Bioresonance Therapy (BRT)

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

"WHAT IS BRT?

Everyone must adjust to numerous local environmental changes instantaneously. Internal metabolic synchronization of the organism requires permanent adaptation within the different organs, tissues and cells. In science, the field of bioinformatics works with the investigation of how adaptation processes are exactly organized in the body by using diverse, discrete spectral bands of electromagnetic (EM) biocommunications. This synchronization of different adaptation processes necessitates a communication system with a very precise level of functionality within the organism. Due to the speed and precision of the required communication, scientist in the late 19th century calculated and hypothesized that it must be at an EM level because the neurological and hormonal systems are not capable of conducting this high a level of interaction.

In biology during late 19th century, demonstrating communication at the speed of light, as required by the body, was a huge challenge due to the capabilities of the instrumentation. However, with so many different telecommunication appliances in use today, signal transmitting at the speed of light seems normal. All our hi-tech instrumentation is based on the investigation of the vibration characteristics of the tissue. For example, our blood is analyzed through EM measurements by spectroscopic devices in the laboratory. When we make a scan, we analyze changes in the tissue caused by extremely weak oscillations. Basically, with modern technology, we can compare healthy tissue with ill tissue for diagnosis. With the same technology, we can detect more and more disturbances within our bodies, even before tissue can suffer damage. These detected underlying ailments are called “Functional Disturbances,” which create long lasting tissue damage. Functional Disturbances occur very frequently in everyday life. Physiological stress, temporary chemical stress, or day long exposure to EM fields can cause such measurable functional changes.

Bioresonance Therapy (BRT) is specialized to maintain the optimal melody of this tissue by the orchestrating the internal communication of the organism. Based on the research from the field of Bioinformatics, BRT uses EM signals to treat an organism, or one of its elements, in the healing process. By aiding proper communication, the body can now respond to the negative stimuli of the surrounding environments by having the communication restored to its required direct, rapid, and very efficient EM signaling precision. This allows the organism to help itself heal when it cannot maintain its own molecular activity or organization due to Functional Disturbances caused by these outside influences. The vast possibility of balancing organisms through BRT and the positive impact it has on the individual has only begun to be understood in the past 25 years.

FOUNDATIONAL BREAKTHROUGHS

In 1975, German scientist Dr. Fritz Popp made the first of two breakthroughs for BRT when he discovered that DNA is the first structure to emit endogenous pacers. By emitting photons to the body through EM signals, DNA instructs cells how to function in rhythm or harmony. This process begins at conception and continues throughout the lifespan of a person.

The second breakthrough occurred in 1978 when Australian scientist Ross Adey discovered a second center of communication within the body. He determined that cell membranes oscillate, or resonate, depending on the needs of the cell, to create a biological communication channel called a “biological window,” commonly known as “Adey’s window.” Each biological window has measurable and definable frequencies, amplitudes and a phase that has discrete ranges projected on different characteristics of a wave. Only an active window can be used in information transfer and to encourage adaptive activities. This creates natural selectivity in the cells and tissue. By altering the biological windows of a system, functional change occurs, which is known as phase change. This change helps the organism adapt to environmental changes whether endogenous [from inside the organism] or exogenous [from outside the organism].

The results of these breakthroughs mean that DNA and cell membranes are centers of both transmission and reception of EM biocommunication within an organism. These two centers maintain order and integrity, even when greater EM fields outside the body are present. They reorganize internal synchronization (scientifically stated as the state of coherent induction); organize the activity of cells through to larger biological units such as organs; and, more importantly, create natural selectivity to prevent over use of our organs. As long as these centers are operating properly and the communication between tissues, organs and subsystems is not affected or disrupted, the body maintains its order, integrity, synchronism and natural selection. If either the pathological aspects of natural selection are expressed, or the signal transfer and processing within an organism is not satisfactory, adaptability is compromised and leads to functional disorder and disease. The primary aim of BRT is to correct this degeneration."

-Matrixx Solutions matrixx.ca/index.php?option=com_ … &Itemid=44

2

been treated by it. very pleased.

3

what method/technique were you treated with?

4

BRT does not beat placebo, you weren’t treated by BRT you got a placebo effect. This isn’t the place for a discussion on BRT, this is the natural science section.

