Flux Health Forum

Does cycling through the programs improves effects?

Hello all,

in the Post Parkinson's tremors stopped on their tracks using an M1 clone someone did report that cycling through Omni8, A9 and B5 (change all 3-4 days) would improve effects.

My question: Has someone made the same experience for different applications than neurogenes / Parkinson?

Meaning: Does the effect of a single program decreases when used over weeks/months and it is helpful, in that circumstances, to rotate Omni8, B5, A9?

Regarding the experience I have made with modulating (herbal) supplements, it would make sense to rotate programs like supplements which do “kind of the same” but a bit different, or introduce pauses (5 on, 2 off days) in usage.


In my experience, cycling between Alpha and Omni8 every month or so has proven helpful. I did notice some reduced effect of Alpha when I stayed on it for many months.

Interestingly, I find for some injuries (mostly acute ones), cycling through different protocols every day or so is helpful. For long-term chronic issues, such as my lower spine injury, changing every 3 or 4 months seems to help, but somewhat less noticeably.

1 Like

I’ve always stuck to Omni 8 since it seems to cycle thru a variety of frequencies, but even if decided to, i can’t tell nor really decide how to pick a different program for any specific reason. if anything, i have experimented with the theta and Delta brainwave frequencies just for the relation to sleep related brainwave patterns. i can’t tell if it’s placebo or the frequencies actually influencing my sleep when i do use those.

do you @Bob or anyone really have an approach to how to pick a program. ever since i read from Bob that it’s the shape and not so much the frequency that matters, the program to use has become more chosen by variety to minimize habituation than which program to use… but i guess Omni 8 can become “tuned out” by the body over time.

i need to switch up my parents c5… they’ve been on Omni 8 for 9 months easily for general body or joint use.

maybe the last 2mos: my dad uses it for the hat (I’m hoping this helps with stroke recovery and hair would be a nice bonus)… my mom uses for gut and head (sandwiches coils at ears in hopes of improving hearing that seems to be going).

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.


Thanks for the extended explanation. This totally makes sense and explains why I got better results after switching to Omni8 when using B5-C5 for 2 weeks, since my current problem-category falls into the area of the motorneurons and the like.

This also mean, as I interpret it, that most PEMF devices which use a more static approach with simple wave-forms and/or pulsetrains will be subject to habituation. I think there is no way around it.

Another potential long-term problem could be, that the body is sync’ed to the technology and not the other way around. May be it would be advantageous to introduce a “random” component that varies the Omni8-frequencies and pulsetrain timings and sequence a bit on each power up. This could be a new protocol, like “Omni8Rnd”.

For example: The Frequencies could be +/- 5%, the duration of the sequences +/- 20% and the sequence-order could be fully randomized.

This could potentially further improve biological response and decrease habituation.


Hans, my thoughts on your comments are (by paragraph):

Omni-8 vs B5-C5… motorneurons>>> My thought is that biology generally conserves proteins, signals, and other physiological mechanisms that work well. We see this in the genome: ancient genes get tweaked over millions of years, and put to new and improved uses, sometimes similar to the original purpose, sometimes wildly different. With this in mind, the slow-twitch/fast-twitch signal encoding is clearly very useful during muscle function, but also plays a role during musculo-skeletal development in utero. This suggests to me that these general patters have been conserved, and I hypothesize are fundamental at various levels even to tissues far removed from musculoskeletal tissues. So I have taken the guess, and it seems to be proved out by observation, that a pulse pattern originating from neuromotor physiology turns out to be beneficial as well as resistant to habituation by many, perhaps all, mammalian tissues. I could be wrong, but so far all observations seem to support this.

more static approach and simple waveforms… subject to habituation>>> I agree, and this makes sense. It is well known that biology gradually tunes out signals that contain zero information.

Random>>> you may not be surprised to know that I comprehensively tested the potential benefits and effects of randomizing ICES-PEMF pulse patterns. In fact, the original A9 prototypes all had these programs, with weighted randomization exactly as you suggest. This was about a decade or more ago. I did not see any benefit, but people occasionally complained, stating that the clicking “did not sound right”, and several people insisting that I take a few hours to test their A9 comprehensively, only to assure them that it was working exactly as designed. After a great deal of bench, personal, and field testing, I conclude that, while biology does make use of randomness in some cases, it does not appear to be useful for ICES-PEMF, but does demand more memory and computational power from the embedded microcontroller system in the A9, thus conferring no biological benefit while adding system complexity and customer perception of reduced product value/reliability. So, I stopped doing that.

1 Like

I see, you have done it all :man_superhero: :man_student: :man_mechanic: Great! Thank you for these deep insights into the development of the products.
Trying this all out and testing it needs a lot of time and patience + generating the ideas in the first place. As engineer myself I like to solve such puzzles, too. This, the outdoor work in my garden and my better part provide me with the things I cherish in life.


P.S.: I’ve learned a lot these last 2 weeks here reading (old) posts. Gives me a lot to think about PEMF, RIFE, tuning forks, study results and the like.