Following the 2014 study of the bioresonance effect of the Mini-Rayonex (“Mini”) on cell cultures, another in vitro study was done by Dartsch Scientific GmbH (Institute of Cell Biological Test Systems) to find out whether the Mini can boost the integrity of cells that make up our intestinal barrier.

The intestinal epithelium forms a physical barrier that is permeable enough for the absorption of nutrients from the gut into the bloodstream, but not so permeable that toxins and undigested waste also go through. If the barrier and mucosa that the intestinal epithelium forms is not in healthy condition, a leaky gut develops and unwanted matter can leak into the blood and end up in all the cells of the body. It is therefore meaningful to find out whether bioresonance frequencies such as those emitted by the Mini can help maintain a healthy intestinal barrier.

For the study, 3 tests were created using intestinal epithelial cells cultivated on microporous transwell plates. The cells were divided into 2 groups - one exposed to the influence of the Mini, one not exposed. Then 3 tests are conducted.

The first test measured whether the Mini could induce the development of an intestinal epithelial barrier with a higher integrity. The result, using electrical resistance as an indicator of intestinal barrier integrity, showed that the Mini strengthened the barrier by 30% after 7 days of growth.

The second test sought to find out whether the Mini could strengthen the intestinal epithelial barrier to oxidative stress. Both groups of cells were subjected to 2 levels of oxidative stress for 30 hours. Results showed that the strengthening of the barrier by the Mini was statistically significant.

The third test sought to find out the Mini's influence on regeneration. Regeneration, or reconstruction of the intestinal epithelial barrier after traumatization, is essential for having a healthy barrier, or one with integrity. For this test, the traumatized cells were separated into different areas before being allowed to migrate and proliferate, for 6 hours, in an artificially created cell-free zone that simulated a wound area. It was found that the group influenced by the Mini colonized the cell-free space faster and more extensively, suggesting greater intestinal epithelial regeneration.

The study postulates that the use of the actively emitting Mini-Rayonex could result in improved intestinal epithelial barrier integrity, function and regeneration.

The study can be seen here.

Summary

The effectiveness of Rayonex bioresonance devices has been the subject of a number of studies, including the 2019 double-blind, randomised controlled study that gave the most scientific proof. The study involved patients with cervical spine syndrome (CSS), a pain condition that affects some 20% of the population. The study of 54 patients, half assigned to the treatment group and half the placebo control group, was aimed at determining whether bioresonance treatments by Rayonex’s Polar 4.0 medical devices could reduce pain and increase mobility for the patients. All patients in the study had at least moderate pain in the cervical spine region for over 3 years.

Cervical spine syndrome has relatively non-specific symptoms.It can cause pain, dysfunction and nerve irritation in the neck, shoulders, arms and joints. These may be followed by headaches, dizziness, visual disorders and tinnitus.

After 10 weeks, patients who received weekly treatments (130 minutes each time) from a Polar 4.0 reported significant improvements in neck pain, headaches, back pain, shoulder pain or muscle tension. Those in the control group who received placebo treatments reported no significant improvements.

In terms of physical capacity, patients in the treatment group reported significant improvements in parameters including sports, hiking, housework, gardening, swimming, biking, everyday life and social activities.Those in the placebo control group reported no significant improvements in the same activities.

In terms of pain, vitality, general health perceptions, physical functioning, social functioning, emotional health and mental health, treatment patients reported significant improvements in all aspects. Those in the control group reported no significant improvements.

In sum, the group that received bioresonance treatments achieved significant improvements in all objective and subjective parameters compared to the control group.

The results from study - considered to be the “gold standard” of epidemiological studies as it provides the strongest possible scientific evidence - support positive findings from previous studies as well as testimonials by therapists and patients over many years.

Details

In the CSS study, subjects were assigned at random to intervention (in this case Polar 4.0 bioresonance treatment) and placebo control (in this case inactivated devices which provide the appearance of treatments but produce no effect). Neither the subjects nor the investigators knew who were receiving real treatments. This was supposed to eliminate any subjective, “placebo” feeling of benefit due to a belief in treatments. Participants would also be deterred from over-zealous reporting of positive results since they did not know whether they were in the treatment group or the control group.

