Join the enews community - Terms
Filter by Categories

Energy healing: science fact or science fiction?

Reading time: 14 minutes

You’ve heard news of a revolutionary frequency-based device with a list of diseases it can supposedly remedy that would make Pfizer’s R&D team leader quiver. You’ve read dozens of testimonials, and your head’s still spinning.

Some were from cancer patients, once classified as terminally ill, who’ve gone into “spontaneous remission.” Others came from people so ill they were permanently bed bound—until their frequency treatment got them walking again.

Your critical mind tells you this could mean one of only two things: the testimonials are from intensely satisfied people who experienced what many might typically classify as a miracle, or they’ve been fabricated by overzealous marketeers keen to make a buck.

More than this, some devices falling under the amorphous banner of “frequency medicine devices” have actually been found to cause harm. This has been most evident with electromagnetic field–based devices used occupationally by physiotherapy operators on a daily basis and for extended periods of time.

An incredibly diverse range of commercial devices is being used in medicine that rely on frequencies.

This gamut of devices emit electromagnetic energy that are often also able to measure the body’s own weak electromagnetic fields. They’re gaining more and more use in integrative or alternative medicine and are therefore the ones most likely to be encountered by proponents of natural health and wellness.

Any electromagnetic field involves an interaction between both electrical and magnetic fields—and these fields allow the transfer of energy through electromagnetic waves, which can have profound effects on different processes and structures in the human body, from our skin all the way to our DNA. 

Electromagnetic waves have two components: transverse and scalar waves. Transverse waves produce frequencies that can be measured in 3D space and are used in telecommunications and electricity.

Scalar waves, on the other hand, are “longitudinal” and are not limited within 3D space. They are the non-physical, informational element of matter that can be explained by quantum mechanics.

Electromagnetic energy helps create the electromagnetic energy system (often called the biofield) that in turn provides the matrix for the body-mind being of humans.1

Thanks in large part to the engineers, biophysicists and quantum biologists who pioneered the emerging field of frequency medicine, most of whom were ridiculed, ostracized or dismissed during their lives or posthumously, there is now an increasing understanding within the scientific community that plausible explanations of life must diverge from the prevailing biochemical, molecular, genetic and Newtonian-Cartesian concepts.

The findings from this rapidly emerging discipline consistently reveal that the much studied biochemical and molecular processes in all living systems depend entirely on electrical and electromagnetic energies. Small wonder given Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which demonstrated the interchangeability of energy and matter. In fact, Einstein himself predicted that “future medicine will be the medicine of frequencies.”

What has slowed progress is the paucity of research in the application of biophysics and quantum biology to medicine. The result has been a corresponding lack of any cohesive and generally accepted body of evidence demonstrating the mechanisms, or the benefits, of medical or health-related technologies that work with the energy systems of the body.

Nearly all of mainstream research efforts focusing on the body’s nonmolecular energy systems (energy that’s not related to the body’s biochemical fuel) have been expended on developing specific diagnostic technologies, such as electrocardiographic recordings of the heart’s pulse in electrocardiograms (ECGs).

With very few exceptions, in very few countries—notably Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Russia—mainstream treatment of disease almost entirely excludes consideration of the body’s electromagnetic energy system (biofield).

Early discoveries of energy in the body

Albert Abrams (1863–1924)

Dr Albert Abrams, professor of pathology at Cooper Medical College in San Francisco, California, developed machines that helped him discover that different diseases caused tissues to resonate at different frequencies. With his pioneering machines the Reflexophone and the Oscilloblast, Abrams claimed that by reflecting back healthy frequency signals, he could cure a wide range of diseases. He was increasingly discredited by the medical establishment, often on the basis of spurious evidence, but his technology was resurrected in the 1950s, renamed radionics and continues to be used in agriculture and human health.

Royal Raymond Rife (1888–1971)

Rife, an American inventor and early exponent of high-magnification microscopy, went on to develop “beam ray” generators that he claimed could selectively weaken or destroy pathogens. After developing an interest in cancer, Rife faced the ire of the American Medical Association, which tried to discredit him and his claims in his lifetime. His ongoing reputation has led to a wide variety of so-called Rife frequency generators, some the subject of health fraud claims initiated against sellers by the FDA and District Courts in the US.

Dr Reinhold Voll (1909–89) 

Dr Voll was a German family doctor who developed an interest in traditional Chinese acupuncture and went on to develop electroacupuncture according to Voll (EAV). The method uses the same meridians as traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) along with additional meridians that Voll referred to as “vessels.” The EAV method relies on measuring skin resistance (electrodermal activity) using an EAV device that includes a negatively charged electrode held by the patient and a positively charged electrode that the practitioner uses to make contact with the patient’s skin. Nosode tests allow measurement of the energetic characteristics of different drugs, food and supplements and are claimed to help determine tolerability by the patient. Treatments with EAV are considered to enhance the effects of conventional needle acupuncture.