Theres #1 No evidence it works.
#2 No scientific explanation for how it works, other than very vauge nonsense that isn’t scientific

Seriously, its absolutely no different than basking in ‘crystal energy’ until trials show evidence that it does ANYTHING AT ALL, worse THAN THAT, no one has ever come up with a REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC explanation for how it works, INSTEAD OFFERING PSUEDO-SCIENTIFIC explanations.

Really, someone should get this trash out of natural science section, I am getting sick and fucking tired of finding alternative medicines in this section, which BY DEFINITION AREN’T SCIENTIFIC TREATMENTS, of ANYTHING, AT ALL.

Lets make a thread about homeopathy next? What bothers me the most is that there are people stupid enough to buy into it. Either because of poor education, desperation or a great propagandist people TREAT themselves, hoping to CURE real illnesses

they invoke a powerful biochemical reaction, the placebo effect and reduce their sickness or pain or whatever, and lose money or REAL treatment over it.

Seriously, I have medical conditions which apparently can be cured through BRT, the suggestion that they can enrages me. Was this based on human testing in clinical trials showing it actually helps? NO.

On that basis NO EVIDENCE IT HELPS, but theres also no studies suggesting its a HEALTHY TREATMENT.

Chronic pain, who knows what shocking the neurons envolved would do, what kind of CNS/PNS sensitization or neuron damage it could cause, jesus, put this in the ‘religion’ section where it belongs.

5

Has it been rigorously investigated compared to placebo? I’m be shocked, shocked, if it did beat placebo. And I haven’t looked into it. But has that been shown in a properly controlled experiment? I only ask because there are a fair number of clinical trials going on right now in my area (as in, physical location) that are seeking to rigorously investigate things like prayer as a tool for therapy. Money is tight, so I’ve been looking to whore myself out to some studies. Since the studies are still on-going I’d guess it is one of two options:

  1. Rigorous studies haven’t been done. Just meta-analyses, which are a good starting point but by no means definitive.

or

  1. Rigorous studies have been done and people with a horse in the race haven’t liked the conclusions and are trying the same thing again hoping for a different result.

My guess is that option #2 is what is going on. But I really don’t know.

6

Well using it as treatment or calling it science certainly isn’t true. Your example is apt, prayer. You’d need to present GREAT EVIDENCE for ‘prayer treatment’ to justifiably post about it here. That example has been found wanting.

Anyway no BRT studies have indicated it beats placebo. Why is their standards for EVERY SUBFORUM but here?

7

Meh. I let well-written but totally crazy posts stay in religion. Debunking crazy is part of philosophy, after all.

And I don’t think it would require GREAT EVIDENCE to show that prayer works. All I’d need is a p-value lower than 0.05. That should be relatively easy to achieve if an effect exists. If that ever were achieved, we’d still need to ask normative questions, like whether or not the difference is meaningful as well as significant. But I’m not holding my breath on that p-value being achieved. . .

8

cyrene, yes i am aware that many people, along with mainstream pharma/medicine and the FDA, consider homeopathy a load of bullshit. i can say that i am not in the least surprised that you agree with them.

however, there is evidence that it works, there are scientific explanations that explain how it works, and there have been a lot of people who have been treated. i know two people myself who have used CRM and various other techniques to heal certain illnesses that regular medical science could not heal (diabetes, she is no longer insulin dependent).

below are a couple links to the scientific research side of BRT and BIT, check them out. they are incredibly “scientific” and the process for how CRM and other various homeopathic devices works is very eays to understand, once you get past the cliches of the FDA.

and did you read the second section of my OP? there is genetic biological evidence for how DNA and cells commuinicate to one another. this communication is vibratory in nature, a result of a fluctuating EM field. its not that hard to understand. frequencies attract and response to like ones, and vibrations of the fields tend to match to others around them given enough force/modulation. since homeopathy is concerned with vibratory energy such as using lightwaves, EM fields and magnetic energy and applying it in certain ways to various parts of the body, it makes perfect sense that, as long as you got the energies correct, you could easily stimulate healing in the body by this process of induction.

