Hello Dr. Dennis,
I was researching PEMF/subtle energy treatment devices and ran across statements with regards to the efficacy of induced current devices as follows|: " Its strength, or more precisely, current density (= current
strength per area, A/m²) determines biological effectiveness.
All calculated current densities exceed 10 mA/m² and are thus
within the range of effects internationally confirmed and classified as ‘good‘: above the ‘subtle biological effects‘ and within
the range of ‘confirmed macro effects‘ (10–100 mA/m²)."
Are these statements founded in real science/biophysics(unlike climate science, LOL) or are these kinds of statements gimmicks? I tend to believe these types of statements have a solid technical basis as they seem to play into this idea that in the end it is all about the induced currents and resultant voltages and rate of change in flux as well as density are going to have an impact.
Thanks
Mark Last
this is an interesting take… i know dr @Bob has talked about form of wave and power in terms of rate of time. hopefully, he’ll have some science to respond to this…
I think that depends. Does the location that posts this cite their source for the statement: “… internationally confirmed and classified as ‘good‘: above the ‘subtle biological effects‘”. For example, what is the international body that makes this classification?
From a theoretical standpoint I think this may be a reasonable statement because it makes specific reference to measurable and appropriate physical units (mA/m²).
But I am not directly familiar with the body of scientific literature that recognizes these as the correct ranges for those values, and makes those assessments of biological effects. And keep in mind: there are literally armies of PEMF marketers out there who will take scientific statements out of context just to make a sale. It is easy to cut-and-paste things. So the veracity of this will depend mainly on identifying the original source.
Hi Dr. Dennis,
Unfortunately, there were no footnotes or references to journal publications or medical/educational institutions studies.
I have reached out to the German company, PHYSIOMED ELEKTROMEDIZIN AG, that markets the product from whose website I had read this information. I have not seen this type of statement using current density as a parameter usually only flux rate of change, if there is anything beyond just magnetic flux measurement. I will post any relevant information I receive back from them.
Thanks for the prompt response,
Mark Last
As you check sources and facts, keep in mind that it is not sufficient to just identify the putative source. To find the truth , you also need to determine whether or not the posted material was a true and accurate reflection of the actual position of the “source”, or were their statements distorted, taken out of context, misinterpreted, or entirely fabricated.
You will soon discover that it takes only seconds to post a fraudulent claim, but that fact checking and verifying or disproving it can take hours or days or weeks or months or even years. This is precisely why liars have such an advantage when people do not carefully think before they jump to convenient beliefs.
This is why I, as one person, can not stem the tide against the tidal wave of falsehoods and fraud in the field of PEMF.
This is also why 1 or 2 low-integrity “scientists” can dominate important conversations in many fields where thousands of legitimate careful and honest scientists can only generate about the same amount of truth as 1 or 2 liars can generate of falsehoods.
It is, literally, thousands of times easier to lie than to tell careful and accurate truths.
But you can believe what you want.
Continuing the discussion from Current density:
Continuing the discussion from Current density:
I will reserve judgement for this particular company and the device I am interested until they respond(if they respond) with regards to where/how they obtained their range of current densities required for biological effect. The device in question has been used in one limited pilot study for treating BPH in men published in Andrology journal as well as a canine BPH study using the same device published in The Prostate at Wiley Online. In terms of the veracity of statements by anyone referring to published studies, I would like to at least be able to review the publication while keeping in mind that a lot of published studies are not repeatable, not truly independently peer-reviewed and/or are reviewed by non-credentialed persons incapable of performing a proper evaluation. Regarding junk science, it is all around us well beyond PEMF. Low-carb diets, metabolic syndrome solutions, anthropogenic climate change, nuclear power,(where I spent my career in maintenance), renewable energy all suffer from political, big business and ideological interference to the point that nothing can be trusted as reported.
Thanks for comments.
Mark
I think this is all basically correct and I generally agree. Keep in mind that the fact that PEMF does seem to have massive biological benefits is an entirely different issue from PEMF marketers pretending to know how and why it works. That PEMF is really helpful is just an observable, verifiable fact. Why it works remains largely a mystery. That is OK, in fact almost every helpful medical discovery started with (and many remain) a mostly mysterious happy accident. So, my advice: completely separate in your mind the fact that PEMF can be very helpful, versus the mirage that someone can explain to you how it works biologically (and therefore you should buy their stuff).
And my understanding is that less than about 15% of what is done medically or clinically has any actual scientific basis or supporting evidence. Apparently, about 85% of medical procedures are done simply on the basis that people seem to believe they work, and people have been doing them for a long time. I could have those numbers a bit wrong, but I seem to recall that factoid from a graduate class in medical ethics.