An Introduction by Simon Rees, ND LSM FCT HOM TCM, Nov 2010.
This article is one of our exclusive “feature-length” pieces which we are offering to the public for free. Don’t forget it can easily be printed (see above right).
- The Physics Principles Underlying Bioresonance Testing
- Scepticism Towards the Idea of Bioresonance
- Advantages of Bioresonance Testing
- Physical Hardware vs. Mental Software
- Question of Technique
- Origins of Bioresonance Testing
- How is Bioresonance Testing Done in FCT?
- But Just How Objective And Reproducible Is This Method?
- Mental Software -- and A Summary of Key Points So Far Covered
- ‘To Avoid the Labour of Thinking’
- I Get By With a Little Help From My Systems Analysis
- How to Climb Mount Everest
- Bioresonance Testing Is Not A Stand-Alone Procedure
- Bioresonance Testing Is Not A Substitute for Conventional Medicine
- Suggestions for Further Reading, With Accompanying Comments
Bioresonance Testing represents an important diagnostic breakthrough of modern medicine, and perhaps the most significant in the history of medical diagnosis.
It is not a method yet accepted into mainstream medical practice, but is popular among integrative and alternative medical practitioners worldwide.
In our view, it is set to rise in popularity as one of the most useful of all diagnostic techniques, in line with the updating of modern medicine to incorporate the last century of findings in physics. At the current time, modern medicine still bases its diagnostic and therapeutic procedures primarily on a mechanistic “billiard ball” Newtonian perspective on human physiology -- one that in modern physics has been left behind for at least a century. Eventually, modern medicine will be forced to catch up with science, and at this stage Bioresonance Testing will be destined to become one of the mainstays of medical diagnosis, alongside a systems-based patient interview and case analysis. This is because Bioresonance Testing is, in essence, the methodology of testing a body based on the “resonance” principles of the underlying energetic and informational physiological domains as defined in physics to be of pre-eminent importance in the functioning of the body.
However, there are many sub-types of Bioresonance Testing, and although the common underlying principles are sound, we would not recommend most types available at the current time, since unless integrated within a broader paradigm of Systems Science, as in Field Control Therapy, it remains a limited technique. See other articles at this website for more background on this topic, such as those in our Living Systems Medicine section.
This article, even though not short, is in itself only an introduction to a complex subject, so if parts make reference to unfamiliar techniques and ideas, please remember that there is further information about this and related subjects on other parts of this website as well as the FCT World website: www.fctworld.com
The Physics Principles Underlying Bioresonance Testing^
One of the difficulties that many people have with Bioresonance Testing, on first encountering it, is that -- unlike much of conventional medicine -- it is not a medical procedure based on the science of chemistry, but one based on the science of physics. Due to over-specialization, most biochemists and doctors are not that familiar with areas of biophysics which pertain to health and illness, due to not having in general studied these areas in their specialized medical trainings.
As such, this means that even for a medical doctor, it is usually necessary to start learning, again, from scratch, about new branches of science, before Bioresonance Testing will make sense. To assist this process, I have included a small, selective list of science-based books at the end of this article which I highly recommend for beginning to venture into what for many people is a new scientific frontier.
In the meantime, I will share the bottom line, which is that Bioresonance Testing -- if utilized optimally as in Field Control Therapy -- works, and is very clinically useful as one of the various tools at a clinician’s disposal. I say this above all from extensive personal experience, both in my own clinic, and in observation of other clinics.
I will also share an analogy, briefly, which I hope may help to explain what I mean by making use of “resonance” or “informational domains” in this type of diagnostic medicine.
The universe in which we live consists not of “things” all existing separately from each other, but, instead, of informational entities that are inter-connected. I mean information in the true physics sense -- which co-exists with, and shapes, energy fields. The difference between matter, energy and information has been likened, for example, by biologist Rupert Sheldrake, to the bricks, workers and house design which, together, enable a house to be built. All of these layers, as in the analogy, co-exist in the human body, which was Sheldrake’s point. Bioresonance testing functions at all of these levels, including -- most radically -- the information level, i.e., the “resonance” occurs via vibrations or frequencies which may be likened to information signals being transferred. Picture a simple ham radio which is able to pick up and transmit signals and thus play music on a radio channel, and you won’t go far wrong.
