[BPSDB]This site has regularly been visited by one Philip Porter who likes to trumpet the virtues of the SCENAR bioresonance device. Each time he does so I request evedence that the things actually work. Most recently, he came up with this. Unfortunately it does not really prove anything.
The first point that springs to my notice is that it is just a summary of results, saying how many treated were completely cured, how many showed significant improvement etc. Nothing about methodology, patient selection etc.
The second point is that the respiritory diseases such as common cold, influenza, bronchitis etc. are all either self-limiting ailments (they get better without treatment) or episodic (the severity is cyclic). I am not a doctor but even I can see that this criticism can be made about many of the ailments given in subsequent tables as well. This means that treatment could be given when a patient is feeling particularly rough then claiming credit for subsequent improvement (which would have happened anyway). Properly run clinical trials have a control group which receives a placebo treatment. The difference in improvement between those receiving the genuine treatment and those in the control group is the measure of the effectiveness of the treatment.
Which leads to the third point: no control group is mentioned. Consequently the seemingly wonderful recovery rates are totally meaningless as we do not know how many would have recovered without treatment.
Fourthly, we are not told the treatment period. A sufferer of the common cold, for example, typically recovers completely in a week. We are not told over what period the 608 cold sufferers are treated, for example. In a week we would expect 608 complete recoveries (in fact there are only 601 so on the basis of the information given I could just as well say that SCENAR is less effective than doing absolutely nothing.)
SCENAR research, like so much “alternative” medicine has the appearance of science but totally lacks the substance.