ICES instruments are typically low powered (magnetic field strength), and larger instruments found in clinical use (vet and human clinics) generate much higher (orders of magnitude) magnetic field strengths.
The coils are much larger in the high powered PEMF generators, and because of the size and huge field intensity, they can induce physiological effects on the body’s cells over a much larger area. Perhaps with 5 placements, the entire body can be “fluxed”. This the low power devices can not do.
Why is this important?
Because many diseases are systemic (involving the whole body, its organs, and immune system especially), which necessitates the whole body to be treated for effect (think cancer).
So, I am wondering if we can create separate categories for users to report their experiences under the appropriate category of instrument. Also, just defining the types of instruments would be helpful (battery powered(low), high powered spark gap, high powered solid state.
Example of why this is important—I used an ICES P2b on my prostate cancer for over 6 months with no effect. So if I say under “Cancer” category that PEMF did not work for me, it should be noted that I was using local low powered PEMF, not the better option for cancer (from what I understand) which is use of the high powered units.
@JHW Thanks for your feedback. I opened up subtopics in the Cancer section; now there’s one for Low Power and one for High Power. Feel free to leave your experiences in the appropriate section.
The Tumor Treating Fields videos that I watched had fields so low that people couldn’t feel them, but they wore them 24/7 and it took a year to get rid of the glioblastoma.
Water fasting, plus the ICES worked very fast with my dog, though I haven’t been able to verify the results because the vet wants me to wait for over a year, but my dog had a melon-sized tumor in his spleen and Hemangiosarcoma, plus serious infections. He had to be carried into the vet and couldn’t walk and wouldn’t eat and didn’t respond to affection. I was told that the prognosis if I did the $10,000 life extending surgery would be 2 weeks to 35 days. I read about a man who water fasted his dog for 21 days and the dog was healed. I water fasted mine for 14 days (I am skipping a lot of the story because I was able to keep him alive with Whole Food Plant Based and would have done that or Keto with him, but he cooperated for a few months, then stopped cooperating and there were visible tumors, which were growing when I tried diets like raw. Tumors grow when animal products reach something like 10% of the calories and shut off at 5% is what some studies have shown. Both Keto and Whole Food Plant Based say that. Keto Pet Sanctuary healed a dog of it but they did 90% of the calories from oil, plus exercising and hyperbaric oxygen (which makes Keto 30% more effective) plus they did surgery and I think things like Turkey tail mushrooms. I didn’t have access to everything they had and Keto isn’t as effective without something to control for glutamate and without hyperbaric oxygen. Anyway, Dr. Ornish reversed prostate cancer with diet, but I do believe that tumor treating fields are one way to do it and heavy duty PEMF at high power may be another. I couldn’t afford the $20,000 PEMF and I don’t think I could have used it with myself or my dog. Each time I tried higher power, I would get pain within a week. I don’t get pain with lower power.
In 2 months, I think my vet will allow me to have proof that water fasting, plus ICES worked. Either way, it is 10 months after the diagnosis and my vet just visited and said that my dog looks great, which he does.
I would say LOW power for MOST things. I do enjoy higher power for TMS, but those are half hour to 60 minute sessions.
I would recommend watching videos on Dr. Ornish talking about prostate cancer. Dr. Greger has a 7 part series on it on his channels. His YouTube channel has a men’s health category.
If high power works for you, post it back here because I would be interested.
When I did too high power, my dog wouldn’t stay on it.
Many studies with pemfs are using low levels of flux, like 1milli Tesla = 10 Gauss. The Micropulse M1 is capable of 200 Gauss with dual stacked coils, max level 15, (Bob, correct me if I am wrong). This means lower levels on the m1 should provide ample theraputic benefits based on the studies. I wonder how PEMF manufacturers got to such high levels, on the order of Kilo gauss, up to 1 or 2 Tesla = 20, 000 Gauss. maybe there are such studies, I would like to know if they exist.