Scepticism Towards the Idea of Bioresonance^
When I think of it, listening to the radio needn’t surprise people any less than bioresonance testing, and yet it does, merely because of time and familiarity -- or so it would seem. Bioresonance testing is really no more “against the grain” than listening to the radio, only most people are used to the latter and thus have accepted it into their lives without further expression of surprise! Since I was born, I have never once heard anyone exclaim, “Simon, this radio/TV/computer is such an unlikely thing, just look at how sounds and images are made out of invisible waves! Astounding!”
Maybe people said that when these devices were new -- but they don’t seem to say it any more. As such, I would argue that people are primarily motivated by what is familiar to them, and hence the problem with bioresonance testing -- if there is one at all -- is mainly its unfamiliarity at first. In the case of both the ham radio and bioresonance testing, then, there is involvement of “subtle energies” or “information signals,” as well as physical hardware, and in both cases, they are based on established physics theories which most people don’t understand but which are no less scientific for it. This should be sufficient for most people’s level of interest, but for anyone who, like me, has a curious mind, I would highly recommend further reading as well if you would like to understand the physics better (see list at end).
Indulge your curiosity, and learn all you can about this fascinating branch of physics. But remember, as you do so, that one does not in fact need to understand the physics of a television in order to use it -- and it is the same with bioresonance.
Certainly, on the rare occasions when I have seen critics attempting to dismiss or even demolish the idea of bioresonance testing on an allegedly “scientific” basis, the attempt has been offered in an amateur and emotional “knee-jerk” way, without actually making a proper investigation of the science covered in books like those I have listed. (“I don’t like anything which is not already a part of established medicine, therefore I will automatically reject anything unfamiliar as ‘quackery,’ even though I have never experienced or studied it nor read the science on which it is based. . .”) If anyone has an objection to bioresonance testing which is scientific, not emotional, and has also read the books at the end of the article, then I would happily engage in dialogue to hear your concerns and give them serious consideration. In the meantime, I can say confidently that I am sceptical by nature, myself, and only formulated a clear opinion on bioresonance testing as a valid method after first having investigated and experienced it myself extensively.
Here, too, I am talking about scepticism towards the underlying physics principles of bioresonance testing. A separate issue, then, is the individual machines and methods used in the field, which are very diverse, and as a general rule I remain very sceptical of most of the forms of bioresonance testing currently available, for reasons I will explain further. Let me qualify that by saying that the underlying resonance principle is valid throughout the field, but that (a topic we shall return to later in this article) their clinical application can be very divergent, and the only application which I have personally found to be both clinically satisfactory and theoretically sound, at all levels, is the form of bioresonance testing used in Field Control Therapy. Others, although built on a sound principle of physics, fall down due to other key sciences not incorporated into the methodology, as I will go on to discuss.
In case you are yourself a bioresonance tester who swears by a different form of bioresonance, then I do not mean any offense, and I am not saying that there isn’t merit in other forms of bioresonance. I would imagine that most forms have at least some merit, even though I would not characterise them as complete systems of medicine in a broader sense -- but then, I have very high standards, if that makes sense! I am a very demanding critic, and it takes a lot to impress or satisfy me in the medical arena. Field Control Therapy has married bioresonance uniquely with the wider field of Living Systems Medicine, and so I would present this article as perhaps an opening to advancing clinical skills beyond the “which machine?” type discussion into the whole domain of “which mental software?” -- a question just as burning in all and every field of medicine, including all forms of bioresonance -- and which we’ll return to below. . .
For now, in these opening sections of my article, I would also suggest that you focus first on the ‘resonance’ principle of physics discussed above, and my comparison with the use of a ham radio, rather than trying to get down to ‘brass tacks’ concerning the concrete procedural description of what is done in a ‘Bioresonance Test.’ There is a particular reason for this: The procedure used in the field of bioresonance testing varies a great deal! Sometimes machines are used with probes that are pressed against the skin, other times (as in Field Control Therapy) a patient is directly muscle-tested to measure involuntary changes in muscle contracture, due to superior results obtainable by avoiding the use of electrical machinery, which disturbs the resonance process. But the key point to remember is that these are not the details which make it a ‘bioresonance’ test method: The underlying common element is the resonance principle itself, as discussed above in relation to modern physics, and that is the first foundational insight of this article to take on board.