Robert O. Becker (1923–2008)

This American orthopedic surgeon and researcher in the field of electro-physiology and electro-medicine became a pioneer in the fields of bioelectricity and bioelectromagnetism. He was one of the first to suggest that electric fields contributed to the healing of wounds and bone fractures. Becker went on to show that regeneration following bone fractures or amputations could be accelerated by applying electrical potentials to the damaged tissues. He also showed that limb regeneration in amputated limbs of frogs and salamanders were controlled by electromagnetic forces (the animals’ biofields), all summarized in his book The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life (William Morrow, 1976, 1998).

Fritz-Albert Popp (1938–2018)

Popp was a German theoretical physicist and pioneering quantum biophysicist and biologist as well as a professor at Marburg University from 1973 to 1980. He discovered that ultraweak light emissions occurred in all living systems and named them biophotons. Over many years he developed his biophoton theory of life, proposing that coherent light emissions functioning in the quantum plane are the primary controllers of biochemical and molecular processes. Popp went on to establish the International Institute of Biophysics in Neuss, Germany, and his research group found that a cell’s DNA was the most important source of biophotonic emission. His work is detailed in Lynne McTaggart’s book The Field (HarperCollins, 2002).

How do frequency-based devices work?

You can measure the human biofield in many dimensions, scales and resolutions, not unlike measuring or evaluating any other complex system, such as our planet, a lake or an apple orchard. But just like when buying a camera, a potential buyer of a frequency-based device should have ready access to the technology’s detailed specifications and capacities.

It’s also worth remembering, even if you’re dealing with a highly sensitive, high-resolution system that can measure specific areas of the body, the measurements don’t necessarily translate directly to the physiology or pathology we’re used to dealing with when we look at the physical body and the underlying physiological and biochemical processes that function within it.

While the precise mechanisms have yet to be elucidated or agreed upon through consensus, this is likely because the non-biochemical, energetic system of the body—the biofield—actually controls the other processes and operates in the realms of quantum biology, not Newtonian biology. Increasingly, it appears that the biofield is the master controller of the biological system, the invisible information matrix that is superimposed both through and over all living beings.

Some devices are restricted to low frequencies (say, below 100 Hz), and some manufacturers claim that’s because these are the ones with which the body operates and they don’t interfere with the radio frequencies used in communication systems, which are known to be harmful. As the science progresses, such views are increasingly invalid, as different parts of our bodies emanate an incredibly broad range of frequencies, from very low frequencies in the sub-100 Hz range through the kilohertz (kHz), gigahertz (GHz), terahertz (THz) and even picohertz (pHz) ranges and probably beyond.

Even the ultraweak biophoton emissions from DNA, as explored by Fritz-Albert Popp and his colleagues, are in the ultraviolet to visible light range (wavelength 200–800 nm).

So whether the typically ultraweak signals can or can’t be detected across the range is down to the sensitivity and specificity of the antennae being used. This is an area that my organization, the international Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), believes should be specified in consumer-facing information. Currently, such declarations are uncommon on many machines used for healing.

What are frequencies?

Frequencies are vibrations or oscillations of energy. Energy can be transferred in a variety of ways, principally in electrical, electrochemical or electromagnetic forms.

Electricity—or electromagnetic energy flow involving negatively charged electrons—can also induce chemical changes. The scientific study of the interconversion of chemical and electrical energy is called electrochemistry, and our bodies rely on electrochemical gradients for every nerve impulse.

These nerve impulses vary in speed from less than 1 meter per second (m/s) for a pain signal to over 100 m/s when we activate muscle fibers. This is much slower than the flow of electricity in a copper wire in a typical home (around 200 million m/s, or about 90 percent of the speed of light).1

Electromagnetism is a type of energetic force that acts between charged particles and consists of a combination of both electrical and magnetic forces. Any electromagnetic field involves an interaction between both electrical and magnetic fields, and these fields allow the transfer of energy through electromagnetic waves. That energy can have profound effects on different processes and structures in the human body, from our skin to our DNA.

Electromagnetism, just like electricity, is fundamental to all living systems. Increasingly, emerging science and the most viable theories that attempt to explain the origin of life suggest that electromagnetism isn’t just a byproduct of the function of living systems but the form of energy that makes life happen by causing the composite molecules, atoms and subatomic particles of living systems to move in tandem as a total living being.2

Electromagnetic waves are propagated by oscillating electric and magnetic waves at right angles to each other. Electromagnetic energy is always issued in a wave form and doesn’t need a medium (like air or water) to propagate, which is why electromagnetic waves can travel through space.

Many will be familiar with some of these waves’ properties, such as interference (e.g., of radio or television signals) and diffraction (e.g., when you see the rainbow colors in a crystal or on the surface of a CD).  

