Hi Dr. @Bob,
i came across this article and have also heard reference to bioresonance being used to help diagnose ailments/health issues.
here’s the article:
http://waverlywellness.co.uk/future-diagnosticism/
do you know if bioresonance the same thing as PEMF? if so, is it a big jump to use your tech for diagnostics as the article suggests?
I have very unpopular opinions on this topic, so be aware of that. If you really “want” to believe in this technology, it is probably best for you to stop reading here: .
Let’s start with some background: people bring up “bioresonance” every few years. It is usually packaged somewhat differently to make it look and feel fresh, but it is generally the same thing, year after year.
Several years ago I was asked by an alternative electro-magnetic marketing company in China to look into the technical details of the bioresonance device company they were going to purchase (one from Eastern Europe). I did a lot of technical digging and took some direct measurements. This company wanted to enter the (then) lucrative bioresonance market in China, which already had a well-established (and premium-priced) product in the Chinese market.
First conclusion: PEMF is very many different things (more diverse than the word “chemical”, so, I suppose at some level all chemicals are alike, but some are helpful and some are harmful and some are benign). That being said, bioresonance is not really PEMF by even my broadest definition, but then again, there is no formal definition for which part of the electro-magnetic spectrum is and is not PEMF. But also, bioresonance is not well-defined. So, it is hard to say what it is, and what it is not. Is “noise” the same as music? You could argue this for a lifetime and never get closer to the truth.
Bioresonance, my findings:
Based on my direct and detailed research, I concluded that all of the claims made by this company, and the device itself, were entirely fraudulent. The technology I was studying in detail was just generating plasma-arc EMI, basically the same electro-magnetic noise you can get by standing next to old industrial motors or poorly-maintained power substations. Their “scan” ended up being simple galvanic response (skin resistance).
The claims for the use of this technology were clearly fraudulent. I actually carried out a sting operation at a scientific meeting. I got a scan in a bioresonance vendor booth. It was extremely detailed, about 6 pages long with very attractive graphics. I then went elsewhere, but waited until the booth was switched to a new person to run the scans. I went for another free scan (about 40 minutes after the first). The results were entirely different.
To make sure they could not generate the same random information from my name, I registered the first time as “Bob”, and the second time as “Rob”.
Just as the results from my second scan came out, and I had a chance to review them, the first guy who scanned me saw me at the booth and ran over. He busted me for running side-by-side tests, and immediately began to justify the totally incompatible results as “normal human dynamic variation…”
I pointed out that if a person’s entire scan changed every few minutes, then how could they possibly use this system for clinical diagnostic purposes. He mumbled something about the results remaining consistent on the “quantum plane”, slapped his device into a hard case, and closed the booth as I sat there (during their peak sales time).
Earlier, a colleague of mine had posed as a clinician who wanted to use the device in their practice. The bioresonance marketer told them how the device could be programmed to make diagnoses based on what the clinic specialized in, and then to suggest products based on what the clinic offered in its product line. Then the bioresonance marketer went on to say how much their device had driven up sales for several large clinics by pushing their main product lines…
Anyway, you can probably see where this is going, and it just makes me angry again to recall the details. The story is much longer than this, but either you get my point by now, or you do not. More details and facts will not move the needle.
In summary, my opinion is that bioresonance is not the same as PEMF, it is fraught with fraudulent marketing claims, it may have some detectable biological benefit, but that is not well established, and it probably has no diagnostic value except as a marketing tool.
I wrote all of this up in a technical report to my colleagues in China, but they had $$ signs in their eyes. They bought the bioresonance company against my advice…
Shortly thereafter, the Chinese government clamped down on this sector of their alternative market in response to widespread reports from Chinese consumers of fraud. Everyone involved lost a lot of money and credibility. The people I was working with lost their jobs.
But keep in mind, I could be wrong about this technology.
Tagging onto this question. Someone I know whose daughter has RSD/CRPS is looking into alternative treatments and someone mentioned a device called InterX to her.