Advantages of Bioresonance Testing^
There are many types of Bioresonance Testing, but they all share the common characteristic of being based on utilizing the energetic and informational qualities of human physiology for the extraction of important clinical and/or diagnostic information. The great advantages of this approach include:
- Non-invasive, therefore no side effects
- Ability to pinpoint exact information concerning the state of internal organs and pernicious factors lodged in them, including many organs and tissues normally inaccessible to diagnostic investigation except under conditions of autopsy (i.e., post-mortem examination)
- Ability -- in the case of the most evolved form of Bioresonance Testing, as utilized in Field Control Therapy (FCT) -- to prioritize this information effectively from the perspective of Systems Science, incorporated into a sophisticated bioresonance test “algorithm” which is a series of test steps performed routinely in FCT practice
Physical Hardware vs. Mental Software^
There are two aspects of Bioresonance Testing that need to be covered in an introduction such as this: The first and less important one relates to questions of physical technique, which we will look at first below; the second, which we will turn to afterwards, and which is of far greater importance overall, in terms of its impact on medical practice, relates to questions of what we refer to as “mental software.” Imagine, if you will, that you are forced to choose between the following two options but cannot have both:
- The choice of a fancy microphone, out of a wide range available to you in a luxury catalogue
- The choice of a fancy speaker who will actually be saying words of import when the microphone is used
Clearly, the first is a nice-to-have, whereas the second is a must-have. By way of example, most of us would rather listen to the Beatles singing through a poor-quality microphone, than hear, through a top-quality expensive microphone, a most monstrous din… such as that of a cacophonous poor-quality half-baked attempt at heavy metal music from some boys down the road who until yesterday didn’t even know how to spell the words guitar or harmony…! Such choices, put in such exaggerated terms, hopefully bring clarity to the distinction!
Question of Technique^
In parallel, while we discuss the question of technique below, it is vital not to get lost in the discussion, imagining that the technique “is it,” since, like the microphone in the above analogy, and like all forms of medical diagnosis that have ever been invented in any medical approach, they are nothing more than technologies through which a human being (the doctor) must ask relevant questions and make appropriate and clinically useful medical interpretations of the data. This fundamental point can hardly be over-stated, in relation to the entire field of medicine.
Easy as it sounds, it is in fact the most challenging part of medicine, and for this reason it is the central focus of Field Control Therapy in terms of its successful application of systems science to modern medicine -- since, according to systems science, the only way to determine the best medical questions and interpretations is in the context of a prioritized deductive process of systems analysis.
This also serves as one of many examples of situations where in Field Control Therapy, when a question is asked, it usually requires an answer which leads the question itself onto a new level of perspective. For example, if I have been brought up in the desert and have never before seen a forest, then one day I approach one for the first time, and pick up an acorn, I may ask, “Oh, what’s this acorn? What’s it for? Why’s it on the ground here?” These are perfectly reasonable and simple-seeming questions, but the Field Control Therapy type of answer ends up trying to put those questions into a wider context, by saying, “That acorn fell from one of these trees here, which are part of this forest….” So as the inquirer I wanted to find out about acorns, and discover that in order to understand the purpose of an acorn, I have first to understand what a tree is as well. . . In this fashion, and as you will discover throughout this website, for me every question is an opportunity not only to answer that question at the current level of perspective, but also to open a door into other related perspectives. Indeed, this in itself is a systems way of answering questions!
Thus when someone asks, “What is Bioresonance Testing?” (the title of this article), for me it naturally leads on to many bigger questions, at the same time, concerning the nature of medicine itself.
Origins of Bioresonance Testing^
Historically, Bioresonance Testing dates back to a method invented in Germany in the late 1940s by a man named Dr Reinhold Voll (1909-1989), still referred to now as Electo-acupuncture According to Voll (EAV). Since that time, the practice of Bioresonance Testing has been greatly advanced, and a far more prioritized, deeper and more clinically successful version is utilized in Field Control Therapy without the need for use of any electronic equipment or machines, which in fact disturb the natural resonance principles of human physiology due to the introduction of foreign forms of energy and information in the form of electricity.
Other branches of Bioresonance Testing (such as VEGA, MORA, and many others, often in successive generations of gadgetry) have also been introduced over the years, but mostly, unfortunately, merely as machines or physical techniques rather than full medical training curricula as in the case of FCT -- a subject we will go on to look at in depth in this article, concerning the difference between a form of medicine and a piece of machinery.
For now, let me characterise this essential distinction as being a bit like comparing a piece of rope or even a boat with a sailor who knows how to tie knots and navigate the seas, or comparing a dictionary to a person who can actually speak a language. Clearly, the differences are not minor, but we are talking about things which are worlds apart. FCT utilizes bioresonance testing as a part of its system, in the way that a Russian speaker uses words that may be found in a Russian dictionary. Selling expensive, fancy Russian dictionaries is not just a poor substitute, it is also nonsensical, if a foreign consumer is buying the dictionary in the hopes of learning to make Russian friends that way.
