Vega Testing

Not supported by evidence-based scienceFgradePlausibility · ImplausibleElectroceuticals / Bioelectronic Medicine

tested — not confirmed— Real instrument/substrate; the diagnostic or therapeutic interpretation failed testing; a correct reinterpretation remains open (§0.1-B).

Same substrate as EAV — a real electrodermal measurement — with an ampoule-in-circuit allergy/toxin interpretation that failed testing. Instrument real; interpretation not confirmed.

Origin & lineage

Schimmel's 1970s modification of Voll's method.

Claimed mechanism

Coded ampoules placed in an EAV-type circuit 'detect' allergy or toxins.

Plausibility

Implausible — operators perform no better than chance under blinding; the electrodermal substrate is real.

Evidence — grade F

Tested and failed; operators not above chance.

Market

Makers: Used-device market (Voll / Vega lineage).
Models: Vega test devices.
Price: Scans ~$10–250.

Kernel — keep vs set aside

Keep — real substrate

Same as EAV — a real electrodermal measurement substrate.

Set aside — claim

The ampoule-allergy / toxin interpretation failed testing.

Regulatory status by jurisdiction

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

US — FDA	No diagnostic clearance.
EU — MDR	No diagnostic clearance.
Russia	No diagnostic clearance identified.
China — NMPA	No diagnostic clearance identified.
Australia — TGA	No diagnostic clearance identified.

Sources

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(00)00162-5.pdf