Bioresonance — BICOM / MORA / IMEDIS

Insufficient evidence / under studyEgradePlausibility · Weak to implausible mechanism; the skinInformation / Bioresonance / Biofield

Moved into the under-study tier (from a prior mis-flattening): the skin-impedance substrate is real and the doctrine is not physically refuted, but it has not been shown above placebo. Narrow NMPA/CE allergy registrations exist (market access, not efficacy).

Origin & lineage

MORA (Morell & Rasche, Germany, 1977); BICOM; IMEDIS (Russia).

Claimed mechanism

The body emits pathological electromagnetic 'information'; the device inverts and returns it.

Plausibility

Weak to implausible mechanism; the skin-impedance measurement itself is real.

Evidence — grade E

Austrian AIHTA HTA (2009): of the acceptable trials, none above placebo. (One source graded C on the existence of small low-quality studies; reconciled to E.) Substrate real and not physically refuted → placed under-study, not contradicted.

Market

Makers: REGUMED (BICOM); Med-Tronik (MORA); Rayonex; IMEDIS.
Models: BICOM Optima; MORA.
Price: Clinic devices ~$3–20K; Shanghai BICOM ¥928K (~$128K).

Kernel — keep vs set aside

Keep — real substrate

Skin-impedance measurement is real instrumentation.

Set aside — claim

The 'inverted pathological frequency' doctrine has no defined coupling substrate and has not been shown above placebo.

Regulatory status by jurisdiction

Registration or clearance is a market-access fact, never proof of efficacy.

US — FDA	Class III / no clearance for broad claims.
EU — MDR	CE IIa (e.g., BICOM Optima).
Russia	IMEDIS registered (prescription).
China — NMPA	Class II for allergy (2003 BICOM / 2005 MORA).
Australia — TGA	General advertising/device rules apply (no discrete 2019 bioresonance action found).

Bioresonance — BICOM / MORA / IMEDIS

Kernel — keep vs set aside

Regulatory status by jurisdiction

Sources