The man whom introduced me to PEMF has successfully healed Cellulitis many times— using Pulse Centers high power, however. He combines with Colloidal Platinum and does 90 min sessions 2-3x’s/week.
This has been a very effective treatment for me as well. Treated a Morton’s neuroma nerve bundle on the bottom of my foot after trying everything for 9 months, including my C-4 with shockwave therapy, etc. It was resolved with this protocol in 3 treatments which I understand to be quite the miracle.
I’ve been fortunate to get a good handle on any cellulitis risk… bleach bath alone is a quick/cheap and effective/simple solution fortunately 
Very interesting, I’m currently dealing with this and my usual go to of a9 all night stacked coils on max along with disinfectant foot bath during the day isn’t doing it. That and I just finished two week course of amoxicillin for gum surgery I thought would knock it out. I’d love some more detail if you could spare the time. Thank you for your awesome contribution to the forum.
hi @choban55, I was going to recommend this on your thread when you had mentioned using pemf for your foot to keep the infection under control. I didn’t mention bc this natural, simple, effective treatment isn’t commonly recommended in mainstream health. I have mentioned this before in the past in other circles and it was met with a lot of skepticism and resistance. Since what you were doing was working for you, I left it alone.
Anyway, this idea was recommended to me by my immunologist doctor (of all people, a mainstream healthcare doctor)! To his credit, he loves research and is always participating in clinical trials, so he’s more open to ideas/things that actually help/work than what the pharma industry recommends via taking some drug.
Knowing the common cause of skin/foot infection was helpful to confirm effectiveness of using bleach (aka: chlorine - same as used in swimming pools).
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2008/0701/p71.html states that the common bacteria that cause foot infection are:
“staph” bacteria - Staphylococcus aureus
“strep” bacteria - beta-hemolytic streptococci
and for cellulitis (skin infection or foot) in severe cases:
“mrsa” bacteria - methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
cut to the chase, in my own experience, i have reduced signs and risk of infection compared to never soaking in bleach bath (dilution). I have used this successfully for my dad’s foot as he has reduced feeling in his foot due to a stroke some 20+ years ago, so his foot has been prone to toe fungus if not regularly checked or protected.
here’s a guideline you can follow:
https://dermnetnz.org/topics/bleach-baths-in-patients-with-skin-infections in a nutshell 1/2 cup to a a bathtub… how does that translate to actual 1 gallon tub to soak your foot? You can work the numbers backwards for now… I can follow up on this later when I have more time.
i have found 2 conflicting studies on effectiveness of bleach baths:
2008 study:
stating:
Blockquote
After five minutes in bleach at 2.5 mcL/mL, a high degree of killing was demonstrated for all 10
CA-MRSA isolates, resulting in a greater than three-log reduction in surviving organisms
compared with the control strain incubated in municipal tap water alone, according to the
researchers.
and then a 2019 study:
summarized: In a 15min solution of 0.005% bleach solution at 37C (98.6F) showed no significant impact on staph colony. Even exposures to 0%-0.01% dilution for above parameters did not yield any change. A minimum of 0.03% dilution is needed to have impact - a concentration that is toxic to human cells (skin)
source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7183041/
while I do not know what bacteria/pathogens I’ve killed using a bleach bath soak, I do know that it has helped me avoid cellulitis after using as needed.
@Bob these seem like similar studies… i understand time exposure can affect results and both are within a 15min timeframe easily… any thoughts on these conflicting studies?
that said, it certainly has worked for me and my dad! 
On a separate note and better (safer alternative), you might want to consider working w/HOCL … doing a hypochlorous soak seems to be even more effective. I’m gonna check this out for myself in the near future. gotta go for now… but reaching for that household bleach to dilute in water to soak in a foot tub is a quick experiment you can do now… just figure out the proper dilution!
post more later!