This sounds like it must be something similar to PEMF, but I don’t know enough to “translate” it. Have you ever heard of this device?
Thank you @Bob!
My scientific opinions (of course, I could always be wrong…)
InterX is just an electrical stimulator, like a TENS unit.
It is not at all like PEMF.
They talk a lot about how the stimulation goes to “low impedance sites on the skin…” but this is just the way all electrical stimulators work, nothing special here.
It is FDA Cleared because all simple electronic stimulators are easily cleared because it is a very old technology. This is why essentially identical stuff is for sale online for about $45 USD.
With those big shiny chrome-plated ball electrodes it should look 19th century, because it is.
PEMF, if properly defined, will be about 1000 to 10,000 times more efficient at inducing electrical currents in tissues beneath the skin.
I disagree with their assertion that this technology does not just block pain.
It is my opinion that this and all similar TENS-like devices mostly block pain.
Most (I think maybe all) PEMF experts agree with me on this point.
They may also have very inefficient beneficial effects, but I think that far less than 1% of the stimulus energy is effective for producing any long-term tissue effects.
There is no scientific evidence that any special protocols have any special biological effects. Broadly speaking, it either works, or it does not, and generally with mixed and only short-term results.
Devices of this kind, no matter how shiny, should not cost the consumer more than about $60.
My 2 cents. Keep in mind, I could always be wrong.
You’re so quick! Thank you -
In the video, she specifies it’s “not TENS”, but I never know what to make of their claims, so I appreciate that you took a peek.
I collected some of your suggestions re CRPS/RSD and use of ICES as my preferred suggestion, in combination with mirror therapy.
Thanks again - as always! 
I am happy to help. I took a pretty good look at it and it is basically tens. Tens uses different electrodes (usually adhesive pads) whereas this one uses the much older metal ball electrodes.
A lot of companies work very hard to differentiate themselves from old technologies. But to get their coveted FDA Clearance, they must state clearly to the FDA that they are “substantially equivalent to [some old technology on the market before 1976]”
Absolutely every one I have ever checked pulls this kind of scam.
One example, I was checking on a very popular bioresonance/quantum energy system that makes a lot of claims, and right at the top they say “FDA CLEARED!”
Then they talk about how it is new and different and all sciency…
So, I had a detailed talk with one of their engineers. He eventually told me that their only clearance from the FDA was as a skin galvanometer. These were invented in 1820, based on the first work with galvanometry in 1791. This is very old stuff.
Basically, all this “New FDA Cleared!” device could do was measure skin resistance: across the palm and between individual finger pads.
It was FDA Cleared only because it was so very old that it had been grandfathered in. Not a single one of its new, sciency claims was FDA cleared… not one. It had been registered as “substantially equivalent” to a device that is now more than 200 years old.
But as a general rule, when they build this kind of technology, Step #1 is to prove to the FDA that it is absolutely nothing new, just the same old junk in a new plastic case.
But once they get FDA Clearance, the work shifts from the engineers to the marketers, and their main job is to prove to the gullible consumer that their shiny new device is absolutely not the same as anything else on the market, now or ever.
I have worked with so many device companies, I can say with pretty high confidence, they are all this way: alternative and mainstream. Its really sad.
So, I am pretty sure this is just a TENS device, and their claims to the contrary are fraudulent and contrary to US Federal law… but they’ll get away with it if they are careful. You can estimate how successful they are by determining the price they can get away with by selling this tired old stuff as “new”.
Sorry to have to tell you there is no tooth fairy…
LOL! I know there is no tooth fairy – that’s why I ask for your opinion. Honest, knowledgeable, and direct always works for me. 
Well, the tooth fairy comment was mostly for the other readers… I actually get a lot of questions about devices like this, almost every day. Unfortunately I can not say with any honesty what many people would really like to hear. In this general field, it takes both honest opinions and an honest willingness to listen, so thanks.
Hi guys, has anybody heard about HUGO PEMF? Any personal or professional experience with the device?
