If there have been no scientific trials hence why there is no data on the subject, however this does not mean it doesn’t or cant work.

Nicotine patches were trialed and have a success rate of just 6%, so what the big deal with clinical trials, in most cases they are meaningless anyway, clinical trials have no credibility, are engineered for success, manipulated, stopped early and failed drugs are re-branded to new markets, so they are not without their serious flaws as well.

The simple fact remains this treatment has been in the UK for over 3 years now without any scientific data to support it but people as using it because it works, not because some boffin in a lab coat says it can’t work.

I find it amazing that instead of taking a treatment on its merits and being open to the possibility it just may work, you attack it form the beginning and seek to undermine it, maybe you work for a drug company and have a vested interest in undermining any alternatives that work, who knows?

Many people on this forum have had the treatment and it worked for them, plus there are thousands of others as well, so despite the fact you don’t understand how it works and spout the usual fluff about ‘scientific data’ as though it is beyond reproach to support your argument, guess what, clinical data is meaningless, as it all depends on who’s doing the counting, what they are counting and measuring and who’s paying their wages to do it.

It is not well known by the general public but it is widely acknowledge and established through a House of Commons Health Committee Report, that clinical trials a fraught with problems and suffer server credibility issues, “Today the industry has got a very bad name. That is very unfortunate for an industry that we should look up to and believe in, and that we should be supporting. I think there have to be some big changes.” Sir Richard Sykes. ‘House of Commons Health Committee -The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry Fourth Report of Session 2004–05′.

Your lack of objectivity, suggest you are bias and hence not credible.

http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2007/03/team-sciencepunk-pwns-monadith/

To restate the main point, it is not up to other people to disprove a science, it is up to the originator to prove that it will work. If you are so adamant about the capability of this working, please feel free to supply written documentation as opposed to just making claims with no data to back it up.

Too quick to form an opinion, looks like you are the ones with egg on your faces, think your clever, think again.

If no-one understands how the Bicom works, how they build them?

I would suggest the NHS take note of this.

Aside from not having any plausible method of action, if a machine like this really worked it should be able to perform in a double blind clinical trial. To date, none has.