biofeedback is a wellknown physiological phnomenon, and it explains the underlying mechanical process of how BRT and homeopathy work. its all about information exchange, and bioinformatics has come a very long way in understanding how the cells, organs and DNA of the body use not only chemicals but EM fields to send and store information. and quantum field theory provides the other important piece of the research, since its understanding of matter as ‘collapsed wavefield energies’ or ‘vortexes’ in the quantum field shows how all matter is connected, and it also explains how matter itself (such as water, or any matter at all) can display as either mass, energy or information, or a combination of these.

bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/ (you can at least preview and read abstracts for the journal papers)

bit-org.de/english/index.htm

z-m-r.de/en/index.htm

psychotherapy.com/bio.html

and i am also of course aware of placebo, and certainly it plays a part in BRT, just as it plays a part in any medical procedure or therapy which the recipient is aware of the process and the intended outcome. but placebo does not alone disprove the efficacy of a medical procedure or therapy, it only calls the results into question as to how much of the results are due to which process… i agree that more research and clinical trials are needed in homeopathy and BRT to demonstrate the efficacy; however, im also claiming that, even though more trials are needed, this does not on the surface discredit all of homeopathy-- and when you look into the scientific research side and BIT, its easy to understand the underlying mechanisms that BRT and homeopathy make use of.

im not saying that homeopathy or BRT are proven, nor am i saying that they “absolutely work 100%” and that this is proven. all im saying is that, A) there is evidence that they are effective, B) that placebo DOES call these results into question, not in that they were not effective, but whether or not the effects are attributable to the therapy itself, or how much are, C) there is research and science which can explain and understand the underlying causes of the effects of homeopathy and BRT. combine all that, and you certainly do not get “BRT IS WRONG AND FALSE!!! AAAH ITS PSEUDOSCIENCE!!!”, nor do you get “BRT IS COMPLETELY PROVEN AND TRUE!!!”-- both of these viewpoints are wrong, and are the result of the same irrational attitudes of unthinking and uncritical prejudice.

bit-org.de/pdf/Artikel%20Die … 0engl…pdf

the above is a scientific paper on the physical/quantum nature of disease, written by a PhD/MD in the field of bioinformatics (a somewhat sub-par english translation from the original german). i highly suggest you read it, especially if you consider all BIT to be false.

9

Theres no scientific evidence of homeopathy reliably beating placebo in large scientific trials (meta analysis). Not surprising as common distillutions contain less than 1 MOLECULE OF MEDICINE FOR LIKE AN OCEAN PLUS OF WATER.

Or more commonly known as PLAIN WATER. theres no SCIENCE there either.

30c would require " giving 2 billion doses per second to 6 billion people for 4billion years to deliver a single molecule of original material to any patient"

Or ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

10

To be honest I did read your post and understand very poorly how molecular genetics/molecular cell biology support ANYTHING to do with what you’re talking about and I DO have a moderate understanding of those two subjects.

11

i guess you are willing to disregard the entire fields of information technology, quantum physics and genetic biology, which all tell us that everything in the body is connected to everything else, and that all biological/genetic/molecular/conscious phenomena derive from the same basic foundation of electromagnetic wavefields… if you think youre qualified to make that call, good for you.

actually, the theory is not that it is the molecules in the water which interact with the body, but the water itself, since the water-matter stores the information even after its been dilluted; so in this sense, it is the water itself, after its been dilluted, which causes the interactions, because the water-matter still retains the memory of its previous chemical-dissolutions. its because the peptide-chain channels which relay the information from one area in the body to another are easily destroyed by too much vibratory energy (chemical force), and therefore the water-memory of the chemicals is more effective in generating effects through these channels than the chemicals themselves-- this is explained in one of the links i sent you previously.

and can you post here some links to these meta-analyses you refer to?

and in fact, bioinformatics along with quantum physics actually EXPLAINS placebo effect, which is presently not understood in modern medicine. no one knows how placebo works, we just take it for granted and dont think about it. but lets think about it for a second: how exactly should just our THOUGHTS be able to cure disease? we know this happens, its proven medical fact, and even you recognize that placebo is scientific fact. but what explains it?

bioinformatics and quantum physics explains placebo. this is because all matter is mass, energy and information to some degree, or at least some organization of these three. consciousness is energy and information without mass, although it exists through a mass-structure of brain matter. consciousness is EM field-ocillations, just as cells and DNA are. they are all quantum phenomena, and this explains how they are interconnected and how a thought or expectation can manifest a physical cure in the body.

so even if placebo completely explains BRT (which there is still no proof of), the underlying science behind BRT explains placebo. the research is there, if youd bothered to read those links i posted, which im sure you did not. its ok if you think you are qualified as a layman to disregard entire fields of research and science, but please dont pass these opinions off as reason or rationality, or anything other than your own narcisisstic prejudices.