I think Hugo is the brand that Tony Robbins was raving about in a recent book. I know it’s sold on Dr. Pawluck’s website. It’s a very high energy/intensity unit (based on manufacturer claims, that is). I think they’re shooting for that same segment of the market as the pulse center products but at a somewhat lower price point. Their top-of-the-line model uses a spark gap technology, which I understand to be a very old and outdated technology. The product comparison sheet on Dr. P’s website indicates that the “waveform” used in this product is something called a nano second pulse.
@Bob, I’ve been wanting to get your thoughts generally on the designation of the “waveform” in certain devices as “impulse” without an actual description of the shape of the wave and specifically what to make of this nanosecond pulse. Pulse center similarly describes their products as generating an impulse or pulse and will not disclose the shape of the waveform. Perhaps these products don’t actually have a waveform with a shape, which makes me wonder what research supports their efficacy.
Yes, that is correct. They don’t actually have a tuned waveform. It is more like a hammer blow than a tuned instrument. They do their best to disguise this crude pulse with terms such as “impulse” or “ringer” (such as striking a bell with a hammer).
Don’t be confused by their marketing pseudo-science babble; this is not resonating with anything biological, or anything like that. It is just a voltage breakdown across an air gap, no more complex or mystical than a spark plug.
And don’t get me wrong: even crude PEMF seems to have some biological benefit. But this type of technology is so old it is not even patentable (which is one reason they use it), and it generates huge amounts of very high frequency EMI noise, and the very crude waveform can not even be defined, because it is highly variable and is sensitive to things such as the humidity in the air, which greatly influences the dielectric breakdown at the air gap and changes the shape, duration, and peak of the crude pulse.
But it probably has noticeable biological effects.
I have to be honest guys- the intelligence level of your comments here is beyond my pay band :). I am buying a HOCATT ozone sauna and there is an option to buy it with HUGO built in the sauna (which doubles up the price of the sauna). I was trying to work out whether HUGO is worth the extra money.
Could you please kindly advise what the safest and the most effective PEMF device on the market is as I can clearly see that your expertise in this field well exceeds mine
This is a really good question (safety), which is why people ask me about this literally every day. Here is a link to the last time someone asked me that question, earlier this morning:
The basic problem is that the question of safety is unanswerable for a number of reasons. If I say anything is “safe”, then I have just violated federal law. That’s a regulated word.
I could write a few more pages about this “safety” problem (and I usually do 
), but let’s just assume you will search that reply up on this forum, sit back and enjoy my rant, then come back here for the rest of my answer…
… OK, then let me tell you a few important relevant things I think you need to know.
The main one is that every thing is safe… until its not, then we all wonder how we could have been so stupid and not seen that it was dangerous.
So… long story short, a few years ago I was offered a lucrative deal if I would build PEMF into HBOT systems for a company. But I declined the offer.
This is because I believe it is inherently unsafe. This is because the way to start a violent and tragic fire is to add oxygen, a fuel source, and a source of ignition into a confined area. HBOT involves oxygen at pressures higher than atmospheric, and ozone is usually made by corona discharge on enriched oxygen from an oxygen concentrator. Thus, both HBOT and an ozone sauna each combine enriched oxygen atmosphere, plus a fuel source (any type of cloth, anything at all organic), and a source of ignition, especially a spark-gap based PEMF system, but also any type of PEMF where there could be a short circuit in the coils, for example. To make matters (much) worse, they each do so in a confined space.
This gives you oxygen + fuel + spark
That’s a no-no
It is inherently unsafe, no matter what nonsense a marketer is willing to tell you to part you from your money. If they disagree, get their professional credentials. Mine are:
Scientist
Engineer
Fire Chief (Retired, I was chief of New Hope FD, near Durham NC from 2006-2009)
If they have more knowledge and experience than I do, then go ahead and do what you think is best.
