I must also mention that The Grandmother (SCENAR-035) actually was quite sneaky, having other children outside of the main family. They were raised by others, under different family names, but most of them tried to prove and maintain their bloodlines to the noble SCENAR family. I am talking about Prologue, ENART (both are introduced by INVET), AcuScen (designed and manufactured by Coloyaro in Russia and Acuvision in the UK), Fenzian (designed by Dr. James Colhurst in the UK), and even the ‘black sheep’ DENAS (did I forget anyone?).
Unfortunately, I do not have personal experience in working with all of these devices, only with some of them. Therefore, my review is going to be ‘incomplete by default’. However, I still want to share with you what I do know, while apologizing, in advance, for the informational gaps, as well as for being somewhat subjective.
To the best of my knowledge, the Prologue device (can be viewed at www.invet.net) was conceived quite a few years ago, and incorporated the ideas of the SCENAR legend Dr. Yuri Gorfinkel, whose life and work represents the quintessence of SCENAR therapy. Dr. Yuri has been working on this device together with a group of engineers outside of OKB Ritm (even though he was always considered a part of the Ritm team), and I don’t know how far this work has progressed by the time of his early leaving. Prologue appears to be a SCENAR-type device, quite efficient and reliable, but a bit ‘rough’ on the body (just look at the shape of it! J). According to those working with the machine, Prologue is excellent for treatment of musculo- skeletal disorders.
I did not have a chance to work with new ENART devices and cannot give you any opinions on them. They must be VERY good though, because INVET states the follows on the website: ‘As we refine and develop ENART technology, new developments will no doubt eclipse the Scenar device, and it will slowly become history, superseded by Enart devices’. This statement reminds me the old Russian fable about a very small dog, the Chihuahua type, who was barking at the elephant trying to prove to the other dogs its own bravery and value. The statement sounds especially intriguing considering that the INVET site does not present anything new conceptually or technologically, it just paraphrases the SCENAR literature.
I also cannot give you any opinion on the Fenzian device, as I’ve never even seen one. Dr. James Colhurst, who was the pioneer of bringing SCENAR to the UK back in 1998, developed it after being inspired by the excellent results he was getting in his primarily homeopathic practice with the SCENAR. Supposedly, it is also a SCENAR-type device, however Dr. James denies that it is in fact a SCENAR.
What I can give you, is a very well informed opinion on is the Acuscen. This device has been my favorite for the last 3 years. It is a SCENAR-type device with the signal shape very close to a classical SCENAR. Acuscen is almost indistinguishable from The Mother’s family of devices with regards to its clinical applications and effects in acute and chronic conditions. In a nutshell, it is the 97.4 without its weaknesses (poor design, very poor manufacturing culture, analog technology, dark screen etc.). It is digital, elegant, ergonomic, very well made - and with all that priced similarly to 97.4, or even cheaper. It also has a great semi-professional version, which we recommend for home use to non-professionals. Many of our clients end up buying one. Acuscen, in my opinion, belongs in the 'best buy' category; quality versus price. It is a well designed, comfortable, efficient, and reliable Buick Century (if you haven't guessed yet, that is my car).
Alexander Karasev thinks that there is nothing new in Acuscen, and ‘what’s the use of the new if it gives you nothing new (A.K.)’. I can only partially agree with that. It all depends on what you identify as ‘new’. For Alexander, apparently, it is the device concept, functions, electronics. From that point, there is indeed nothing new in Acuscen. It is virtually identical to the 97.4 in functioning. What is new are the little things, like the ergonomic plastic case (the same as the 735 uses), two electrodes (90 degrees to each other) instead of one, slightly curved shape of one of the electrodes to work on the curves of the body, back-lit screen, AA batteries with standard terminals (rechargeable batteries allowed), IR that stays on the screen until the next reading is taken, ability to pre-program up to 5 of your favorite settings etc. What is new is that it is designed with the practitioner in mind, and for me this is New.
I cannot resist from telling you a little secret about the birth of the Acuscen. This device was not a child of love, but rather, a result of extreme frustration. The Acuscen’s designer, Dr. Romen Avakyan (an electronic engineer by the grace of God, the inventor of the passive radar and the designer of many energy medicine devices, including Acuvision - the unique device for acupuncture points visualization), together with his partners some time ago was helping OKB Ritm in developing the UK market. 20-25% of the 97.4 devices sent to the UK were coming back as faulty. Tired of listening to the endless complains on poor manufacturing and design of such expensive devices, and feeling ashamed for so badly represented Russian electronics, Dr. Romen ended up building the Acuscen. You just never know what engines push the progress…
Let’s now talk about the SCENAR ‘wannabes’ - the devices that would like to be considered SCENARs, but do not have enough SCENAR qualities in spite of their claims. The leader in this group is, undoubtedly, the ‘sadly famous’ DENAS. All SCENAR engineers agree that DENAS devices do not produce the classical SCENAR signal and, therefore, the clinical effects of two devices should differ substantially, which they do. Relatively effective for immediate pain relief, DENAS does not seem to be capable of resolving chronic issues.
That’s what Alexander Karasev says about the DENAS creation. ‘The device, or rather documentation, stolen by Vernik (Paytigorsk), that later on was used for DENAS, was not complete. It lacked characteristics for tuning the device. Without these details it was impossible to produce the device. They had to spy on the lacking information and gather it piece by piece for about 12 years. Only then they could make SCENAR-032A, a device with rather poor properties due to inaccurate tuning. When they remade it into DENAS, the device lost all its therapeutic propertiess.’
All the above does not mean that DENAS does not have a place in the market. However, it should not be the same place as that of the SCENAR. Unfortunately, the DENAS creators think differently, openly claiming that their device is the improved SCENAR and, therefore, can easily ‘adopt’ the entire impressive informational and clinical SCENAR database. Being so well equipped, DENAS now turns around and launches a well structured marketing campaign painfully resembling MLM. Now you can see DENAS everywhere, even on e-bay, modestly priced and good looking. An uninformed consumer thinks that he is getting a really good deal. After he does not get the results as advertised, his disappointment and complaints will be addressed towards the SCENAR technology in general. That’s the main concern of the SCENAR community with regards to DENAS.
Lately, we are observing another phenomenon in our chaotic and dynamic SCENAR world - obvious SCENAR-type devices that do not want to have anything to do with the SCENAR. I am talking about the latest news - InterX 5000. The device was born and raised, apparently, by the same group in the States that had previously manufactured and distributed Neuroscenar 97.4 under Ritm’s license (they operate under a different name now). Shortly after the group lost their license, they, surprisingly fast, came up with the InterX 5000, which, also surprisingly, functionally almost mirrors the 97.4+. It has a different look though and the word ‘SCENAR’ is not even mentioned in the InterX information. What an intriguing chain of events.
I will leave it up to you to guess what the reality of the situation is and why it is so. But I would like to suggest, if I may, to respect the approach taken by the InterX 5000 creators and treat the new device completely apart from the SCENAR family. As far as I am concerned, InterX 5000 is not a SCENAR, just like DENAS is not.
I’d like to conclude ‘The SCENAR fair’ quoting Alexander Karasev again (after all, he is the SCENAR inventor and the one who still carries it forward). ‘Many people think they can make SCENARs themselves, maybe even better than me, and I do not see any need to make them change their mind. They are just not aware that all they are doing is only re-inventing a wheel, which has been invented a long ago.’