12

As someone who accepts a lot of the silliness that the Yijing puts forth (and so I ought be naturally sympathetic to your position), I really need to warn against trying to take phenomena that occur on a quantum scale and applying them to a macro scale. Quantum mechanics is poorly understood by those who are qualified to understand it, so we’re all just pissing in the wind when we discuss it. Any appeal to quantum-anything should be met with extreme skepticism.

In terms of homeopathy, it is both a very specific and a very broad term which creates confusion. Strict homeopathy is just diluting materials. But colloquially, homeopathy often means any non-standard medical treatment, especially herbs. The former has been pretty conclusively shown to be equivalent to placebo whereas the latter is often efficacious. That makes sense, since people have identified many medicinal herbs over time through basic selection processes.

Really now, I thought such musings were antithetical to the Objectivist worldview . . .

13

quantum physics is actually quite well understood in its effects and mathematical properties. experts understand it very well. the limit to the understanding is inherently a LIMITATION of the SCOPE and underlying causal forces behind quantum phenomena-- for example, why is there an apparent randomness inherent in the quantum world? does this just speak to our ignorance of further properties and laws, or is there really a randomness that exists? why?

certainly we dont know everything about quantum mechanics yet, but we do know a lot. “Quantum mechanics is poorly understood” and “Any appeal to quantum-anything should be met with extreme skepticism” are false statements, which any physicist these days would tell you.

i would be interested in seeing some of these studies or conclusive proofs that you and cyrene refer to that show homeopathy and BRT to be no better than placebo. im primarily referring to BRT here, but homeopathy in general would also be included in this thread, so any of these meta-studies or whatever should be referenced here so i can look at them.

and sorry, but i dont know what an ‘objectivist worldview’ means, or what it has to do with anything here.

14

  1. Any physicist will disagree with you strongly on that account

  2. www.pubmed.com is a good place to go looking. Be sure to check which studies are being analyzed because on the bondoogle I mentioned.

  3. Objectivism is what Ayn Rand espoused.

15

An interesting assertion, and unsupportable, i’d guess. There are many with deep understandings and interpretations of the theory. There is no such thing as a “qualification to understand it”. Unless you are talking about a mystical state of mind, which I doubt you are. I suppose that you mean ‘academically qualified’? The statement fails on so many levels.

Speak for yourself, or are you rationalizing/projecting?
And even admitting that your knowledge of QM… leaves ‘much to be desired’, you still find time to offer advice such as;
“I really need to warn against trying to take phenomena that occur on a quantum scale and applying them to a macro scale.”

And the purpose of this warning from ignorance?
There is no such differentiation as ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ except in certain imaginations/Perspectives.
It is an artificial construct!

As dictated by ignorance?
So, ignorance should meet any ‘teaching’ (‘interpretation’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘education’) with ‘extreme skepticism’?
Is that how ignorance should view all possible education?
A conservatively ignorant person is a dangerous entity!
Perhaps if you find yourself in the vicinity of QM more than once in your life, and wish to be able to intelligently determine the ‘value’ for yourself (and intelligently join in the conversation without self-serving and self-validating stuff like you offer here), you might well make the attempt to educate yourself on the matter. There is good info all over the net. And what a good mind (such as yours) might be able to do with the pile of data that everyone else is weighing in on might open new whole new vistas of knowledge.
You have less possibility of being ‘manipulated’ from a position of ‘knowledge’ than from a position of ignorant ‘skepticism’ (which is still ignorant!).
(It appears that (real) skepticism is a feature of ‘knowledge’ and ‘education’.)

16

physicists will not disagree with my claim that we understand a lot about quantum physics, and that we derive great practical benefits from it every day. i should know, one of my best friends went to school for physics, and we have had plenty of good talks about quantum mechanics and the physics of the subatomic. the knowledge we have of this subatomic world is remarkable.

i dont want you to just give me a link to an encyclopedia or a journals database; i was asking you for a link to your specific claims, to any evidence that supports your claim that BRT and placebo are no different in their therapeutic results. i do not think that any such studies exist, which is why i asked you to provide me with one.

yes, i know what Objectivism is. when did i ever call myself an Objectivist? and even if i had (which i have no, and i do not), what would that have to do with anything in this thread…?