For this study, the participants were 17 men and 37 women aged between 28 and 84. They were recruited for the specific purpose of testing the efficacy of the Rayonex bioresonance device for treating CSS. The inclusion criteria included age (at least 18), pain in the cervical spine region of at least a moderate degree on a “neck disability index”, ability and willingness to answer questionnaires, and willingness to provide written informed consent.

All the patients confirmed that they had been diagnosed with CSS for at least 3 years, and agreed to be assessed by way of a Neck Disability Index and a Visual Analogue Scale before and and after treatments. The Neck Disability Index is an established, validated measuring instrument for quantifying the pain caused by CSS. The Visual Analogue Scale has been used to record pain intensity as an indicator of significant symptoms.

Both treatment and placebo groups had a similar proportion of patients with various pre-existing medical conditions typical of population samples. All patients continued with their pre-existing medication regime as well as their customary diet and lifestyle.

The study had exclusion criteria encompassing life-threatening diseases, inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, trauma from fractures and surgeries, severe degenerative diseases with significant restricted movements, pregnant or breast-feeding women, mental illnesses, alcohol or drug abuse, incapacitation, incarceration, people employed by or were dependent on the sponsor or investigator, and people taking part in another study.

The Lower Saxony ethics committee voted in favour of carrying out the study after determining that there were no ethics issues.

The study lasted 12 weeks including interviews. The first patient was included on 27/05/2019 and the last patient finished participating on 12/11/2019. During the study there were 7 patients who dropped out due to various personal reasons. The final numbers were thus 24 in the treatment group and 23 in the placebo group, making a total of 47.

In the final clinical report of Feb 2020, titled “Randomised, prospective, double-blind study to provide objective proof of the performance and safety of the Rayocomp bioresonance device in patients with cervical spine syndrome”, the author Dr Hans Werner gave the following conclusion:

“The Rayocomp PS 1000 Polar 4.0 bioresonance device achieved significant improvements in all objective and subjective parameters compared to the placebo device. This study is particularly important as it adopts a double-blind design involving a placebo device for comparison."

“Furthermore, the study confirms that the Rayocomp PS 1000 Polar 4.0 bioresonance device is safe.... No adverse effects were detected during this clinical trial that could alter the risk profile of the Rayocomp PS 1000 Polar 4.0 bioresonance device. The favourable safety profile of the medical device was confirmed.”

The full report of this study is available here.

A 2014 study of the bioresonance effect of the Mini-Rayonex (“Mini”) on cell cultures was done by Dartsch Scientific GmbH (Institute of Cell Biological Test Systems). The in vitro study showed that cell metabolism was stimulated by 45% after cell cultures were exposed for 24 hours to the Mini, compared to cell cultures not exposed to the Mini. Wound healing was sped up by 20% after 3 days exposure to the Mini, compared with cell cultures not exposed to the Mini. A full report in English is available here.

Below is a one-minute time-lapsed video on wound healing with and without a Mini from the same experiment.

On the left side of the time-lapse video, the healing process of cells on a strip with precisely defined width is shown WITHOUT the influence of the Mini-Rayonex. On the right side of the video, the process is shown WITH the influence of the Mini-Rayonex. It can clearly be seen that with the influence of the Mini-Rayonex, the wound heals up more quickly. This visual illustration is backed up by multiple laboratory tests showing the Mini-Rayonex had sped up wound-healing by up to 20%.

A 2011 efficacy study of the Polar and the PS10, using 7,000 cell cultures of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, was done by the Fraunhofer Institute in Dresden. Results showed bioresonance treatments increased metabolic activity of fibroblasts by up to 8%, and increased wound-healing cell division activity of damaged cells by 40%. A further finding was that there were no morphological changes to all the treated cells, showing that influence from the devices did not cause any side effects. A summary report in English is available here.

A 2011 study of the Polar’s effectiveness in pain relief was conducted by Dr Axel Schußmann and Dr Karin Schußmann, who published a report of 30 cases. After an average of 12.4 Polar treatments, each between 20-45 minutes, over an average of 32 days, the patients with various pain symptoms reported overall improvement in pain relief. The average starting pain score of 7.8 on a scale of 1-10 dropped to 4.4 at the end of the treatment period, and dropped further to an average of 2.5 in follow-up visits after an average of 38 days. A full report in English is available here.