Who are the major companies or promoters behind med bed products and have they faced legal action?
Executive summary
Major promoters selling so‑called “med bed” products include Tesla BioHealing (not affiliated with Elon Musk’s Tesla) and Swiss firm 90.10; both have been reported selling devices or “canisters” that claim life‑force or quantum energy benefits and have drawn regulatory scrutiny, including an FDA warning letter to Tesla BioHealing in August 2023 [1] [2] [3]. Investigations and news outlets characterize these offerings as pseudoscientific, note companies’ small‑print disclaimers that products are not intended to diagnose or treat disease, and document purchases, motel‑style “medbed centers,” and online recruitment tied to the movement [4] [5] [1].
1. Who’s selling med‑beds and related products — a short roster
Reporting repeatedly names Tesla BioHealing (a firm that bought motels and set up “medbed centers” with canisters under beds) and 90.10, a Swiss company selling conversion devices for ordinary beds; other small operators market nightly “highly‑energized” rooms, rental stays, or canisters branded as emitting “biophotons” or “life‑force energy” [1] [2] [5] [4]. News and analysis also identify a wider cottage industry of small firms and social‑media promoters selling cards, memberships and access rather than proven medical devices [1] [5].
2. What the companies actually offer — claims versus disclaimers
Companies’ public materials and promotional sites mix dramatic clinical‑style claims (healing, regeneration, “reprogramming DNA,” infinite energy) with legal fine‑print saying the device is a “meditation bed” or “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease,” a pattern highlighted in investigative reporting [5] [4]. Journalists found motel rooms fitted with sealed canisters under ordinary beds and marketing that leans on New‑Age language — “frequencies,” “biophotons,” “quantum” — rather than peer‑reviewed science [4] [5].
3. Regulatory pushback and documented legal action
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter to Tesla BioHealing in August 2023, finding the company had not registered/listed devices and lacked required 510(k) premarket authorization for products marketed as medical devices [3]. Fortune and local outlets reported the FDA had asked Tesla BioHealing for responses about asserted medical benefits and that the agency could pursue fines or product removal depending on the company’s reply [2] [6]. Broadly, multiple outlets note that the FDA has issued warnings to companies making unsubstantiated health claims around “med bed” devices [7] [8].
4. Investigations, reporting and the skeptical consensus
Major news organizations (BBC, New York Times, Fortune, CBS, others) present med‑bed products as unproven and document that the phenomenon spreads via Telegram, TikTok and Facebook communities blending conspiracy narratives with New‑Age terminology; reporters who bought or inspected offerings often describe no measurable effect beyond placebo and emphasize the disconnect between extraordinary claims and scant evidence [5] [4] [1] [2]. McGill’s Office for Science and Society explicitly calls the med‑bed narrative fictitious and identifies community promoters and social media figures amplifying the claims [9].
5. Consumer harm, exploitation and the political overlay
Journalists report direct consumer expenditures — nightly stays (e.g., $300 per night cited for one Tesla‑run room) and sales of “redemption cards” or memberships — and warn that promotion of miracle cures can delay evidence‑based treatment and exploit vulnerable patients [2] [1] [10]. The movement has also intersected with political conspiracy ecosystems: fabricated videos and false promotional clips tied to public figures amplified belief in imminent rollouts, prompting corrections and concern about misinformation [5] [11] [10].
6. What’s missing from current reporting and how to read the evidence
Available sources document companies, promotional practices, regulatory warnings and skeptical expert commentary, but they do not present validated clinical trials or independent laboratory evidence that any commercial “med‑bed” device performs the headline cures claimed; in short, independent efficacy data are not found in current reporting [5] [4] [9]. Where enforcement is documented, it’s primarily FDA warning letters and questions about registration/510(k) compliance rather than criminal verdicts or wide civil‑judgment rollups in the sources provided [3] [2].
7. Takeaway for consumers and journalists
The pattern across reporting is consistent: small companies market med‑bed products using sensational language and customer testimonies; regulators have flagged noncompliance and unsubstantiated claims (notably the FDA letter to Tesla BioHealing); and investigative outlets and scientists classify the core “med‑bed” claims as pseudoscience. Readers should treat vendor claims skeptically, verify device clearance/approval with regulators, and recognize that current reporting finds promotion and sales but not peer‑reviewed proof of the miraculous effects advertised [3] [4] [1].