Bioresonance — BICOM / MORA / IMEDIS

Bioresonance — the BICOM, MORA and IMEDIS lines — sits in the Information / Bioresonance / Biofield family. The shared claim is that the body emits pathological electromagnetic “information,” that a device can capture this signal, invert it, and return it to cancel the disease. It is the one entry in that family the atlas places under study rather than in the rejection tier — for reasons of substrate and refutation status, not for any strength in the doctrine itself.

The real substrate — skin-impedance measurement

What is real here is the same thing that is real under EAV / Voll: skin-impedance (electrodermal) measurement is genuine instrumentation producing genuine data. A device that reads the electrical resistance of skin is measuring something physical and reproducible. That measurement is the keep half of the entry. It is also the limit of the keep half — the substrate establishes that the device touches the body in a measurable way, nothing more.

Claim vs evidence — why grade E

Between the real measurement and the therapeutic claim sits an undefined gap. The doctrine of an “inverted pathological frequency” specifies no coupling substrate: no stated channel by which a returned waveform would reach, identify, and neutralise a disease process. When the therapy itself is tested, it does not separate from placebo. The Austrian AIHTA health-technology assessment (2009) found that, among the trials of acceptable quality, none showed an effect above placebo. One earlier reading graded the field C on the bare existence of small, low-quality studies; reconciled against the HTA, the honest grade is E — no credible clinical evidence for the doctrine. Note carefully what E does not say: it is not grade F. The mechanism is weak-to-implausible, but it has not been formally refuted the way a selective-lethal-resonance claim has; it remains unshown rather than contradicted.

Reading it by application — the one positive trial, and its limits

“Does not separate from placebo” is the summary, but the honest picture is application-specific. Smoking cessation is the single formally positive result: a double-blind RCT (Pihtili et al., 2014, n=190) reported a one-year quit rate of 28.6% vs 16.1% — but it has never been replicated, which keeps it in the weak/isolated column rather than promoting the doctrine. Depression rests on 2021–22 papers from a single group without placebo-blinding, in low-impact venues, and the “superior to SSRIs” framing is biologically implausible. Diabetes and IBS are isolated observational reports of very low quality. And allergy diagnostics — the one narrowly-registered use — was found to have insufficient evidence by health-technology assessment and is classed invalid by a 2022 review. None of this lifts the grade; it explains why a single unreplicated positive and a scatter of low-quality reports still net out to grade E.

Why this tier — and why tier and grade are different axes

This is the entry where the two-axis design matters most, because the device was previously mis-flattened into the rejection tier and has been moved out. Tier and grade measure different things. The grade (E) scores the clinical evidence for the claim: here, absent. The tier scores the epistemic status of the mechanism: is it refuted, or merely unproven? Bioresonance carries a real, non-refuted substrate and a doctrine that testing has failed to support but has not formally contradicted — so it belongs in Insufficient evidence / under study, where “no evidence yet” is held distinct from “evidence of no effect.” A device can sit in the under-study tier and still carry a grade-E evidence note; the two are not the same verdict. Keep the plausibility axis separate too: a weak mechanism does not on its own demote a device to refuted, and a real substrate does not on its own promote a claim toward proven.

Regulatory by jurisdiction

The registrations are narrow and must be read as market access, not efficacy. In China, the NMPA granted Class II clearance specifically for allergy applications (BICOM in 2003, MORA in 2005). In the EU, devices such as BICOM Optima carry CE IIa marking. In Russia, IMEDIS is registered as a prescription device. In the US, the FDA gives no clearance for the broad claims (Class III territory). In Australia, the general advertising and device rules apply, with no discrete bioresonance action identified. A narrow allergy registration in one jurisdiction authorises sale for that use; it is not evidence that the inversion doctrine works, and it does not generalise to the open-ended disease claims that dominate the marketing.

History and lineage

The line begins with MORA — built by Morell and Rasche in Germany in 1977 — from which BICOM and, in Russia, IMEDIS descend. It is part of the broader “frequency” and information-medicine current mapped on the lineage page, and it shares the recurring pattern of the family: a real electrodermal instrument carrying a claim the instrument cannot support. Unlike EAV and Vega, whose diagnostic interpretations were tested head-on and failed under blinding, bioresonance's therapeutic doctrine remains in the softer position of unproven-not-refuted — which is precisely why it lands one tier up.

Keep vs set aside

Keep: the skin-impedance measurement as real instrumentation, and the discipline of treating “not shown above placebo” as an open question rather than a closed one. Set aside: the inverted-pathological-frequency doctrine, which names no coupling substrate and has not separated from placebo in acceptable trials; and any reading of the narrow allergy registrations as proof of the broad claim. Under study, with grade-E evidence — the two statements sit together without contradiction.

Related — note the tier contrast: SI cards claim the same “frequency information” but with no instrument and no measurement — a passive carrier, which is why they grade T3 (contradicts) while this measure-and-return device sits at T2.