Comparative
Comparative Test
During the summer of 2023, we contacted the main vendors of NLS equipment on the market. We then compiled the data in a comparative table with the eyes of a demanding professional on the following elements:
- Equipment quality and calibration
- Vendor responsibility and compliance with legislation (very important in the event of a problem or inspection by the authorities)
- The software’s key points
- Training, which we believe is the most important element of your investment
- The price
- An evaluation and our comments based on our experience and feedback from our colleagues in the field.
Our recommendations to help you make the right choice:
Ask specific questions about the offers, the equipment and the training… and demand written answers. A serious professional will have no problem giving you precise answers!
Refuse vague, oral answers (an oral answer is not a commitment) or those who force you to go through a sales person whose role is to drown you in a flood of fine words: words fly away and the written word stays… this is important for an investment of 15 to 30,000 euros!
VERY IMPORTANT:
Insist on an invoice on which all the elements of the offer are precisely described (this is binding proof in the event of a dispute).
If you notice any errors, please send us requests for corrections with proof (documentation, videos or photos).
History
A brief history of the NLS brands
The NLS system was developed in Russia by Professor Nesterov as part of a programme to monitor astronauts during their long stays in space. The aim was to be able to monitor the body’s physiological parameters and, if necessary, make corrections by sending frequencies. The whole system had to take up very little space and consume very little energy.
Colossal resources were committed by the Russian authorities, who wanted to set records against the Americans. Physicists, biologists, doctors and electronic engineers worked together to develop the NLS system.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, many researchers lost their jobs. Some of them joined forces with Professor Nesterov at the IPP to create the METATRON NLS, the ‘father’ of all NLS devices.
In 2003, differences within the IPP team led to a split and the appearance of the first ‘Russian child’, version 11 of the Metatron, marketed under 2 names: INTROSPECT 11 and PHYSIOSPECT 11.
The years 2005-2008
PHYSIOSPECT 11 was marketed in France under the name PHYSIOSCAN by Physioquanta of Montpellier.
INTROSPECT 11 was marketed by a now-defunct Belgian company and a Swiss health practitioner: Loic Lechevalier.
They were the first to introduce Russian-made NLS devices to French-speaking markets.
The years 2008-2015
Mr Lechevalier stopped distributing INTROSPECT due to the impossibility of developing the French translation of the software. He then worked with the Russian manufacturer to develop the BIOSPECT brand, based successively on versions 11, 21 and 25 of the NLS system. It was then marketed by the Geneva-based company SantéVie.
Around 2013, Physioquanta ended its relationship with the original Russian manufacturer and had its PHYSIOSCANs manufactured by a French electronics company based in Corrèze, using NLS V13 software. The current version of PHYSIOSCAN is a development of version 13 and does not have the 3D architecture of the image system or the 3D volumetric scanner.
The years 2015-2020
Chinese copies of the NLS system appeared, as well as various manufacturers and brands based on copies of the NLS 21 and then 25 systems.
The Aumscan: NLS 25 – self-made in Belgium
The Organotest: NLS 25 – self-made in China
The Quantascan: NLS 25 – German manufacture
Chinese copies available on the net.
What are the differences between the different brands?
All the brands of equipment developed based on the NLS 25 have the same software, the same functions and the same database. It is therefore extremely difficult to see the differences in the software, except in the French translations.
See our article on medical device legislation (link)
In terms of results during a session (compared with Métatron v25):
The Chinese copies are extremely disappointing.
Russian-made devices give identical results
European-made devices give good results, although there are sometimes notable differences.
Physioscan is based on the NLS 13 and does not have the 3D architecture of the image system or the 3D volumetric scanner.
Physioquanta has, however, developed specific functionalities.