Why, then, was Dr Voll’s original method not sufficient in the first place? I might suggest that it is because, as is par for the course in fields of discovery, with occasional exceptions, the original inventor isn’t usually the one who is also able to refine his or her own invention. We have only to look at the early bicycle, calculator or computer, and their incredibly unwieldy bulky designs to see this! Coming up with an original idea of use is, of course, not the same thing as evolving that idea into something fully useable, feasible and effective.
Dr Voll deserves a lot of credit for having come up with a brilliant new idea on behalf of the field of medicine, but when it came to turning that idea into something that is fully clinically effective and integrated with Living Systems Medicine, I give the credit for this to another innovator.
Savely Yurkovsky, M.D., creator of Field Control Therapy (FCT), found a way to integrate Bioresonance Testing with several other important fields. This included key fields outside of medicine, such as systems theory. It also included a range of the most useful medical disciplines, including the best aspects of “Homeopathy” and “Applied Kinesiology” (more on these below), in order to evolve the superior diagnostic procedures of Field Control Therapy.
How is Bioresonance Testing Done in FCT?^
In place of an electricity-based machine, hundreds of small homeopathic test filters (i.e., informationally/energetically imprinted water, also known as structured water -- a separate complex subject for another article!) are used instead, as a part of the diagnostic resonance circuit between practitioner and patient. The patient’s body is then tested in response to these filters, which represent a great variety of different organs, tissues and pernicious factors such as metals, chemicals, bacteria, viruses, fungi and others.
This is achieved thanks to the introduction of a “non-force” version of a method known as “Applied Kinesiology,” a form of muscle-testing which is used to evaluate bodily responses to a variety of inputs. Imagine it as being not dissimilar, in principle, to the traditional medical knee-jerk hammer test, in the sense that the responses being tested for in Field Control Therapy are not under the patient’s conscious control.
But Just How Objective And Reproducible Is This Method?^
This would be a suitable moment to pause and respond to a question which might be in the reader’s mind -- or which, at any rate, has been brought up on countless occasions, for understandable reasons, by those unfamiliar with 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?
That will form the main subject of Part Two of this article. So until we get to it, you will need to trust me, for now, when I say that Bioresonance Testing is just as objective as any other form of medical diagnosis available -- a statement I will more than justify in Part Two. . .
Mental Software -- and A Summary of Key Points So Far Covered
Far more significant than the description of physical technique in the first section of this article is what we have been referring to as the “mental software” of the medical practitioner, and this takes up the greatest time and energy on the part of any student.
The same is true for all forms of medicine, the only difference being that in Field Control Therapy we place great emphasis on recognizing this fact and, based on this knowledge, on evolving and utilizing the best possible medical training, questions and interpretations. As every doctor knows, the physical techniques employed in medicine are only a small part of the overall task, and a more complex and difficult part is the decision-making process incumbent on every medical practitioner.
In our technological era, the general public often forgets this, and mistakenly equates “high-tech” with good quality medicine, whereas “high-tech” is actually only a small part of good medicine -- and in some cases may even detract from it. Taking Field Control Therapy as an example, the Bioresonance Testing set-up used is -- compared to more traditional forms of Bioresonance -- simpler, hugely cheaper in my experience in terms of equipment set-up, and more straight-forward -- due to being “low-tech” -- and yet it is at the same time actually better for the purposes of diagnostic technique for reasons explained above. The objective behind the tools chosen in Field Control Therapy is what works best for the patient, rather than focusing on what has the most “high-tech” misleading appearance of technological advancement.
As a humourous aside from Monty Python’s Flying Circus which, in an obviously exaggerated but inevitably hilarious fashion, illustrates this point all too clearly about over-emphasis on equipment (i.e., hardware) in medicine, I enjoyed this sketch, embedded here courtesy of youtube and, of course, the Monty Python crew themselves:
Naturally, the average hospital isn’t that bad! But the basic point which is valid is that the doctors in this sketch are preoccupied with impressive-looking machines which go “Ping!” and yet it is the human being herself -- made to appear so unimportant compared with all the machines -- who is miraculously able to create new life and give birth.