Well… conflicting academic studies come as no surprise to me. Few studies have the methodological details to enable exact duplication. The difference might have come down to a dilution measurement error (not uncommon) or simply in differences in rinsing, the effect of differences in the experimental surfaces, etc.
btw, i should add that contact time is very important in the effectiveness of bleach bath soak. some sites that promote the soak state 10-30mins. I started with 15mins, then 30… I have also played with strength of concentration and have found too strong is too drying (you’ll find what level is right for you). I have easily done 45-60mins without any issues. For my dad, I have him soak for 20mins, then use a soft bristle brush to remove any dead skin and continue soaking for another 25mins before finishing off. I have had dead skin around an infected wound and during the soak would carefully, gently debride the area without any force. FOR ME it helped the healing of that infected area. it basically wiped off after soaking for 30mins. after the soak, if it’s sensitive, i’d use a bandaid to protect the area - sometimes adding neosporin under the bandaid.
I’ve never tried checking the ph of the water, but will check that out to compare after trying out hocl for a soak - where hocl is at a much lower ph … seems like a less toxic approach to killing infection. here’s some more info on it from a study done: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315945/
I wonder if you ever tried to test an A B comparison:
Using whichever identical 2 seperate pairs of coils to see it’s benefit for any given application on the body (anything that you already know it works for you) using the following A B comparison.
Experiment #1
Using 2 sets of coils plugged in to 2 ports of the C5
VS
Experiment #2
Using same 2 pairs of coils but each set is plugged in to 1 of the 2 A9 units
The difference being that
Using the C5 the 2 sets are perfectly in sync
it’s impossible to be perfectly in sync using 2 seperate A9 units
Similarly
What if someone had 2 sets of C5
The 2 c5’s couldn’t be perfectly in sinc to each other
Would it beneficial for biological purposes, of both C5 were using all of their combined maximum number of coils on the same body at the same time
For example
1 C5 can only handle 2 of the Deep Field coils
What if someone wanted to use 4 deep field coils by using 2 C5 units then not all deep field coils can possibly be in sync.
Would there still be a biological benefit to the body even while receiving multiple simultaneous out of sync pulses. Or would it not have an added beneficial effect or perhaps even be counterproductive?
People talk about their observations on the effects of stacking, multiple units, and different things like that all the time on this forum.
Hi Bob, others, …possibly silly question but wanted to clarify. Stacking 2 coils is supposed to be bumpy to bumpy side. You mentioned that bumpy to smooth would cancel each other out magnetically. What about smooth to smooth? Funny I tried that in error today on Omni 8 (I have a P9) and thought I felt a deeper penetration than bumpy to bumpy. I corrected it to the “prescribed” way and it seemed to feel less magnetic. Was it all in my head? (I was placing in the CV-17 and CV-18 areas, center of my chest.) Thanks
Hi Avi, That’s actually a very interesting question. Based on my initial design intent, there is a specific way that the coils should be stacked to get the best magnetic flux alignment. However, you are not the first person to point out this sensation to me, and I know of several people who have stacked the coils the way you are describing (smooth-to-smooth) and have had excellent beneficial effects, even though I think (by calculation and measurement) that the fields should cancel. But in truth, magnetism is more complex than that, so my thinking is that you should be confident in using the coils in any way that you feel is giving you the best benefit. I think there is a lot of truth in your observation, but it is difficult to explain based on our simple understanding of bio-magnetics.
Science is not about “trusting an expert”.
That is “faith” rather than science.
Anyone who wants to know the truth, of what exactly does or doesn’t increase depth of penetration (depending on which way you stack the coils) can easily (instead of “trusting” an “expert”, instead, simply just try and observe the depth of penetration distance by visually noticing the change in distance on the PEMF tester with is supplied with even ICES PEMF unit.
It’s an easily observable and objective and everyone can see it for themselves.
Blind trust is not science.
Rather that, is more like “faith”.
1 Like
things get complicated when you start applying real life use such as putting things between the coils and the area you want to reach… how do you measure depth of penetration with bone or muscle or fat etc etc… you can no longer just observe or rely on your 5 senses at that point. you would need tools to help measure such things. and sure, blindly relying on an expert isn’t much use unless that expert is equipped and skilled with building and using such tools to measure the depth you want to observe a pemf device can reach
That’s true but there is definitely something to be said for differences in “pay-grades” as the saying goes. In the mention of faith versus science, the latter is typically objective and quantifiable with data to back it up. That’s where the pay-grade difference comes in. For me, I feel we ought to trust a scientist once we have seen that their body of work is congruent and makes sense even to our lower paygrades (so it’s not blind but we make allowance for our own ignorance and, in the end, draw our own conclusions based on the humility of knowing the scientist will often give us some parameters in brief based on years of their experience and data). Of course, even with that, there’s a lot of fuzzy details that will be user-specific which is why I think we have this forum to hear from users too.
