or that some kind of fancy hospital with all the latest expensive machinery is “where it’s at” – whereas the expertise of the medical practitioners is actually where it’s at.

Ever wondered why cars don’t come with a lever that you can fix at the speed limit of the road you’re on? For example, when on a road with a 60mph limit, why can’t I press a button in the car which will automatically adjust the accelerator lever on “automatic mode” so that it stays just at 60mph without going above the limit? Surely this would be a convenient addition to a car?

Of course, that cannot be provided, for safety reasons, because every road is unique, and every driver needs to be on the look-out for unpredicted and unpredictable incidents and changes on the road ahead. If such a lever were installed in cars, I am sure that the rate of accidents would rapidly climb, due to drivers ceasing to pay as close attention to changes or incidents in the road ahead. “Oops, 60mph is no longer relevant or safe for this stretch of road ahead, for an unforeseen reason, but I wasn’t paying attention because I had the car on automatic. . .”

Okay, this car analogy may not be very illustrative, but it was the best I could come up with while writing this article. . . My point, anyway, is that there are some things in life which just can’t be automated, but require manual use by a real human being. Medicine is one of those things.

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a role for equipment and machinery in medicine – of course there is. However, it does mean that an informed general public would be wise to (a) become less easily impressed, in general, by the façade of pseudo-objectivity generated by medical equipment – recognizing that it is a relatively minor factor relative to the primary question of medical interpretation; (b) realize that in all types of medicine there is an intrinsic fallibility on the part of the practitioner, due to the need for these interpretations – which are human decisions made on the basis typically of years of training combined with the assimilation of a collection of data and the observation of the patient’s signs and symptoms – a supremely complex equation in most cases which, in the doctor’s mind, churns out a corresponding interpretation and, based on it, plan of treatment.

The Difficulty of Practising Medicine^

When we think of it, perhaps it’s not surprising that medicine is so difficult to practise! – and that even though our universities try to funnel the “brightest and best” into the field of medicine, and even though they may study intensely for seven years before being let loose on the public, still at the end of it (as the television personality Dr House shows so clearly) mistakes are made easily and commonly, and medicine is just not that easy to get right!

For anyone unfamiliar with the true level of uncertainty inherent in medical practice, I should add that it would, indeed, be a wonderful thing if – whenever something goes wrong with my health – I could simply order a “measure-all” test that would tell me exactly what is wrong, then take a “fix-all” pill that puts it right. However, such simple steps are, sadly, pure fantasy. Or perhaps, on the other hand, I should be grateful that we are that complex, because it does also make us who we are, and makes us capable of living a multi-faceted human existence. The human being has evolved into an incredibly complex manifestation of nature. Still now, we understand only a fraction of the entirety of how the body works, even before something goes wrong. Imagine, if you will, that you need to give someone the correct directions to find their way through an enormous maze, and you have only so far mapped a few regions of the maze. That, in short, is the quest doctors are faced with every day in trying to grapple with the exquisitely complex and subtle organism known as the human being. . .

Applying These Insights to the Bioresonance Field^

Now, after this aside in which I have attempted to analyze the whole field of diagnostic medicine more generally, let us return to bioresonance testing: Here, then, we find that the same principles are still true – namely:

• that bioresonance testing cannot be completely automated, either;
• that the practitioner of bioresonance testing will still need to make medical interpretations of the findings, and make clinical decisions based on them;
• that based on each bioresonance test result, a new decision is made about which bioresonance test vial to test against the patient next – the procedure is not fully automated, but adapted individually to each patient.

Thus the bottom line is that in the bioresonance testing field we can find two broad extremes:

1. Types which try, like conventional medicine, to separate the “gathering of data” from its interpretation, into two separate activities
2. Types which, like FCT, combine these two processes into a single session, to save time.

Both types are feasible, but with differences in style of practice.

In the first type above, the actual bioresonance process or machine may, like conventional medicine – or at least to the consumer without an education in the issue of mental software – end up doing its best to give some form of pseudo-appearance of objectivity and reproducibility (indeed, you will find words like this being used sometimes in the promotional materials, trying to appeal to consumers who have not reflected on the issues in this article!) However, no matter how relatively high the approximation of objectivity of the machine or gadget itself (the “hardware”), it will always still require human handling – and interpretation – and decision-making – which will still represent the issues of greater importance, by a factor of at least 9 to 1 – and so, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet once said in a different context, “Therein lies the rub!”