I had some paperwork with High power stuff ill try to find it. I believe they mostly come from Panos Pappas who invented the papimi https://www.papimi-therapy.eu/introduction/ (are we ok to share links here? ) that will give you some idea of his theory which i would like Bob to discuss at some point. I assume Bob has seen this work and wonder if he agrees with the mechanisms of action. It is said that when he first created prototypes he was using it and on his wife too who turned out to be pregnant! He didn’t mention anything but he was worried that it would affect the baby. The machine I have and the PEMF (PMT) 100 both originate from this machine.
I believe the US army done some experiments with it. ill look for the paperwork.
Thank you, good to know the research exists. Plenty of testimonials about high powered machines, so I don’t doubt they work, but the high cost! I think many will hold the opinion that both the high powered clinical and portable machines should be used at the same time if possible, and to that I will agree and stop my inquiry. I don’t want to start a never ending technical discussion, it won’t serve any helpful purpose here.
My scientific opinion, FWIW, is that PEMF is very poorly understood scientifically. At the most basic level (biophysical effects on molecules) we really do not know what PEMF is doing. Some people claim otherwise, but I do not find their claims scientifically convincing.
Keep in mind, the term “PEMF” is generic, very broad, and not well-defined. PEMF can mean a lot of different things. To grasp the scope of it, imagine substituting the term “chemicals” for the term “PEMF”. Then restate the questions you often hear about PEMF, but use the word “chemicals” in its place:
The moment you realize these terms are about the same in size and scope, you realize why it is not really helpful to ask whether “chemicals” (PEMF) works or it does not…
Imagine, water, plutonium, testosterone, all three are chemicals, but all three act very differently on biological systems. Some “chemicals” require large doses, some microscopic doses, and some require exposure over long periods of time to have biological effects. And so it is with PEMF.
But the science of PEMF is more than a century behind the science of chemicals, at least as it concerns their effects on biology.
Now, with that in mind, I hypothesize that there are many different forms of PEMF, each with different biological effects. Some good, some neutral, some undesirable.
The mechanisms of action of very high-powered PEMF may be different from low-powered PEMF, for example. They may interact with biomolecules differently. Waveform shape certainly also matters.
In my experience, I find the best and most consistent effects occur when using low-power PEMF with a consistent, well-calibrated waveform shape for long periods of time. But I think the waveform of each pulse is far more important than the “Gauss” level or pulsefrequency.
The physics makes sense to me. Here is one very well understood physical effect of changing magnetic fields:
ξ - -dФB/dt
I could be wrong, but everything I have studied over the past 2 decades suggests to me that this is the most fundamental and underlying physics of PEMF. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields, and it is well-known that biology responds to electrical fields. PEMF works so much better for most people than TENS though because the inductive transduction of magnetism to electrical current to deep tissues is (I calculate) at least 1000 x more efficient that the conductive transfer of current to deep tissues. And the spatial distribution of the induced currents is also far more uniform.
Using this as the basis for my calculations and experiments, I have been able to elicit the same biological responses using carefully calibrated waveform shapes, and these are (approximately) 500 times more efficient than the crude, simple square waves used by most of the large, powerful PEMF devices.
So, I have adopted the very low-power, very high-efficiency, affordable, low0cost, focal treatment form of PEMF. This approach seems to work for most people for most things, especially focal injuries, inflammation, and pain. Based in what people tell me about their experiences with ICES-PEMF, this approach works for about 93.5% of people. Some people seem to require more, or a different kind of PEMF, but I do not know why. These people may (or may not) be better served by large, more powerful, or fundamentally different forms of PEMF.
I continue to work on the science of this. There is a lot to it, and I do think most PEMF devices do work, but many of these lack and real scientific input. Most PEMF systems are just copies of 20-year-old technology from someone else’s work. But nonetheless, most seem to work pretty well I think. But from both the theoretical and experimental viewpoint, I do not think the benefits of PEMF scale with power. I think there is a threshold effect, below which the biological effects are minimal, and above which the biological effects do not gain much.
But there are differences of opinion, and I am sure if we keep studying it we will gain more insight.
Links are OK if you think they are helpful. We want to keep anything like trolling to a minimum though, so just stick with what you think is honestly most helpful.