2 Likes
It only gets complicated if you contemplate comparing 2 different situations, like comparing apples to oranges is going to be hard or unworkable.
What I said is scientifically correct when you do an A vs B comparison
And all other factors remain the same
If everything is identical
And only 1 variable changes
It’s easy
And not rocket science
And most of the time
(Even if not “absolute” always)
Will be quite accurate.
To be practical and realistic and down to earth on the experiments that most of us do all the time we don’t need the level of accuracy of absolute certainly
Only REASONABLY reliable
If you want to know
In open air
The effect of smooth to smooth
Vs
Bumpy to bumpy
Coils
If it increases the distance of reach
You don’t need a college degree
You don’t a lab
And you don’t need experience
To be reasonably accurate
An 8 year old
Trying it for the first time
Will get REASONABLY accurate results
Most of the time
Easily
And quickly
With no effort at all
in practical use all one cares is how far the pulse penetrates. no one cares the distance between air. how are you proposing distance is observed for penetration into the body? usually people care or want to know if the pemf pulse gets to the target they want to influence (ie, liver, kidneys, etc)
to determine theoretical or best guess depth of penetration, you’d have to have a level of expertise and math to give a calculated answer than just how one feels about depth of penetration.
that’s the point i was making… when wondering about depth of penetration, for practical purposes, it’s irrelevant to measure distance between coils thru air. why would anyone in this forum want to know that. the practical question becomes: how far does the pulse penetrate to reach the organ i want to affect? how do i know if i should stack it for better penetration? does it make a biological difference to stack vs side by side? (that could be a subjective observation ofc)
and sure, your a vs b experiment is a simple test, no doubt. but other experiments and things that you want to experiment the way you propose, try it out and share your observations. hypothesizing is always interesting, but not nearly as productive or exciting as actually experimenting and comparing actual observations of our own experiments with others
I understand very well what you are saying.
But you are over complicating something very simple which I was saying.
What was I talking about?
I was talking about, what someone had mentioned if when stacking coils, if it matters, if the way you stack it, if you do it, bumpy to bumpy
Or
If you do it smooth to smooth.
Stacking coils is something which we all do occasionally.
What’s the purpose of stacking coils?
Answer is in very simple words is in order to reach a greater distances or greater strength etc.
(Regardless of which technical terms are used to describe the benefit, if and when needed, for example to reach deeper in the hip as an example which was actually mentioned).
What happens if you stack coils correctly?
What happens if you stack coils incorrectly?
The answer to these questions are very important yet very simple and easily observable.
If you stack them correctly you will achieve your goal.
If stack them incorrectly you will achieve the exact opposite of your goal and even more than that that not only didn’t you gain anything vs not stacking but made it much worse than not stacking the coils.
What was my point?
My point was that wether you achieve your goal or the exact opposite?
Both opposit possibilities are very easily observable using the tester which comes with the set.
That’s it.
wish it were that simple. after working with different people over the years for different issues, I’ve found it wasn’t black and white about stacking bumpy to bumpy vs smooth vs side by side vs sandwiched vs mid level power, max etc… it’s never one variable and with such variety in how people respond, we never have the luxury of isolating one variable.
as you start using this for different things for different people with different levels of health or severity of issues or layers of inflammation/pain, the results of using pemf isn’t as simple as experimenting with the configuration of coils. pemf is great, but it’s rarely as basic as applying it and getting consistent results. there are many variables that cannot be controlled nor necessarily known.
it would be nice if it were that easy to experiment in however logical or controlled way one would wish/think/assume to be.
you can use it for a week and just assume pemf doesn’t work… the reality could be that is wasn’t used long enough, frequently enough, different configuration, different power level, long enough sessions, etc etc…
Welcome to the forum. Quick answers:
Q1: Stacking the coils tends to intensify the field, typically by about 60% (increase)
Note: most people for most injuries do not respond best to the highest possible intensity. When people use ICES-PEMF at full power but report that it does not really work for them, it turns out that if they try lower power settings that they will actually respond better about 95% of the time. Too much is simply too much. Most people respond best to medium-to-high settings, but not to extremely high settings.