This “rub” is not something I would recommend we belittle into something minor in our mind, “Ah, I know what he means. . . But that’s just an afterthought. . . As long as I have a good machine, the other parts will follow. . .” The truth is the complete reverse. Over 90% of the importance lies in the “mental software” – the training of the clinician. Less than 10% (and even this is a generous scoring) is left over for the machinery part. It is actually the “hardware” – the gadgets and procedural mechanics – which are the afterthought! They cannot in themselves be described as a form of medicine, but merely a layer of icing on the cake. The bulk of the “cake” – medicine itself – is another beast: one that requires the practitioner to acquire a true understanding of living systems and how to analyze and resolve system breakdowns.

By way of comparison, as an analogy for the broader philosophical ramifications of this question, would you believe that teaching could ever be completely automated by machines? Do we really need teachers? And what about all that children learn from their parents, including language? Could our children learn it all from sophisticated computers one day?

Naturally, this is not the case, no matter how much computer technology were to advance. Even if people learned more and more from computer programmes, it could only substitute certain aspects of learning – because for many fundamental ones, including language, human interaction is essential. The bulk of human learning actually occurs in the course of interaction with other real people. For the sake of argument, maybe I could call this a resonance phenomenon too: the need for two “like” entities to come together and interact with each other, as equal types of system, in order to achieve the desired result.

Perhaps another example of this “systems resonance” idea is sex. We all know it is possible for humans to obtain sexual gratification without actually interacting with another human being, yet we also know that it is of a very limited nature compared to “the real thing.” Real sex potentially forms part of a potentially profound process of interaction between intimate people. For example, taking only one part of that, if you look into the eyes of your beloved, ask yourself if that could ever be substituted by something non-human, such as some sort of hypothetical computer programme trying to model itself on your beloved’s eyes? Thus, like these two examples of education and sex, medicine too is a process whose quality or standard of practice intrinsically depends on the quality and level of human interaction which takes place. In my experience – including courtesy of many past medical mistakes made by others pioneering these fields – the higher the degree to which medicine is automated, the higher the propensity to failure; which in the field of medicine is unacceptable, as this then equates to the rates of cancer and many other degenerative diseases that we observe in modern societies.

I think it is fair to say that, even more than for education or sex, it is exquisitely easy to get it wrong in the field of medicine. Mistakes are the rule, not the exception, in the way that medicine is currently practised.

My Advice To Those Interested in Bioresonance^

My advice, therefore, for anyone interested in the field of bioresonance testing is as follows:

1. It’s best to start by letting go of any general delusions that 100% objective and reproducible medicine is possible, including by recognizing that the same is true in conventional medicine, too, whatever we have been led to believe. Each maze of illness is not only large and difficult, in general, to navigate, but also every patient case represents a brand new unique maze, and it is not a type of maze navigable primarily via mechanized means: There are many turns of path in each maze where human values and a clinician’s expertise and decision-making must come into play.
2. Next, having recognized this – having accepted that the healthcare practitioner will always be faced with the complex process of medical interpretation and clinical decision-making – then logically a medical methodology and training that focuses on improving this aspect of medicine as much as possible will lead to better results. This applies, of course, both within the bioresonance field and outside of it.
3. That objective, although necessary and sensible, may be challenging, but thankfully there is a healthcare modality which emphasises its importance and devotes much of its attention to helping each practitioner to evolve it further: FCT. In this modality, this whole area is referred to as the “mental software” of the practitioner, an issue I’ll discuss in further depth below.

Why, then, did I say “yes and no” in reply to the question about how reproducible FCT testing is, after saying “yes” to the question about how objective it is?

The “yes” part of those answers was because the mechanics of the muscle-test itself are as objective as any laboratory test – which, as we have seen above, is never infallible due to practitioner error and other of life’s intrinsic limitations and imperfections (I gave examples above), but can be said to be fairly objective, as much as is possible or reasonable to expect. Therefore within the narrow parameters of the actual muscle-test itself (i.e., the hardware), as used in FCT, it is true to say that it is objective.

That, in short, is why I state with confidence that FCT testing is objective.