There is no machine in the world which can or could make intelligent medical decisions on behalf of every patient -- a human being must do that. I say this next bit with tongue in cheek but -- If medicine could be truly mechanized by robotic means, then I would imagine the medical industry might already have found a way of doing this as it would have increased their profits by cutting out the middle man: but it is physically impossible because the human body itself is an open system not a closed one -- hence we will always need well-trained doctors to employ their mental software to help evaluate health problems and formulate intelligent strategies of diagnosis and treatment.
Similarly, in computer language, no matter how great our hardware -- and whether we have a Mac or a PC -- still everything will depend on the operating system and programmes we install. Okay, the analogy is actually poor, because the software market remains dominated by Bill Gates. . . but nonetheless, I hope you get what I mean at least in principle! Hypothetically speaking, an enormous range of different software programmes could be installed on computers with the same hardware, and then they would all function extremely differently and give radically different results in any projects undertaken.
By way of parallel, let’s take a simple task such as washing clothes, which is infinitely simpler than medicine: Even a washing machine, which can wash our clothes fairly automatically, still needs us to choose which clothes to put in and what setting to use, add soap, and later extract the clothes, dry and put them away in the closet, and every once in a while the machine may also go wrong and need fixing or replacing.
Sadly, since the human body is a living system of great complexity -- and with general systems properties of being open and non-linear -- this means the task is never simple or linear in nature. In other words, in order to truly help people to overcome their health difficulties in the most successful way, the practitioner must be devoted to learning more than merely mechanical procedures and techniques -- it is also necessary to gain a deep understanding of health and disease, and learn to ask appropriate questions in each case based on this.
‘To Avoid the Labour of Thinking’^
Savely Yurkovsky, M.D., has been teaching this for many years, and I have noticed that most audiences appear slow to “get it.” No matter how many times he tries to get this point across, still it seems many people have a mindset that perhaps goes something like this, as though it were a subconscious riff attempting to drown out the annoying noise of all this talk of ‘mental software’:
“Gadget, procedure, mechanics -- these are the important things! Let me press a button, rather than be forced to think more deeply about medicine! Give me gadgets, procedure, mechanics, and let me sleep easy!”
Perhaps that is why I am devoting so much space to evolving this point. I may have over-emphasized it, and if so, then please forgive me! In that case, I am probably compensating for so many years of conversations with individuals who, it seemed, had yet to reflect on most of these issues, but had instead been caught up in the tide of medical delusions sweeping through our society concerning this “hardware versus software” question. . .
On that note, I’m reminded of an amusing quotation from Thomas Edison, and I only hope he was wrong about this, otherwise the subject matter of most of this article will surely fail to catch most people’s interest! -
“There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labour of thinking.”
If, after reading this article, your interest in BioResonance is picqued, or maybe even your understanding of it deepened, then I will be a happy man! If, on the other hand, you find after reading this that you still want instead to go out and invest most of your attention and time in some mechanized form of medicine (whether bioresonance or otherwise), then I will instead feel disappointed! I suppose the ultimate goal of this article, besides introducing Bioresonance Testing, is also to encourage deeper thinking and reflection in medicine in general.
Either way, please leave comments at the end of this article concerning your impressions, questions or views, and this will help me to judge reader response, to figure out whether this article has been helpful and/or whether I have failed to introduce the subject of Bioresonance Testing suitably, and it will also give me an opportunity to address your individual concerns either in relation to the contents and/or anything I have left out. I am aware that this is probably one of the most in-depth introductions to the Bioresonance field available on the web, and I stand by that with confidence as everything I have described here is borne of direct experience and extensive study -- none of this is pulled out of a hat on a whim.
I Get By With a Little Help From My Systems Analysis^
In Field Control Therapy training, while emphasizing the importance of the above, we also focus a lot of energy and attention on making this complex process as simple and clear as possible, by highlighting some of the most important systems principles of all in the context of medicine. Priority is everything, and that in turn is not possible without simplicity and clarity. Therefore a potentially difficult and complex matter is, thanks to systems science, made a lot easier in the context of FCT.
As such, Dr Yurkovsky, creator of Field Control Therapy, has advanced to a high degree the systematization and deductive logic of modern medical practice, by incorporating within it some other important fields of science -- such as, in this case, Decision Science -- which means that the decision-making process of questioning and medical interpretation in FCT is far more rigorous than in other approaches, a conclusion I can draw even just based on the observation that Decision Science is not taught or used in other approaches. There, instead of the process of decision-making being subjected to scientific rigour, it is merely an after-thought, left up to the individual practitioner -- in spite of what we recognize in Living Systems Medicine to be one of the most important facets of medicine of all.