17

TTG,

I know physicists personally and I assure you, no one who works with quantum mechanics will claim to be anything other than bewildered by it. That is part of what makes it so exciting. As for homeopathy, we can start with the Lancet study from 1998 since that is the benchmark study on the matter and work our way through the various responses, if you’d like?

Nameless,

I’ll let you wander on over to the religion forum with that stuff . . . It is a pleasant place, I certainly like it. But knowing what goes where is terribly important for effective communication.

18

When I feel like I’m just starting to get sick, I dissolve these little white pills under my tongue (as well as taking other things, like vitamin C). Sometimes I really do get sick, and sometimes I don’t. I have no idea if they do anything or not, but they don’t cost a fortune and I’m willing to take the gamble. What’s at stake? Missing a couple days of work. The gamble is a good one for me. Is it a better gamble to trust “scientists” who claim that everything that doesn’t fit into their paradigm is “wrong”? I think too-conservative views of science can be an actual hindrance to the scientific project.

To be honest, I don’t have high hopes for homeopathy - as often as I have taken some homeopathic pill or whatever, I have never noticed a difference. That said, I am a big fan of the co-existence of alternative medicines. I’ve found that they don’t always work, but neither does “conventional” medicine. And the various systems seem to have their respective areas of suitability. I see no reason to see them as in competition with each other in any way - they are clearly complimentary. TCM-based dietary advice is the best I’ve ever received (modern western dietary advice, at least in its common dissemination, is based on a form of physical universalism that is just plain delusional), and I have received acupuncture treatments that were clearly and radically efficacious, and I really don’t care whether we understand why it can work so well. “Points” and “meridians” don’t have to exist for the model to be functionally relevant. I’ve also experienced excellent results from western herbal medicine. The best allergy remedy I’ve ever used, far better than anything I ever got at the drugstore, was a home-mixed herbal tea, based on informed traditional knowledge.

19

It depends on a lot of factors, of course. Herbal medicine is fine, that is how most of the drugs we make today were discovered! It is still a bit of a crapshoot, but it is more real than not. Homeopathy, on the other hand, I view as essentially exploitative. That is why I have a problem with it. Selling snake oil to cure impetigo is something that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. It isn’t all about a scientific perspective either. I think that giving children potent stimulants is about the most mess-up thing possible. Sure, the stimulants work to fix made-up diseases like ADD, but they work that way on everybody. No reason to give a kid that stuff, no reason at all.

20

well, amphetamines have an opposite effect on someone with ADD than someone without it-- a normal person gets a stimulating effect from amphetamines, it “speeds them up”, whereas an ADD person has a “slowing down” or calming, centering effect from the same drug/dose. so there is definately something chemical there in the brain that is causing the ADD symptoms, but i agree that prescribing amphetamines such as adderall to children is absurd (amphetamines cause various health problems, not the least of which is psychosis), and the fact that they actually are prescribed is enough evidence for me that the FDA is just a joke.

i take it youve had some negative experiences with homeopathy. since i know people who it has helped, and i have read literature/science explaining how it works, which makes perfect sense, i am not as inclined to reject it out of hand, although i have never experienced it personally myself. but if you can cure diabetes with magnetic-resonance stimulation, thats pretty big in my book.

and like i said before, placebo effect might explain part of the effects of homeopathy, but not all. homeopathic remedies in all forms have been around forever, and they have a clear track record throughout history and in modern research to be effective-- sure, some of this is placebo, i agree. but so is all medicine. and in fact, homeopathic understandings such as interconnectedness, fundamental unity and dissolution can actually shed light on WHY placebo actually does exist, which modern medicine cannot understand… the fact of placebo itself is evidence enough that there is a connection between mind and body, and therefore these things must be fundamentally related in type. since mind/consciousness is EM energy (action potentials throughout the synapses), and since every cell in our bodies is ultimately also composed of EM wavefields on the quantum level, it certainly makes sense that one can influence the other.