However, each muscle-test then takes place within the broader context of a series of test steps in which hundreds of test vials are utilized, and a new decision at every turn (within the maze) on the part of the practitioner’s mind. Thus it then becomes like saying, “Yes, a drop of water exists separately from other drops, when we pause and look at it in isolation, but once I drop it into the stream, we can just see a stream of water, because it all blends together…”

The Flow of FCT Testing: Gathering Data and Interpreting It Inside a Single “Back-and-forth” Bioresonance Test Session^

As such, in FCT testing the “physical hardware” and “mental software” parts are combined into one diagnostic “exchange” with the patient’s body. This is a key insight to bear in mind. That, in turn, takes place during what we call the “algorithm test.”

Because both aspects are done at once, it saves a lot of time. For example, I could muscle-test you once only and discover the current level of physiological stress in your adrenal cortex, by using the FCT test algorithm to measure its stress level against your autonomic nervous system. This simple “1-2″ test is relatively objective and straight-forward. However, it does not actually mean anything, as yet. This is merely the obtaining of a test finding – and we do not know its relevance. Next, therefore, comes an interpretation: “Based on what is going wrong for this patient, am I interested in pursuing this line of inquiry further? How significant is it? Do we need to treat the adrenal cortex as first priority before any other issue in the body?” and so on. Thankfully, Dr Yurkovsky has made it a lot easier for us by integrating, within the FCT test algorithm itself, various physical means and test steps to assess priority as we go along. Even so, as I’ve explained above, medicine can never be automated, and so an element of medical interpretation and decision-making is necessary all the way through, if we wish to arrive at an intelligent and clinically sound treatment strategy. Yes, we can minimize it as much as possible, by automating whatever parts can be automated; but they will still constitute the minority portion of the overall task at hand.

In my experience, it is precisely because the data-gathering and interpretative activities – which people are accustomed to being separate in conventional medicine – are merged into one single algorithm test session in FCT, that consequently a newcomer to the field is naturally prone to draw false conclusions, imagining that the procedure looks less objective than conventional medicine. This is why I felt it useful to dwell on these points for so long: because FCT is not less objective than orthodox medicine, but is simply a modality which combines the data-gathering and interpretative activities into a single session, with a constant “back-and-forth” taking place between the two, as I showed with the adrenal example above; for each test finding, a new decision is then made, and then a new step taken to pull out the next test finding.

Thus you might compare the FCT test algorithm with a game of chess, or at least Dr Yurkovsky has done so on occasion, but only in the sense that when the “game is being played,” it becomes a case of, “Well, if I get this finding, then how will I respond next, based on all prior findings up till now?”

So, like chess, we move forward in as logical and rigorous a way as humanly possible, while still allowing ourselves the human flexibility for interpretation and decision-making, without which we could not even play the game of medicine in the first place.

Greater Clinical Efficiency^

This, then, also brings me on to a notable advantage of FCT: Because the interpretative and decision-making parts are being conducted alongside the gathering of data, during the same bioresonance test session, in this “back-and-forth” exchange, it does also mean that once we reach the end of the bioresonance test session, we have already determined the plan of treatment! This, I find, is a great bonus, from day to day, in the clinic. There is literally no further interpretation, analysis or decision-making to do (unless, of course, you omitted something in the session itself), because it is all incorporated, in stages, within the test process itself. Instead, on finishing each FCT bioresonance test, I have the plan of treatment already complete, and can proceed directly to providing the patient with whatever remedies, explanations and/or recommendations that are indicated.

Thus we find, in FCT, that it is sublimely integrative, even in the sense that the diagnostic procedures are cleverly interwoven with the process itself of formulating a treatment strategy based on it.

If the two aspects were entirely isolated (i.e., if we had a machine to gather some data first, then results to think about afterwards), then a lot of nuance, sophistication, flexibility, scope, depth and range could easily be lost. It would also make the chess game much slower, because we’d only be able to take one step at a time – thus FCT can not only save time, but in so doing, also accelerate the whole medical interaction and, correspondingly, the patient’s clinical progress too.

