People have such different responses, for example, many clinicians report very different preferences for the protocol (or frequency band) for sleep. Every one I have ever talked to has strong opinions based on a lot of clinical evidence/experience in their individual clinic. And I believe every one of them, even though they insist on different frequency patterns for the same application (sleep).
How can this be: well, it is partly due to different individual biological responses, but also depends on coil placement and usage patterns (how often, how long, what times of day, intensity setting, interactions with diet, medications, et al.)
So I don’t see a lot of hard-and-fast patterns to say “Frequency (or pulse pattern) X works best for Condition Y”. That would be a great marketing point, but I honestly just do not see it as true. It really just does not seem to work that way, and it may be that pulse frequency is simply less important than most other variables.
I would say that changing pulse patterns from time to time has more impact than the “frequencies” in any given pulse pattern.
Also, several of the patterns (A9, B5-C5, Omni-8, for example) were designed as best I was able to minimize habituation. My strategy was to shift between pulse patterns within each protocol every few minutes, using pulse frequencies that have different general meanings during musculoskeletal development. Think, for example, of the phenotypic control of nerves on resulting skeletal muscle type, namely, fast-firing motor neurons drive the phenotype of a skeletal muscle fiber toward the fast-twitch phenotype (metabolism and contractility and structure). Slower pulse trains from slow-twitch motorneurons similarly drive a corresponding slow-twitch phenotype in skeletal muscle. By switching regularly between these two meaningful “frequencies”, it prevents tissue from habituating to a new stable equilibrium, and thus undergoing a steady decline in tissue responsiveness (habituation). I employ this and a few similar strategies to try to keep ICES-PEMF pulse patterns effective without habituation over time. I have patented this strategy. Indolent dirt-bag PEMF pirates will eventually copy this strategy, call it something sexy but scientifically misleading, and take credit for it, which I will find entertaining and mildly irritating. But they will end up selling a better product, which, overall, is beneficial because it improves PEMF technology for everyone.
The Omni-8 pattern was serving two different purposes when I developed it:
1- To demonstrate once and for all that pulse patterns similar to Schumann resonances but different enough from the primary and harmonics to eliminate any potential “resonance”, could have the same biological effects as a Schumann resonant frequency. This turned out better than I had expected: Omni-8 using a series of frequency-shifted off-resonant harmonic pulse patterns actually seemed to work a bit better (by about 15%) that the Schumann harmonic frequencies.
2- To minimize habituation resulting from long-term daily use by using frequencies in competing physiologic phenotype driving bands, as well as a lot of variation within these bands. My reasoning has been that the use of pulse patterns that are important to cell signalling, and also introducing variation, would be enough to indicate to cells that this signal contained useful information, not just noise, and thus would not be “tuned out” over time (habituation).
When I field tested this strategy, Omni-8 rose to the top as the best pattern. Exactly why? I don’t know. I think maybe some of my strategies had some positive effect.
Great! Thank you for these deep insights into the development of the products.