Does Quantum Resonance Spectrometry Work?

By Neuroskeptic | January 31, 2015 9:56 am

This is my fourth post on  ‘quantum resonance spectrometry’ (QRS), a strange medical technology that seems to be becoming increasingly popular in China. Proponents claim that QRS can quickly and painlessly diagnose almost any disease. However, as I discussed last time, the technology has a dubious history.

But we shouldn’t focus on the past. The important question is: how well do today’s QRS devices work? In this post I’ll look at some examples of the technology in action.

First some terminology. I believe that QRS is essentially the same product as “Quantum Resonance Magnetic Analysis” (QRMA) and “Quantum Resonance Analysis” (QRA). As far as I can tell, these are all variants of Ronald Weinstock’s original invention, “Magnetic Resonance Analysis” (MRA). For more details, see the previous post. Note that none of these technologies is related to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Searching for some evidence on how QRS works, I discovered this TV segment broadcast on CCTV-1, the Chinese state TV channel. According to the show, QRS measures the magnetic field surrounding a sample of the patient’s hair. The hair’s field is, we’re told, a copy of the body’s own magnetic field. This field supposedly contains information about the health of all of the organs in the body. Water molecules which “remember” magnetic states are mentioned, which sounds like a reference to the strange “water memory” theories of Japanese author Masaru Emoto, which I discussed last time.

CCTV-1 shows a QRS machine in action. We’re told it can diagnose diseases such as cancer. The operation seems to be as easy as placing the hair sample (in a plastic bag) on top of a grey desktop box as shown below.


I was surprised to see that the ‘magnetic detector’ is shown on a desk in someone’s office, surrounded by a computer, a monitor, electric lights, etc. All of these electrical devices emit electromagnetic “noise”. I’m not a physicist but I’m pretty sure that a big old CRT monitor would overwhelm any magnetic field associated with a small clump of hair, given that hair is not a magnetic material.


I’m also not sure how a magnetic field could reveal the presence of cancer, given that cancer cells aren’t magnetic. Yet, somehow, the device does output “diagnoses”. Where do these outputs come from?

The answer may lie in another very interesting video, from Danish YouTuber Jørgen A. Jacobsen. Jacobsen tested out a QRMA device based on a sensor. Rather than requiring a hair sample, this device is sold as a way to diagnose diseases just from holding the probe in the hand:


Jacobsen wanted to verify whether these devices really work, so he says that

I imported two different QRMA late 2012 from the most renown QRMA selling companies I could find in China… They have many notes on their site warning about fake analyzers, and claim they are the manufactures, and they display certifications, so maybe they know what they are doing.I took the analyzers through some systematic testing. I quickly found that I could use a wet paper cloth or a resistor instead of a human hand.

As he demonstrates in the video, when Jacobsen wrapped a damp cloth around the sensor, it seemingly fooled the device into thinking that someone was holding the probe. The machine started happily generating a “health report”. According to the QRMA machine, the cloth had various minor ailments, including “moderately abnormal” cardiovascular health.

So it appears that the ‘sensor’ acts merely as a switch, that detects the presence of a hand – or any other electrical conductor. Where do the health reports come from, then? In an email to me, Jacobsen speculates that the diagnoses are actually randomly generated by the software that comes with the device. He suggests that software generates health conditions that will seem plausible given the background information about the patient that the user provided:

The results must simply come from the data we put in; age, gender, height, weight. From that the software can make many things seem like a hit to believers. That animation running when there is contact, may look fancy, may look impressing, but I am quite sure that it is just the same animation over and over.

Another YouTuber later came to the same conclusions:

The sensor which is supposed to detect the very feeble “electromagnetic waves” is nothing more than two plates separated by a non-conductive plastic, and when held by hand, this completes the circuit due to the skin resistance… I totally removed the sensor and replaced it with a resistor that simulates the skin resistance. I found out that my resistor is suffering from blood sugar imbalance (it’s diabetic) and it has problems in its “kidneys”. Do resistors, too, emit weak magnetic energies the same as those produced by a human cell?

In summary, it appears that at least some of the products sold as “quantum resonance” medical devices on the market today, may not be providing any useful medical information. Until this technology has been properly validated, I would not trust any QRS device with the job of assessing my health. I certainly would not rely on to answer life or death questions such as whether or not I had cancer.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: methods, QRS, select, Top Posts, Uncategorized, woo
  • Felonious Grammar

    It does (not) bring up interesting questions about hair chi.

