What is the difference between Extracorporeal Magnetotransduction therapy (EMTT) and PEMF?
Neither term (EMTT or PEMF) has a standard definition specifying exactly what it is and what it is not. So it is really not possible to answer your question. But generally I am under the impression that while they have a lot of overlap in terms of technical details, EMTT is primarily high energy (power), whereas most, but not all, PEMF systems are high power (ICES-PEMF is one exception, it is very low energy per pulse by design). My opinion is that EMTT and many other forms of pulsed magnetic energy for biological use have been given different names (other than PEMF) when they are not necessarily different in any meaningful technical sense. Why would anyone do this? Several possible reasons including:
1 - Marketing, just to make it sound new and interesting (without actually being different)
2 - To attempt to get patents on old technologies simply by renaming them to obscure what they really are.
3 - There may really be a difference, but I simply do not understand it.
There are a few cases where new names are applied to try to emphasize an important technical detail or refinement, or to establish a standard that the owner/developer wishes to very specifically identify their product and technology. This is the reason why I trademarked “ICES-PEMF ®”, because I specifically identified by experiment pulse parameters that have repeatable beneficial biological effects at very low radiated energy levels.
2 Likes
Thank you for your reply. This is what I felt as well regarding your first two points. I posited my question to Curatron Parameds and their Ultra-Flash is apparently similar to Storz EMTT Magnetolith. My clinic owns an ultra-flash. The Storz has beautiful packaging and looks high tech, albeit significantly more expensive than the other unit. thank you for the work that you do Bob.