This is just one of many examples of the aspects of Field Control Therapy which have been derived from applying Systems Science to medicine, since doing so automatically requires that we integrate diverse sciences into medicine, insofar as any sciences have made discoveries that pertain to living systems such as the human body.
The systems approach described has been uniquely and thoroughly integrated into the FCT bioresonance test algorithm. I do not know of any other tradition of bioresonance testing or even another medical approach which has done so.
By “systems approach,” I don’t mean, “Some dry subject that doesn’t mean anything concrete, and no one really knows much about, and which we don’t need to take much notice of. . .” On the contrary, as discussed elsewhere on this website, I am referring to absolutely fundamental questions in medicine.
This does also mean that when comparing FCT with other “similar” methods, it can be a bit like comparing apples and oranges. For example, sometimes people hear about a form of bioresonance testing, kinesiology or homeopathy, and say to me, “Ah, I came across this new system, and it sounds just like FCT. . . ” Admittedly, I have to swallow and catch my breath, realizing that, once again, the deep basis of Living Systems Medicine underlying FCT -- and all that this means clinically -- have once again escaped the notice of the person in question. He or she is instead innocently observing superficial similarities of equipment or procedure, not realizing, as I hope I’ve illustrated in this article with many examples, that there are far deeper questions than that of hardware.
How to Climb Mount Everest
If you want to climb Mount Everest, you’ll need more than just a rope. You’ll need skill. And so even if you saw ten people with ropes who all looked like they were climbers, that does not mean they all have the expertise to climb Everest!
Bioresonance Testing Is Not A Stand-Alone Procedure^
Bioresonance Testing is not -- and need not be -- the only diagnostic method employed in a patient evaluation.
More traditional medical procedures such as the patient anamnesis (i.e., interview), laboratory testing and physical examination are also used alongside the Bioresonance Testing, wherever deemed relevant, and may form an important part of building the overall picture -- especially the anamnesis.
Therefore these various tools -- working together -- are able to greatly improve the depth, accuracy and range of information available to us about any health problem(s) in an individual case. Based on this, we can then choose more clinically effective, individualized and appropriate therapeutic strategies (and/or advice), following on from our findings in the bioresonance exchange, but this article is limited for now to an introductory discussion of the diagnostic (or, to perhaps put it more precisely, investigative) procedures only, focusing on the nature and value of a well-chosen systems-evolved form of Bioresonance Testing.
Bioresonance Testing Is Not A Substitute for Conventional Medicine^
Logically, therefore, Bioresonance Testing is not a substitute or replacement for orthodox medicine. In Field Control Therapy it forms part of a complementary approach.
The reason it is not a substitute is that Bioresonance Testing does not share the same objectives, even though they complement each other. As described in this article, we do not use Bioresonance Testing to establish the presence or absence of a condition that has a recognized disease label in conventional medicine. For that, you should see an orthodox doctor.
Instead, Bioresonance Testing is used specifically to investigate the levels of stress and toxicity, and/or strain due to other pernicious factors, in the many body compartments (the organs and tissues). The kind of information gleaned is not a disease label -- nor the ruling out of a disease label. Instead, it is data such as, “The adrenal cortex is a priority area at present, indicating X degree of cellular stress, and residues of mercury and lead have been found in the adrenal cortex which are causing this stress.” It is therefore a practical diagnostic tool for those interested in assessing organ health, toxicity status and related issues. That is what we mean by “diagnostic” in the context of Bio-Resonance Testing (sometimes also abbreviated simply as BRT). It is not a method which “diagnoses” in the conventional sense. If you as a patient with a health problem are seeking a conventional diagnosis, you will need to see a conventional doctor for that.
As an alternative healthcare practitioner, my primary interest in any case is not disease-oriented but health-oriented. That is my role. This is why I am saying that the approaches are different but complementary. When I see a patient and utilize bioresonance testing, it is part of a general assessment of the patient’s current “system state” and if I give treatments, these are not treatments for a disease, but for the patient him- or her-self. For the same reason, Field Control Therapy tests or treatments are not capable of interfering with or sabotaging any form of conventional medical care, but, on the contrary, can be viewed by orthodox doctors as a supportive measure. While the orthodox doctors aim to diagnose and treat a disease, we aim to support the patient and specifically to help increase the vitality of the patient’s organs. Bioresonance testing is one of a number of useful tools to aid that process.
This article is continued in Part Two, in which I will focus on the wider question of objectivity in medicine, and how Bioresonance Testing compares with other types of medical diagnosis.
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).