@Natalia, Regarding the discussion of the federally-regulated word “safe”, @TajD is correct.
Here is the problem:
Quite reasonably, everyone wants to know if a device, drug, or treatment is safe and effective, and if it will specifically cure, treat, diagnose, or prevent an injury or disease. We are all human, and this is what we need to know.
Scumbag charlatans and low-integrity marketers in all areas of health and medicine throughout time have abused these words to defraud the injured, sick, and dying, selling them false hope using these trigger words.
To protect the public from this, many governments have formed administrative agencies imbued with the power to strictly control the use of any or these words when they relate to any form of sale or marketing of anything related to health or medicine.
This is basically a good thing, but the unintended consequence is that it shuts down the few honest voices out there that are trying to get their message through to the greater public.
Most governments, particularly the United States, have decided that the harm to the public by suppressing the very few honest voices in the health and medical space is far preferable to allowing every blank surface in every public space to be filled with false medical claims by the countless fraudulent voices seeking to profit from false hope.
So, any time a person very reasonably wants to know how PEMF relates to any of those federally regulated words, the answer is always the same: we can’t talk about it.
The best way to formulate this type of question is exactly as @TajD suggests:
for example: “Bob, have you ever seen any data or clinical reports to suggest that any form of PEMF causes cancer, makes cancer worse, or in any way promotes tumor formation, neoplasms, metastases, etc.?”
Then I can honestly reply: “No”
I will then go further to say “Not only have I never heard such a report nor seen any data suggesting that PEMF would cause, accelerate, or exacerbate any form of cancer, I have seen data suggesting the opposite, with effects that some times did not reach statistical significance, but suggested nonetheless that PEMF may have a slight but not statistically significant effect of reducing tumorogenesis et al.”
Then, I would go on to give the following scientific opinion: “Further, if anyone, anywhere, were able to demonstrate that any form of PEMF did in fact cause cancer, and if their report had a reasonable level of scientific credibility, then I am certain that federal agencies would sharply snap down on the entire PEMF market. There is no strong lobby in favor of PEMF, so the government could act swiftly and decisively to put a stop to PEMF sales. In addition, you would quickly see thousands of academic scientific papers studying the cancer-causing effects, looking at every aspect of dose, duration, etc. Academics are desperate to find anything that has a repeatable effect on cancer, which would easily get NIH funding.”
I would then conclude by stating: “Because we have never seen anything like this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that there is no reliable evidence, anywhere in the scientific or clinical literature, that PEMF causes or exacerbates cancer.”