EM waves can be sent out continuously or intermittently, as a pulse.

How ANH evaluated this equipment

To shine some light on this burgeoning industry, ANH embarked on a detailed evaluation of all the major frequency medicine devices on the market. 

When it comes to evaluating this rapidly expanding sector of primarily electrically powered frequency medicine devices, it’s not possible to appraise either the safety or the benefits of some devices. There just isn’t enough technical data available to know what the devices are actually doing as they interact with the human body.

In the main, the devices we were able to evaluate emit electromagnetic energy and are often also able to measure the body’s own weak electromagnetic fields. These are the kinds of devices that are gaining use in integrative or alternative medicine and are therefore the most likely to be encountered by proponents of natural health and wellness.

A multitude of other parameters change the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, and these are specific not only to the radiation source but also to the condition and state of the receiving cells, tissues, organs and organism. But we know that another key parameter is the waveform, which takes into account its pattern, whether it’s continuous or pulsed, and even whether it’s analog or digital.

While there are a host of different EMF exposure limits set by different organizations in different countries, these are generally based on thermal effects, and accordingly the limits tend to be extremely high and not consistent with what is known about the harmful effects of radio-frequency radiation. 

Examples include the limits set by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and those by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) through its International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, updated in 2019.2

All electrical and electronic devices sold in the European Economic Area (EEA) require a CE mark. This mark affirms that the manufacturer has conformed to relevant European health, safety and environmental protection standards. That typically means conformity to European standards for electromagnetic compatibility, those set in the EU’s EMC Directive that applies across the EEA.3

While you will find a CE mark on all but the most potentially ineffective or dangerous devices sold in Europe, it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to conform to the relevant standards, and there is some debate as to which ones are relevant. Furthermore, there are no specific standards for frequency-based devices directly relevant to their health application, causing some companies to make do by meeting the lowest standards, those required for general household electric and electronic goods.

Some companies comply with many more standards than others, many don’t specify exactly which ones they comply with, and some argue (incorrectly) that CE mark conformity means their device has been proven safe for its intended use. At the moment, the sector operates within a rapidly emerging scientific discipline in which there is still little general consensus, and, within it, actors are often keen to protect their intellectual property.

On some occasions, you even get to encounter shameless and fanciful marketing of devices that are known by their makers to be other than what they claim. Or, just as bad, the marketeers barely know anything about the technical specifications of what they are selling.

From this small sample of devices, there is evidently great variation in the kinds of devices and the technical data available about them. There were clearly a few companies that have a much greater degree of transparency than others, the standouts being Vitatec, Rayonex, Bio-Well and Resonant Light Technologies (PERL+ and ProGen3). By contrast, other companies’ standards of data transparency appeared to fall well short of expectations.

We have some concerns about devices that are heavily marketed on the basis of testimonials, with little technical detail. The iTeraCare Wand was one such example in which the manufacturer categorized the device (presumably owing to CE mark certifications) as a “hot air blower,” yet details about the claimed terahertz electromagnetic radiation output don’t appear to be available in the public domain.

Claims vary among the multilevel network distributors selling the devices, including to those who are seriously ill and claim Covid-19 vaccine injury. Some suggest the waves penetrate 20–30 cm into the body, others 20–30 mm.

We noted that contact details or a website was difficult to find for the iTeraCare Wand’s manufacturer Prife, not to be confused with the network marketing company Prife International, which has exclusive distributorship.

Other devices, such as the Energy Enhancement System (EESystem) that supposedly relies on scalar energy typically issued through arrays of computer screens, is being pushed hard by influential individuals, including many integrative doctors in the US.

For instance, with more than 35 years in the field of integrative medicine, American doctor Linda Nadia Hole, MD, wrote a case report admitting to being unabashedly skeptical of the healing possibilities of scalar energy—until she worked with the EESystem.

In one of many case studies, she wrote about a 58-year-old veteran who presented with a 30-year history of debilitating chronic pain in his neck and right leg after multiple car accidents, an 85 percent left ear hearing loss and memory loss after a head injury. He underwent EESystem sessions three or four times per week, each lasting two to three hours. Two sessions were overnight, eight or more hours long.

After his first session, he woke the next morning for the first time in decades, he says, with “no pain.” During his second session, he reported that his hearing began returning. By the fourth week, he reported “total” relief of his pain, with a 90 percent improvement in hearing, plus the return of many of his memories that had long been buried.

Despite many such glowing testimonials, we could find little technical detail about the underlying technology in many otherwise promising products.