    • Matthew Slyfield

      “hair chi.”

      Bless you.

      • Neuroskeptic

        Oh no, Felonious Grammar is sneezing, that could be a sign of illness.

        If only there were a device that could quickly diagnose all diseases!

    • rktsci

      But does it work on Chia Pets?

  • TLongmire

    The ability to analyze our aura is the pinnacle of understanding our state.

  • pip010

    is there even 1 single sci paper on the method(s) under question?

    • Daniel

      I am not for and I am not against but I am skeptical. However, if it really works the inventor is sitting on a gold mind. In this case, why would he bother to explain how it works to you or anyone else?

  • maurice


  • Pingback: Spooky Physics and Lunar Thinking | Skeptical Analysis()

  • Pingback: Engaños de la pseudociencia en México | Cuadrivio()

  • Khushboo Sharma

    it is accurate… i had low vital capacity it showed… i had pcos… it showed… i had low calcium it showed… and later i went through all these tests to confirm and it proved that this thing is not fake… infact i bought one for my family… moreover we use it frequently for check ups as its not having radiation hazards or so…

    • Hvacjack

      Aren’t you usually spamming how to make a fortune at home on the internet? Low vital capacity? Oh no you poor thing.

    • Goodall

      I completely agree. Its output was that I have more than one leg, less than three eyes. and my heartbeats show without any mistake that it’s placed at my left side – I was shocked, to say the least.

  • Diogenes TheDog

    This is a galvanometer (sp?). L. Ron Hubbard used them, and now other countries are catching up. I found this article while looking for a way to use the Bose-Einstein condensate to safely scan humans. it’s tricky research. it’s also tricky to rock a rhyme that’s right on time.
    edit: don’t spam me, bro

  • E.G.

    I was also a sceptic, but this machine confirmed many of my health issues and deficiencies.

    • Chris

      It’s fake. It seems real because everybody has some sort of deficiency and health issue. I generated a test without anybody connected, then I showed it to somebody and told them this is their result. They said wow, it’s so accurate!.. They found an explanation for everything it said is wrong.. Pesticides due to food, mercury due to fillings, bad circulation, and so on. It was completely random, they were never hooked up to the machine!!

  • Rudo M Mashingaidze

    While i could agree with the theory of random findings based on provided baselined data, I would also like to confirm that on 2 separate occasions ‘quantum ” accurately picked up on 2 conditions i had. I am a medical professional and i needed it to just verify what i already knew.
    Unfortunately the operators in both instances were non- medical and struggled to answer my more medical questions.They waffled and preferred to rather recommend the appropriate homeopathic remedies for each highlighted abnormality..
    I believe for argument’s sake one should run comparative lab tests on areas of concern.You may be surprised…….
    There is also no harm in pursuing healthier living upon what others may perceive to be random calculation of one’s state of health.If your overweight , machine or not…deal with it.At least it doesn’t profess to cure anything.
    Great work scientists…..keep it up

    Oh and as for the damp cloth and the diabetic resistor… get well soon..they should be admitted next to my water bottle which has just recorded a blood pressure of 159/66 hahahaaaa

  • conceive infotrade

    Nice blog…Thanks for this information…

    For more details visit our website….:-
    Website link…:-

  • Chris

    I have come to the same conclusion as the previous Youtube posters. I will post a video as well. I have also found a method by which you can prove it is fake. All you have to do is run a test without a person connected, just use a wet cloth or anything conductive around the hand wand, and if it has head paddles, stick them together onto each other.
    Enter the new information for a person that was never tested, and do a test, without them being connected AT ALL! Then, connect them, and do a second test. and watch how the results will be the SAME!.. No person, then person, and results will be same. That just doesn’t make sense.. So obviously, the results are generated based on age/weight/height alone, and nothing else! The previous result is ALWAYS used, and slightly adjusted, based on how much time has elapsed. If a long time elapses between the tests, then bigger differences are shown. It’s just a very clever algorithm.

  • Md Rajab Ali

    i wants clarification favour Magnetic Analyzer body it provide genuine report ?

  • Grant

    Has anyone actually tested it to see if it does what its made for? I.e Comparing this to other ways of analysing organs to see if the results are similar? Has anyone used a scientific method to test this?

  • Victor

    I have a close relative who uses this tool and so far is a 50/50 shot. There are certain things that may seem like is actually accurate, since some people will come after a blood test and they end up getting same results. But is a 50/50 because yes, there is always the doubt whether it works or not. So far seems more legit, than expected.



No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar