It all began around 1975, a time when Dr. Franz Morell, a German physician, and his son-in-law Erich Rasche, an engineer, embarked on a remarkable journey. Together, they ventured into the delicate interplay of ancient functional medicine and modern scientific principles to create a holistic synthesis that would eventually shape the foundation of what we now call electronic homeopathy. Their pioneering development, the TSE (Test-Sender-Receiver), enabled a profound breakthrough: the direct measurement and electronic transmission of electromagnetic frequencies from homeopathic and other medicinal substances, unlocking new therapeutic possibilities.

Morell and Rasche recognized that the frequency information of these substances was uniquely distinct, with each resonating across various frequency bands. The human body, they observed, also carried its own frequencies, moving within these spectral ranges. Through intricate electronic filter systems, known as the Variofilter Systems, they could control these frequencies, amplifying them to achieve the desired potency.

Their goal was to detect and work with the electromagnetic signals of individuals experiencing acute sensitivity due to allergies. They meticulously studied the properties of these frequencies – their wavelength, their amplitude, and even explored the possibility of conducting them through copper wires. In essence, they sought people who had endured long-standing allergic reactions and whose sensitivities were already known. Even the smallest trace of an allergen – biochemically undetectable – could trigger pronounced symptoms in these individuals.

By 1977, their research culminated in a groundbreaking achievement. They developed the first functional devices, envisioning a scenario where an allergen, placed upon a metal plate and connected through wires up to 10-15 meters away, could elicit the same reaction in a person holding a copper plate, as though they had come into direct contact with the allergen. A meticulous system, crafted with precision, revealed that these responses were not merely electromagnetic in nature – an understanding we now hold.

Their next innovation involved inserting a circuit element, a “band-pass” filter, between the copper terminals. This device allowed only specific frequencies to pass, like the classic equalizer of a sound system. With adjustable dials, they could fine-tune precisely which frequencies were permitted through, opening a controlled window into the frequencies at play.

At the advanced level:
Each allergen had its own setting for both frequency and amplitude—a concept we know as the Adey Window, or “biological window.” These so-called windows create biologically active effects. This applies not only to allergens but also to intercellular communication. When frequency and amplitude reach certain values, information transmission occurs. If these settings are altered within the organism—or disrupted—the transmission of information may fail.

The German researchers approached this empirically through rigorous experimentation, while W.R. Adey at UCLA in California explored it theoretically. Professor C.W. Smith from Salford University (UK), through a lifetime of dedication, compiled numerous data tables, his theoretical contributions proving invaluable to the field. By 1980, we had come to understand that this principle might indeed be the genesis of communication within living organisms. Yet, at that time, the technical capabilities required for more sophisticated devices were not available. The equipment from that era bears little resemblance to today’s highly refined, computer-controlled systems, such as the OST. Nevertheless, it was the pioneering era.

Thanks to the efforts of Adey and C.W. Smith, the entire spectrum of human biological systems has been mapped over decades.

Our specialized technical developments began in the late 1990s. By the early 2000s, our engineers had succeeded in optimizing these systems, incorporating the distinctive know-how and specialized solutions characteristic of the OST into a unified format from an electro engineer’s perspective. Our work is marked by unique solutions and further innovations, consistently prioritizing first-rate quality, precision, efficiency, and user-friendliness.

First and foremost, we must understand two fundamental concepts: the distinction between Exogenous and Endogenous signals, which forms the very foundation of this technology. Most devices—99%—operating on similar principles rely on an exogenous signal structure, while only a few can receive and reintegrate a modulated endogenous signal. The OST is one such technology.

Exogenous signals in these devices are technically generated using artificial signal generators, producing digital signals that attempt to mimic those naturally emitted by biological organisms. However, they cannot fully replicate the coherence and conformity of signals originating from living matter. Exogenous signals lack the quality of those from living systems, falling short in complexity, structure, and coherence. These devices, capable of emitting such signals, are primarily used to synchronize biological processes; in essence, they serve as “trigger signals.”

Imagine, for example, a living organism exposed to excessive mobile phone use or other environmental stressors. The water hydrogen bond structure within and between cells becomes distorted, which disrupts the biological oscillator at a cellular level. Water within cells becomes desynchronized, diminishing efficiency. In such cases, these devices may temporarily help by transmitting strong artificial signals tuned to the known frequency, like a lighthouse beacon. They realign the disrupted hydrogen structures, enabling the body’s own sophisticated signals to function once more.

These sophisticated internal signals are what we call endogenous signals. Endogenous signals are internally generated by biological systems—“Own Signals” created within living matter. This critical distinction underpins the essence of OwnSignal Technology.

OwnSignals are generated by the organism itself during its natural internal communication. These are analog signals, which is a crucial difference. Endogenous signals are self-identifying, or auto-coherent, meaning they are perfectly suited to the individual in real-time, providing coherent, self-appropriate therapeutic signals. To illustrate the difference in quality: an exogenous signal is like the light from an incandescent bulb, while an endogenous signal is akin to the precision of a high-quality laser. Just as a laser can target a precise spot on the moon, observable through a telescope, an incandescent bulb cannot achieve such accuracy.

Quantum physics suggests that the universe, including humans, is a holographic construct—a fractal, or a small part of a vast hologram. From the perspective of selectivity and coherence, as these values decline, we experience illness, and the hologram—the clarity of life’s “picture”—begins to blur. One can even observe this effect with a simple hologram. Through OST devices, the processing of endogenous signals gradually strengthens selectivity and coherence at the cellular level, clarifying the holographic picture of life within us. This process is not immediate; it requires an adaptation period before manifesting in the physical body.

Based on the principles established by Morell & Rasche, four decades of development have focused on refinement and precision. OST technology continuously evolves, incorporating numerous specialized technical solutions to serve more effectively and reach as many people as possible, enhancing the efficiency of these systems where they are deployed. Every aspect of this technology is devoted to fulfilling this mission.

Depending on our focus, it’s important to recognize that some situations are acute—like inflammation, pain, allergic reactions, or wound healing—while others are longstanding pathologies, sometimes with a genetic basis, sometimes not. Here, it is crucial to hold realistic expectations of what this system can achieve. Decades of experience suggest that, on average, positive changes occur in around 80% of cases following the use of this system. However, a realistic goal might be to improve selectivity and coherence, slowing or halting deterioration in children’s rehabilitation, improving quality of life, or making gains sustainable.

It’s helpful to frame our expectations in terms that ground us in reality, adhering to observed results and practical experience. To approach change with realistic expectations, we might focus on objectives like:

• Prevention
• Maintaining health capacities
• Halting further decline
• Ensuring biological parameters remain within physiological ranges
• Approaching homeostasis

We also know that many problems lack a tangible physical cause, though their effects manifest in the body. This is a matter of perspective, left to individual belief and understanding.  Many children have difficulty connecting with and expressing emotions, which can hinder their ability to relate to the outside world. This can create significant challenges in the parent-child relationship, as parents strive to maintain emotional intimacy and support their child’s healing and development.

It’s essential to note that practical observations like these drive our development programs. We examine ways our system, through protocols like the “FullSpectrum,” can support overcoming these challenges.

There are no side effects because the signal is auto-coherent. We harness the subject’s own signal, which makes the process softer and uniquely personalized. The therapeutic signal is crafted directly from the subject’s current, individual signals. Therefore, upon reintroducing the signal, the new recorded signal differs from the initial one, evolving dynamically over time. There is neither pain nor known side effects or contraindications.

Of course, certain basic guidelines must be observed—these are the professional minimums. Treatment is not administered to individuals who are in a disoriented state, unconscious, experiencing psychotic episodes, any sort of episodic event, have extreme hypertension, or for any reason are unfit to remain comfortably for a 30-50 minute session.

There exist supplementary devices, pure Ohmic resistance meters, and Ohmic/inductive and capacitive scanners (bioimpedance analysis), which assist in calibrating the precise phase angles—though delving too deeply into this would lead us astray. Essentially, these tools help us determine the ideal frequency range specific to the subject’s current state, enabling us to craft the most suitable program for them. Although precise, this process is time-consuming and not always practical for real-world applications.

At OST, we strive to align with the realistic demands of everyday life, keeping true to our mission of enabling as many people as possible to connect with their own signals. Thus, we operate with two distinct approaches.

The first approach is specialist-oriented, allowing us to build comprehensive treatment protocols tailored to each subject’s needs. We work with more than 500 foundational elements so called (building blocks)—frequency ranges that are scientifically established to meet rigorous standards, inspired by the pioneering research of Morell, Rasche, and Professors W.R. Adey and C.W. Smith. These protocols are:

• Reproducible
• Significant
• Consistent

Years of scientific research (of the abovementioned scientists) went into defining these building blocks, later these building blocks are arranged into protocols, then further grouped into treatments that can be run in parallel or combined as needed. These methods are effective in achieving positive changes about 80% of the time. Initially, we don’t recommend or allow users to improvise combinations without a solid background, as this might prevent the expected outcomes, even though it can’t cause harm.

Our second approach emerged over decades. While developing a separate diagnostic tool, we stumbled upon a significant discovery. When running the ‘Full Spectrum’ scanner program (ranging from 1Hz to 1MHz) on a subject, we found that it enhanced their receptivity to subsequent treatments. This approach has proven effective, even for those with extreme therapy resistance. Over time, this method has become an alternative operational modality in our protocols, equivalent to the building-block approach but requiring more repetitions.

According to our findings and feedback from for exapmle Warsaw based rehabilitation center one of the greatest challenges, is that children often struggle to connect and express their emotions outwardly, particularly toward parents or primary caregivers. This can greatly hinder emotional intimacy and secure attachment. That’s why we refined the ‘Full Spectrum’ approach to help children open up, enabling them to connect and become more receptive to all the rehabilitative support provided at the highest professional, ethical, and human standard.

This entire process is achievable solely with OST devices, with one of our key know-how elements.