Q2: Coils partitioned in separate locations: yes, that will also work perfectly well, just as you have described.
I agree with everything you say about a
all the variables which you mentioned.
In my clinical experience, I had observed the same things which you described which you too have observed in your clinical experience. So I’m very familiar with all the variables which you are talking about and I fully agree with you on that.
All the variables you mentioned are of course not so simple as you explained.
I wasn’t talking about all those variables,
which we both know are all true.
I was referring only to 1 point:
Which is the correct way to stack?
Vs
The incorrect way to stack?
And regarding that 1 point:
I pointed out, that the hoxigonal tester makes it very simple to observe.
Interestingly, Bob himself, advises us to use his Hoxigonal tester for this purpose to determine the correct way to stack vs the incorrect way to stack.
I agree with the points expressed in this thread, and I would like to add a few thoughts and observations.
As an engineer, I definitely designed the ICES-PEMF system to have a simple and practical way to orient the magnetic field lines certain specific ways. This was based on the published tissue responses to applied electrical fields, and my original design intent was to design ICES-PEMF to use electro-magnetic induction to induce equivalent fields in the deep tissues to have similar effects to electric fields.
I think I generally succeeded in this, and to that extent there are “correct” ways to stack coils to achieve these magnetic flux line directions, and thus the resulting electrical fields. So far as all that goes, I think the system works pretty well.
But then quite a few people started telling me that they were getting good effects when they stacked or oriented the coils in ways that I would have calculated were “incorrect”, because they would tend to cancel the magnetic fields. But people just kept doing things I advised against, and quite a few people claimed very significant benefits from using the coils stacked the wrong way. Some of these were people who I know to be reliable observers. For example, they would insist that the “wrongly” stacked coils worked well for them. But later, they stopped working so well and then they noticed that one of the coil wires had broken. When replaced with working coils, they once again had good biological benefits from these “incorrectly” stacked coils.
So, I started thinking about this, because it shouldn’t have worked at all; the fields should have cancelled.
But when you look at it more deeply, it starts to make some sense (maybe)
This is because magnetism does not work like light. One example: if you have two beams of light in a dark room, the beams can move around separately, or they can cross, but the light from one beam does not interact with the light from the other beam. (physics nerds: assume non-coherent light, which is a safe assumption for typical beams such as flashlights)
Magnetism is completely different. Any two magnetic fields in the same space will always interact. Consider the example of two separate powerful magnets. When you try to push them together but with like poles facing each other (South-to-South, or North-to-North), the magnets will repel. The closer they get, the stronger the repelling force. Here is the interesting point: the magnetic fields do not cancel when you do this, they just deform eachother. Directly between the magnets you will measure zero magnetic field, but not because the fields cancel, rather it is because the fields are disported away from eachother.
And it is clear that the fields to not cancel out, because they continue to generate a large repulsive force between the magnets.
So, by analogy to powerful fixed magnets, you end up with a lot of magnetic field distortion, but not necessarily cancellation, when you stack the coils incorrectly. And it is currently my opinion that in some cases, these distorted magnetic field vectors still have significant biological effects.
I did not believe this was possible at the beginning, years ago. But the number of positive observations of this effect has convinced me that a simple understanding of bio-magnetic effects is just not nuanced enough to capture the full range of effects and responses that people have to PEMF.
And the reason you do not see this using the hexagonal coil tester is that the coil tester was designed to test coils individually or when stacked “correctly” with simple, predictable magnetic flux vectors. But with the distorted fields from “incorrectly” stacked coils, you will not detect the distorted fields properly with the coil tester, because it us simply not designed to detect the distorted fields.
2 Likes