bioresonance, biophysical information therapy and variants

Are you're asking about subtle energy therapy? Or other alternative therapies like electromedicine as well?
I'll look for some.

The more thorough and thus credible a study, the greater the funding required - and questionable sources of funding can lower the credibility back to zero. Is there a source of funding we can trust? Maybe identifying those would lead to a treasure trove of reliable studies. Otherwise we're limited to putting pieces together ourselves from smaller studies and annecdotes instead of scientific/corporate authorities with vested interests.

Here's a good article though about double blind studies, their importance and potential pitfalls:
http://www.mendosa.com/bratman.htm

On the one hand, double blind studies check for physically causal processes, which if lacking can indicate the presence of subjectivity and wishful thinking. On the other hand, lack of physical causal factors does not necessarily prove it must be subjective or wishful thinking because there can be acausal and non-material processes at work. Sometimes the placebo effect is purely imagined and not in accord with reality, other times it may be metaphysical in the sense of consciousness affecting reality on the quantum level beneath the classical/causal/material threshold. The quest for objectivity, if rooted in falsely limiting assumptions, can disqualify evidence originating from higher realms of objectivity.

It is true that to conduct a test, or any kind, one changes the parameters of that which is tested by the act of witnessing the formation of results. Objectivity can deflect the true meaning of the results. On the other hand, incompetent conclusions can be easy to obtain by restricting possible outcomes to previous results. A multiplier of error is induced. Objective prejudice can even stop any thinking that is contrar;y to that already published. The acausal evidence of an anomaly is repudiated. Low power experiments are discouraged. Results are fried up with bad science and no one is allowed to be crazy on purpose.

One of the better more reputable companies dealing in electromedicine devices is Sota Instruments, primarily Bob Beck stuff.

Ken Adachi at Educate Yourself makes very good, dependable devices as well.

Perhaps the two best books on the market describing bioenergy medicine from a strictly scientific perspective, indeed making all the right connections between numerous researchers in the 'hard' sciences, are both written by James Oschman, one called Energy Science. the Scientific basis, and the other Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance.
They are expensive books but well worth the cost, especially if you have a client who 'wants the facts on the ground.'

James' site is here:

http://www.energyresearch.bizland.com/

He has a number of articles archived at the Journal of Bodywork and MOvement Therapies, as for example:

www.harcourt-international.com/ journals/suppfile/flat/JBMT-Oschman.pdf

As for Patrick Flanagan, while I don't have any personal experience with any of his products, I would stay clear of the guy.

He is a spook research scientist, for whatever that's worth.

What was it he first invented at the age of 16 or so, back in the '60s? A neurophone or something-- a device to enables you to 'hear' a 'voice' projected inside you cranium, bypassing your auditory conduit altogether.

For the hearing impaired. It was going to open up the world of sound to the deaf.
Yeah, right.