Flux Health Forum

Blood Electrification

Blood electrification for red blood cell enhancement has been used successfully with skin conductive electrodes . It is often placed on inside of wrist where blood flow comes near surface. I would think ices could be used specifically for same purpose or even collaterally beneficial anywhere when blood stream is impacted .


I have given a lot of thought to developing all of these sorts of functions for ICES, including tDCS, colloidal silver, FSM, everything like that and probably more than you could guess.

But I have mostly avoided getting pulled off task by these diversions because it each a niche market that may or may not help people, and I need to keep my focus on ICES-PEMF mainly for the reduction of chronic pain, which by itself affects more people than all of:
cancer _ stroke + cardiovascular disease + diabetes (the Big 4)
The cost of chronic pain to the US economy is about the same as the total cost of the Defense Budget (~$660 Billion annually). You can read all about this and check my numbers on painmed.org.

So, while I find each and every one of these other applications interesting, I need to have the discipline to keep my focus essentially, on perfecting ICES-PEMF for the single largest medical condition afflicting humanity: chronic pain.

Of course, there are some applications where ICES-PEMF can be used directly, unmodified, such as structured water, which we have been discussing elsewhere on this forum, and which I have experimented with.

perfecting ices tech… maybe there are things i don’t understand of things left to do, but if we don’t have a complete understanding of PEMF, how can there be a definitive end to this task? wouldn’t ices tech always be a work in progress based on the evolving understanding and discovery of pemf and how the body interacts with it? are there other factors to tweak/develop other than the usual suspects: frequency, power, shape, etc?

i don’t know what i don’t know… it’s been amazing how you’ve evolved the tech to be so portable and practical in use of battery power… are there new improvements coming soon that would enhance your tech noticeably in effectiveness and practical usage/portability etc?

“Perfecting ICES tech”… is shorthand for a description of everything I am doing, which is a lot of different things that, ultimately, converge on the same desired outcome: the reduction of human suffering due to chronic pain that, at this time, has no safe and effective treatments in mainstream medicine.

Like all deeply meaningful tasks in a real and imperfect universe with all of the real human complexities, it is hard to define, and almost impossible to limit to a specific, clean finish line.

The never-revealed secret of science in medicine is this:
We really make progress when research is based on an observed treatment or cure, almost never the other way around. For example, we will learn thousands of times more about cancer after we stumble upon a cure, and we can compare the mechanisms of “cure” versus “not cure”. Go ahead, copy this and hold me to it. You will see that this is exactly how medical research works, once a cure has been found. Then thousands of people will explain how it works and how it was pretty obvious (or should have been) all along.

Most people (and most scientists unfortunately) labor under the misconception that we advance in medical science from first understanding the underlying mechanisms of a disease. But the reality is that this is not really how medical science works at all. This is just a wishful story that academia and Big Pharma tells us, so that we will keep spending tax $$$ on medical research.

But look at the reality: about 70 years ago we switched from clinically studying treatments and cures for viruses, to the “modern” approach of trying to cure viruses from the basic mechanism up, not from discovered treatment down. And what did that give us for the viral pandemic of 2020: nothing. We had no tools that were actually practical and effective beyond what we knew in 1918, more than a century earlier.

The lies about this “mechanism first” approach are pervasive: remember all the promises about targeted drug treatments and cancer cures from the human genome project. Big money… Big success with sequencing the human genome… Two decades down the road… where are all these targeted cures? Answer: nowhere.

So, I am not against basic science. I am all for it. I am a professional scientist after all. But in this universe, there are some things that advance quickly when we start from underlying principles, do a lot of math, and build on it. This includes engineered things like computers, space ships, etc.

But in this real universe, some things advance more quickly when we rely upon discovery and observation: When we systematically search and find cures and treatments FIRST, then, once found, use those to build our mechanistic understanding through experiment. This seems to be the case throughout most of biology, which includes basically all of medicine.

This is the real secret of Big Pharma drug discovery. They pretend to design compounds with specific purposes, but I know many people who work in these places. Their real drug discovery is much more like an Easter egg hunt: they try every compound on biological models (cells, mice, etc) of disease and development, look to see what happens, and hope for the best. They may only see an interesting effect in 1 out of 1000 tested samples. Most of the time the observed biological effects come as a complete surprise.

So, it is from a fundamental misunderstanding of science that people think we need to start with a molecular mechanistic understanding, then design treatments and cures. You can find a very few cases where this might be true (or might not), but it represents less than 1% of real medical advancement.

So, to answer your question: what am I doing? I am trying to solve the single largest medical problem that has ever afflicted humanity (well, probably second to infection, looking throughout all of history), by using the tools of science to make progress. Since virtually no one in academic medical research is doing their research this way, I can compete and I believe I have been doing so very effectively. My biggest hurdle: regulatory limits on what I can say about the real results I am seeing.

But I think I am making pretty good forward progress, given that it is funded by the working income of a single individual (me).


I 100 percent agree with you. I started nursing school in 1959 and continued going back to school getting my masters and eventually post masters nurse practitioner degree. I have observed that many treatments occur “accidentally “ or by chance when someone notices that something has helped and builds on it. Some Of these treatments are logical extensions of an observation.

As we are all individuals with different bodies that react differently and have different medical conditions we cannot expect a one size fits all answer. Our current mentality requires numerous studies to validate a treatment. Unfortunately those studies cost large amounts of money that most scientists do not have available.
In addition personal politics affect if the idea is accepted by the FDA or even published.

Most people have never heard of the breast sensor pad which enabled women to thoroughly examine their breasts. The FDA virtually financially ruined the inventor twice because his simple device did not fit into their paradigm or requirements. Nevertheless I know two women who had their cancer discovered after having a negative mammogram.

We have lost our inquisitiveness and desire to explore. We want everything in a neat little package and tied up with a bow. I miss helping people but I do not miss those who wanted me to have a magic pill that would heal them… and then there were those who did not want to wait and give the treatment a chance but wanted it instantly (never mind that years of physical abuse caused the problem).

So, I agree. You keep on working on the chronic pain problem and we can help by letting you know if there is anything else that improves in addition to the pain relief!

I am so glad PMF was mentioned to my daughter by her friend, a physical therapist, when she was trying to figure out how to help with my back pain and broken coccyx (tailbone). I am doing much better and so is my 80 year old husband who has had debilitating back pain since he was in his late teens. Thank you for you work in this area.


Is FSM different to ICES? I have a C5 and wondering if FSM is also worth trying but wasn’t sure are they essentially the same.

My scientific opinion: they are different in many ways. They certainly are not the same thing. They do not use electricity the same way. But at a molecular/cellular level, they may have some biophysical similarities. Our scientific knowledge is not clear enough to say one way or the other.

Does FSM work?: My opinion is that I do not really know. Many people tell me that FSM helps them, many tell me that they think it does not really work. Many clinicians use it and claim that it is very effective, some tell me they have gone away from it because it was not consistently helping their patients. I have no direct personal experience with it, so I don’t have any strong opinions about it. I wish I could tell you more.