<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

     The Daily Mail is a paper in which the claim of fact does not have
     either a negative or a positive correlation with truth.  I may be
     beneficial or not, but not by the mechanism outlined in the article.


     >> It is reported to "reflect back to the body its own electromagnetic
     >> waves by means of electrodes connected by wires to the machine and
     >> held in the patient's hands." [The newer models require the patient
     >> to hold 2 brass balls instead of electrodes.]

     This looks like a 19th century invention.  I am fairly sure that I
     have read almost these words in a Scientific American 50 and 100 years
     ago section.  The jargon used here is meaningless.

     >> The article goes on "Groups of cells emit different frequencies,
     >> some healthy, some unhealthy. By changing these cell frequencies,
     >> the Biocom machine is changing the patient's biochemistry, hormones
     >> and metabolism. Healthy frequencies are amplified and mirrored back
     >> to the body while unhealthy frequencies are turned around before
     >> reflecting them back." It boasts that children are more often than
     >> not cured in 1 treatment, although adults need a series of
     >> treatments.

     What would health vs unhealthy electromagnetic frequencies actually
     mean?
     This, by virtue of the jargon and the source is undoubted snake oil.
     It is merely an example of second rate journalism.

     Jim