How to assess an energy device

There are five basic properties of any frequency medicine device that you should know about prior to using it:

  1. Is the device able to measure all, or part, of the body’s biofield (energy body), and if so, what measurements is it taking from which parts of the body?
  2. Does it emit or deliver frequencies to the body? If so, what are some of the important parameters of these signals?
  3. Does it contain any algorithms that change the frequencies it delivers according to what it has measured? In other words, does it use some kind of biofeedback system, and if so, are details about it available?
  4. What are the quality specifications of the device components that receive and emit electrical, electromagnetic or acoustic signals, and, if relevant, through what components are these signals transmitted (e.g., cables) or converted (e.g., digital to analog converter)?
  5. Can the company provide instructions for recommended use (including duration of exposure) and evidence that the device is safe and that people have benefited from its use? If so, is this data plausible and is it of adequate quality?

If the device is emitting electromagnetic radiation to modulate cell or tissue function, it is important that a user or practitioner can readily access information on frequency ranges, magnetic flux densities and the amount and type of radiation delivered to the body. 

Given the complexity of some devices, this data will often need to be given in ranges rather than as discrete figures.

Clean or dirty signals?

Many things about various devices can’t be revealed by reading the manufacturers’ specifications and marketing materials, even if the information appears comprehensive.

Take, for instance, the nature of transmitting signals received by the body from an electrode of some form, reading or interpreting them in a readout of some sort on the device, and returning different signals via an algorithm in ways that modulate the body’s response to improve energetic coherence and function. This is, after all, the principal aim of many devices used for healing.

What also happens to signals emitted from digital devices? Do they emit step-like, digital signals that were alien to natural systems prior to the invention of digital communication systems?5 Have they been converted via a digital-to-analog converter (DAC)? Has the conversion happened without loss of key information?

Not sorting out these ancillary elements is akin to trying to drink an exclusive wine from a used Starbucks cup with the dregs left in it.

One of the results of our own evaluation of this sector is that there’s a lot of smart marketing out there, but for some devices, the data we hoped to see just wasn’t available.

This is much less the case for devices that have been adopted by the medical mainstream and others that have received Class IIa medical device registration for specific indications, such as the bioresonance devices by Rayonex and BICOM.

This is because device registration requires proof of both safety and clinical effectiveness via clinical trials. This, however, does not mean that devices for which there is more data are necessarily better, more effective or even safer than devices for which less data is available.

As Dr Markov alludes to in his 2015 paper, it is not possible to meaningfully assess technology for which manufacturers have not designated crucial data, say, on factors such as frequency and amplitude ranges, field gradient and duration of exposures.

One thing is for sure: the sector is growing. An ever-growing number of people are opening up to the idea that electromagnetic energy, frequencies and resonances are essential to life.

More interest results in more experiences, which means more devices sold, leading in turn to more research. As such, each year the evidence base, particularly from all-important clinical practice, is expanding.

As with any new industrial sector, responsible self-regulation is the best way to avoid the kinds of events, however trivial they seem, that regulators will happily use to annihilate new competition. Frequency device manufacturers as a whole must raise their game and release more information into the public domain as part of their responsibilities as a self-regulated industry. If they don’t, they will be forced, through the political process that is generally ambivalent about non-pharmaceutical approaches, into becoming regulated over time.

And some of the more typical strong-arm methods of government regulation include knee-capping choice and eliminating the most innovative, smaller players as well as giving preferential treatment to those with the deepest pockets who toe the mainstream line.

Especially at risk are the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices, which currently have no medical device registration from a regulatory authority such as the US FDA, the UK’s MHRA or their equivalents.

As an alliance of natural health interests, with our primary mission focused on benefiting people and preserving our right to natural health, the Alliance for Natural Health invites scientists, researchers and company representatives within the frequency medicine or wellness technology sector to contact us at if they are interested in co-creating a framework for responsible and sustainable development for this incredible and exciting new frontier of medicine and wellness.

Let’s do so before the regulatory bodies do it for us.

To take a look at the devices evaluated by ANH by CLICK HERE


What do you think? Start a conversation over on the... WDDTY Community


What are frequencies?



David Parizh, “Speed of Nerve Impulses,” 2002,


 J Complexity in Health Sci, 2022; 5(1): 22–34; Electro- and Magnetobiology, 1998; 17(3): 401–13; Electromagn Biol Med, 2017; 36(2): 115–22

Main article



J Altern Complement Med, 2002; 8(6): 703–17


IEEE Standards Association, IEEE Std C95.1™ – 2019, Feb 8, 2019,


European Parliament, Directive 2014/30/EU, Feb 26, 2014,


Electromagn Biol Med, 2015; 34(3): 190–6


Amrutha Varshini, “What Is the Difference between Analog and Digital Signal Processing?,” Jan 25, 2021,

  • Recent Posts

  • Copyright © 1989 - 2024 WDDTY
    Publishing Registered Office Address: Hill Place House, 55a High Street Wimbledon, London SW19 5BA
    Skip to content