Thank you for your detailed answer. I decided not to go ahead with hugo as apart from the adventurous potential for explosion in the presence of O2/O3, I didn’t like the key words in the previous comments such us old technology, unknown wave shape etc. This leads me to the question - what PEMF device should I buy? Could you please kindly recommend one (without an ozone sauna of course) as I would struggle to separate marketing nonsense presented by companies’ reps from genuine scientific backup?
OK I can probably help you with that. What is your main application or intended use for PEMF?
Keep in mind, I own Micro-Pulse and the ICES-PEMF technology built upon the NASA-PEMF/TVEMF development from 1996 - 1998, so I would be expected to have both a commercial and intellectual bias in my opinions. But I try to keep bias to a minimum, though I am only human.
haha i appreciate your intellectual rants… it’s such a benefit to us all that you’re a professor too! altho, you’re probably not used to talking down to our level of technical understanding as a professor… 
thanks for the continued education AND tech
I only found out about PEMF very recently when an ozone sauna rep tried to upsell hugo with it :). As an integrative medicine clinic we are looking for “outside the box” solutions for chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and other debilitation conditions failed by conventional medicine. Ideally those solutions should address the issue on cellular/ mitochondrial level. My number one priority is not to harm. My second priority is to achieve the best possible results without loosing my license to practice, so the device should be registered and approved for human use.
Then you probably want to look for a larger, clinical-sized model. I don’t develop or offer PEMF systems like that for several reasons, but generally they are called (incorrectly) “whole body” PEMF systems.
To start looking for one that is approved for human use, and the other things you want, you should peruse the Dr. Pawluk website (drpawluk.com). The site would be a good place to start, but honestly, it is nearly impossible to get solid, truthful information for the kind of PEMF system you want. PEMF marketers will tell you anything they think you want to hear, but the truth is that most modern, commercial PEMF systems have biological benefits. The scientific truth is that we really do not know why they work, but you can hear anything you want to hear.
I think the best thing to do is to talk to colleagues to see what they use, and how it integrates into their clinic. But other than that, most of these larger “whole body” systems are more or less functionally equivalent. About four or 5 of the most common ones are actually identically the same, just differently labeled and manufactured by the same factory in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe.
You might want to start with an affordable one from Pawluk. You can spend anywhere from $5k to $50K, but the more expensive ones are mostly just over-powered and over-marketed. But with any of them you are likely to see the clinical benefits of PEMF, and you can start your PEMF journey from there as you learn how to employ the technology. You will develop a good feel for the type of system that works best for you.
My technical opinion, and brazenly plugging my own technology, I think the best results from the use of PEMF are when you use occasional high-powered clinical PEMF supplemented with daily, personal, wearable PEMF (the technology I have developed and offer) which is much lower power but sustains the effect and is applied focally to problem spots. This seems to work extremely well for chronic pain and injuries, especially among the elderly.
Thank you for your time answering the question.
I was born and brought up in Russia - I wouldn’t touch any technology produced in post-soviet Eastern Europe with a barge pole :).
The problem with asking other medics to share their experience with their devices is a consumer bias. Once they invested a large sum in their device, it will be very difficult for them to admit their disappointment as it would be unethical for them to continue offering the treatment.
I am interested in a professional German bio resonance- type device, which seems to be endorsed by many German doctors and supported by some kind of research (though far from systematic reviews or RCTs:)). I met them on an integrative medicine conference last year. Do you offer private consultancy to look at their technology?
Yes, unfortunately that bias is there, and is difficult to correct for. One strategy is to talk to colleagues who have tried several different systems in their clinic. But that strategy also has its deficiencies.
In reality, when you cut through all the pseudoscience and fraud and bias, all that matters is: does the PEMF system in question actually work? That is a clinical question, and I am not a clinician. No matter how much you pay for me to consult, I can’t really answer that question.
Another option you could try would be to select several systems that have a good trial period and return policy. But the key is that you need to try several, not just one. You need to compare them by measuring clinical outcomes. You need to be aggressive and do this comparison within the return period. Then you could determine for yourself which PEMF system would work best for you in your specific clinical practice.