As an afterthought, I also hope that if there are any readers who have wondered about whether the FCT test algorithm could be somehow automated or “programmed into a computer” in the future, that I may have given you a few things to think about. I’m not saying that the FCT hardware could not be changed – I would imagine that the hardware could be swapped for other forms of hardware if it were truly desired – but at what cost? And would the end result be actually more effective than FCT as it is currently practised – or less so, due to the loss of many of the nuances and advantages I have alluded to? There could be potential obstacles and pitfalls along the path – and even if the destination is reached, the practitioner will still be faced with the same old truth concerning mental software.

Suggestions for Further Reading, With Accompanying Comments^

As you can see below, all of the first nine books I can recommend on this subject, except for one which was unusually pioneering at the time it was written, have been written within the last decade (as at the time of me writing this article in 2010). As such, in reading this article, you are literally joining a key part of a modern scientific revolution which is taking place as I write these words! This concurrence of dates is not by coincidence, because we stand at an exciting juncture in history where modern physics is finally being applied to medicine, at last validating and integrating bioresonance testing and homeopathy.

It turns out that those who have doubted the validity of either bioresonance testing or homeopathy, or simply failed to understand either field, were making the simple mistake of applying the wrong science: They were trying to understand these fields on the basis of the science of chemistry. It can’t be done, any more than a ham radio can be explained by a chemist. To understand – and validate – bioresonance testing and homeopathy, the science of physics is needed, because we are not dealing with chemicals, but instead with information waves – just as in my example of the ham radio!

For the sake of convenience of reference, let us refer to this branch of modern physics as information physics. Application, then, of information physics to medical diagnosis results in the up-and-coming field of diagnostic medicine named bioresonance testing; and, in parallel, application of information physics to medical therapeutics results in the field of homeopathy (which is beyond the scope of this article), which is therefore due for a revival – just as soon as medical doctors are required (as they should be) to read books such as those below concerning information physics. . .

1. Yurkovsky, S., M.D., “Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Warfare – Protecting Yourself and Your Loved Ones: The Power of Digital Medicine,” Science of Medicine Publishing (2003). In this, Dr Yurkovsky’s fascinating first book, he includes sections in which he gives a more detailed history of the fields of bioresonance testing, applied kinesiology and homeopathy, including with the names and contributions of the many innovators before him in the various different fields, whose various work has contributed in different ways to the advancement of medicine, and only a few of which are mentioned more cursorily in my article above. Dr Yurkovsky also addresses the question of theories to explain how and why the bioresonance phenomenon works, as well as homeopathy, with reference to numerous studies as well as clinical cases from his medical practice.

2. Laszlo, Ervin, “Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything,” Inner Traditions (2007). I cannot recommend this book highly enough, both for the general reader and the serious one. Ervin Laszlo presents a convincing new scientific model of the interconnectedness of all things via information fields, and shows how it fits the facts and at the same time resolves a range of the most enduring unexplained dilemmas of various sciences including physics and biology. For anyone who fails to understand the nature of bioresonance testing, or how it works, Ervin Laszlo’s book – while it is not about bioresonance and doesn’t mention it anywhere – provides a new view of life and the universe in which the prospect of a method such as bioresonance testing no longer jars, but would instead seem a logical option. Similar comments are true of the next few books listed below which also, in their different ways, tackle the interconnectedness and vibrational nature either of the human body and/or all of reality from a scientific perspective. The books I’ve chosen for this list are only small in number, but are focused specifically on opening the unfamiliar mind to the fascinating “new physics” research reported by the authors, much of which lays the foundation for a new perspective where a method such as bioresonance testing fits the nature of reality – and the nature of the human body – like a glove.

3. McTaggart, Lynne, “The Field,” Element, HarperCollinsPublishers (2001).

4. Tiller, William A., Ph.D., Dibble, Walter E., Jr., Ph.D., and Kohane, Michael J., Ph.D., “Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics,” Pavior (2001).

5. Greene, Brian, “The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,” Vintage (2000).

6. Wolff, Milo, “Schrodinger’s Universe: Einstein, Waves and the Origin of the Natural Laws,” Outskirts Press (2008).

7. Becker, Robert O., M.D., and Selden, Gary, “The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and The Foundation of Life,” Quill (1985).

8. Ho, Mae-Wan, “The Rainbow and The Worm: The Physics of Organisms,” World Scientific (2008).

9. Oschman, James L., “Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis,” Elsevier Limited, Churchill Livingstone (2000).