Flux Health Forum

Cancer study mentioning frequency and intensity

Cancer
#1

Hello,

Was wondering if its possible to use one of the presets on the M1 model to closely match the frequency and intensity settings mentioned in this study on breast cancer cells ?

"Methods
MCF7 breast cancer cells and their normal counterparts, MCF10 cells, were exposed to PEMFs and cytotoxic indices measured in order to design PEMF paradigms that best kill breast cancer cells. The PEMF parameters tested were: 1) frequencies ranging from 20 to 50 Hz; 2) intensities ranging from 2 mT to 5 mT and; 3) exposure durations ranging from 30 to 90 minutes per day for up to three days to determine the optimum parameters for selective cancer cell killing.

Results
We observed a discrete window of vulnerability of MCF7 cells to PEMFs of 20 Hz frequency, 3 mT magnitude and exposure duration of 60 minutes per day. The cell damage accrued in response to PEMFs increased with time and gained significance after three days of consecutive daily exposure. By contrast, the PEMFs parameters determined to be most cytotoxic to breast cancer MCF-7 cells were not damaging to normal MCF-10 cells."

#2

Pulling in @Bob who can chime in

#3

Yes: model B5

Caveat: everything I have ever written about “frequency” and “Gauss” [= peak intensity] and pulse waveform shape.

#4

@Jacob_Abrams

I think what Bob means is that no, you can’t match what they were doing in the referenced study with the M1, but you could with a B5.

#5

well, to be absolutely precise, none of our devices will match the device in question if you are trying to match all of the biophysically important parameters such as waveform shape, which by far is the most important thing to get right, and the device they used in the study IMO does not generate the most biologically effective waveform. If you want an exact match, you need to buy the same system used in the study.**

As far as matching peak Gauss and “frequency”, well, yes, the B5 can match those much less important PEMF parameters pretty closely, but less so for the other ICES-PEMF products.

** Bob’s marketing strategy: I am not trying to sell anything. If something else works better for you then by all means buy it.

#6

How would this not be considered the most biologically effective waveform if it resulted in the destruction of the cancer cells? If thats considered the most important aspect of PEMF, how much more biologically effective could it get? A greater cytotoxicity effect against the cancer? Or result in possibly enhancing the growth of the cancer cells? Isn’t that a realistic risk with PEMF, that certain settings or waveforms could potentially enhance the growth of both healthy and unhealthy cells?

#7

Think of it this way: just because you can use brute force to make something work, does not mean that it is “optimal”, “the best”, “the most effective”, or anything like that. It simply means that, if you try hard enough, you might be able to get it to work too.

Examples:
You can use a screw driver as a hammer. Try strenuously enough and you can get it to work.

You can build a bicycle or a car with square wheels. If you can generate enough horsepower and if you can stand the violent vibrations, square wheels will work. Verify for yourself on google, it is hilarious:

But if you ask me if any of the technologies that I develop can be made to exactly replicate a car or bicycle with square tires, well, er, no.

Just because something is published in the medical literature, that does not mean that it is optimal or efficient or safe or the best in any way. And even worse, about 90% of the peer-reviewed medical literature now is of highly questionable replicability:

https://www.amazon.com/Rigor-Mortis-Science-Worthless-Billions-ebook/dp/B01K3WN72C/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37T6534DF0N7Y&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xFJHSRnTbPXiSqN70r8VYYw8B3yZbLy0z-kGnFePxuAnIyUCQhp001OednsVNl4A61_SL4CRH4aZcRBcU-WdChX3dAYk9oNL0L8COiF0cT8faOlZ-hyQPL0etSz80uIlXJYMiaa7PNBvwdqi2XAZ764LC160f8rKgMEeK36CFR1szqtSoo3SsLOol6ligzBMq4XNTs0Wdp4QPa11auBuKJyvscAuGJNfjkzNqsFjIvI.3rg7_tTlBTGd8hajfdSS_SG_zoO8GuRijEAEc53D_es&dib_tag=se&keywords=rigor+mortis+book&qid=1720294126&sprefix=rigor+mortis+book%2Caps%2C102&sr=8-1

Even if a peer-reviewed medical research paper says that something works, there is a very good chance that it does not. To understand this complex and nuanced topic regarding the trustworthiness of the medical literature, a good starting point is to read the book above, and double check references for yourself, especially statements from non-academic sources about the fact that they cannot replicate and cannot trust the medical literature.

This is why we have heard about “very promising” cures for cancer, every year (and almost every week!) that I have been an adult (more than four decades). But where are these miracle cures now? No one ever seems to be able to replicate them.

2 Likes