More than three decades of research, clinical and academic work in one specialist evidence bank.

Has bioresonance actually been studied in medicine? For which conditions? With which methods? In which centres? With how many patients — and what were the results?

These are the questions a physician or professional practitioner should be able to answer from documented sources before engaging seriously with bioresonance.

The IMEDIS / Bioresonance article and evidence bank was built for that purpose: papers, clinical reports, university research, laboratory studies and related documents gathered from 1995 to 2026.

The main archive holds more than 5,400 scholarly items; an initial review identified over 1,600 items with a direct link to disease, diagnosis, treatment, clinical studies and medical applications.

The real value is a traceable evidence path — from “does bioresonance exist as a studied topic?” to “for which conditions has it been examined?”

Searchable clinical areas

• Cardiovascular, respiratory / asthma, gastrointestinal, liver and hepatitis
• Renal / urinary, neurological, musculoskeletal, arthritis / rheumatism, osteoarthrosis
• Diabetes and diabetic neuropathy, dermatology, gynaecology, urology, infectious and inflammatory disease, paediatrics
• Selected oncology-related reports and a wide range of chronic / functional disorders

For many of these areas you can follow author, year, centre, patient numbers and reported outcomes.

Scale markers (read carefully)

• One archive statistical report covers 17,938 patients (2002) — 75.5% lasting improvement, 20.5% partial improvement (not an RCT)
• IMEDIS-FOLL evaluation in Russian Ministry of Defence medical centres (1997–1999): 1,487 patients across five centres
• These are historical clinical/evaluation reports, not modern randomised trials — but they show the corpus is not limited to a handful of anecdotes

Why it matters for clinicians

The bank does not ask you to “believe” bioresonance. It asks you to read: study design, sample size, centre, outcomes and limitations — then judge.

Professional medicine is not convinced by claims; it decides on inspectable evidence. University study ≠ case report; large statistical report ≠ randomised trial; regulatory allowance ≠ proof for every disease.

A five-minute start

Pick one condition (asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthrosis, diabetes, neuropathy, hepatitis, cardiovascular disease…). Search the bank: who studied it, when, where, how many patients, what method, was there a control group, what was measured, what was reported, what were the limits?

Know bioresonance through study and critical appraisal — not belief. This library is a tool for better judgement, not a substitute for clinical judgement.