Another viewpoint and method - I primarily use the MP for muscle injuries, muscle recovery, and joint problems. I adjust power based on the disappearance or lessening of symptoms. I generally start with H and then if I still feel an ache after about 10 min, I will try lower power. Sometimes through larger tissues structures, like sandwich between the hips, I will go to X no matter what. Sometimes even at the shoulders I’ve needed X to get a change in effect. And other times, I’ve had power on M and the ache increased, and backing off to L did the trick. So a little bit of biofeedback use on power adjustment here for this purpose.
I think as a general rule, most people use too much power with ICES-PEMF. This is probably because most things don’t work very well, so you have to max them out just to see any effects. This is not the case for ICES-PEMF. I have talked through this with hundreds of people, and my impression is that when I can finally convince them to dial down the power a bit, the devices seem to be noticeably more effective. This seems to be the case about 90 - 95% of the time.
Okay, I saw your pad for the C-5, which is sold out and your deep coils you showed on this page and the multiple coils also from the C-5 and how does that relate to power or healing?
For instance, you have spoken about healing your hip and that you are working on your other hip. Other people, it might be their two knees. Other people it would be their whole back and maybe their brain and their feet.
Does treating the whole body or the whole brain increase the efficiency or does that work like too much power?
I went to the testimonial page of the woman who could speak after 15 minutes of use and the doctor was speaking about moving the coils around the head to not just do one spot.
This question comes in response to the people around me who have very many problems, like my cousin and a close friend. Handing them an M1, they don’t even know what part of their body to use it on.
My cousin is going through dialysis and had a stroke which left him without much function in his right arm and hand and has such swelling in his legs that he is struggling to walk.
I am not asking you to give an answer of what he should do as if you were a medical doctor. If I break his condition into pieces, for instance the kidneys versus the pancreas for T2D leading to dialysis. His brain versus his arm and hand to get function back. He doesn’t have good circulation in either his hands or feet. Plus, he is in such pain.
I look at the device and look at him and look at the device and look at him and look at the device and look at the web site.
He is going to try the M-1 possibly and I am trying to figure out which thing might help him.
Now, I back it up from him and back to is the C-5 more powerful than the M-1 because it has more coils?
I already know that the C-5 is less convenient because he can wear the M-1 all day and night, but I am just curious if you have received feedback about the difference between the 2 devices conceptually.
PEMF pads versus coils is another complex and misunderstood topic. So maybe this will help clarify things a bit.
First, looks can be deceiving. What matters is how a PEMF pad is built, not how it looks. It can be confusing, because the perception people normally have is:
Larger = more powerful = more effective = more expensive
More than one PEMF manufacturer has abused this perception, so they make their systems, and especially their coil pads, appear larger than they actually are. I have inspected a few of these, and in most cases, the active area of the PEMF pad is actually much smaller than the physical pad itself. This leads people to the illusion that they are somehow getting a “whole-body” PEMF system, when in fact the active area of the pad is really only a few inches in diameter.
This is not true for all PEMF systems, but when you see a conveniently large opaque PEMF pad, that is often the case.
Then, they make claims that “their field extends to cover the entire body”, which is also a deception.
The physics works a bit differently than PEMF advertisers claim.
If a pad is large and flat, then the field in general will be less intense at any one point. Smaller area equates to more intense fields, but they occupy less physical space.
In my opinion, many physical ailments are localized, so they only require a small coil applied locally. This leads to the design of most of our ICES-PEMF portable PEMF systems. In some cases, a larger area responds better, so this is one reason we make 2 x 2 coil arrays.
Different people and different injuries respond differently. My right hip responded very well to stacked coils. My left hip did not, and I am now using a larger pad, which seems to work well. My observation is that sometimes individual coils work well, sometimes a wider mat works better. Sometimes more intensity, sometimes less…
So, in my case, one hip responded better to a focused field, the other responded better to a broader array of fields (a pad). As far as I could tell, the hips had very similar physical problems, but for some reason, I had to apply PEMF differently to each to get the best results.
I think the only honest answer is that you need to try different things and see. That is one reason why the popularity of PEMF will never get too large, because to make PEMF work well, it takes a bit of effort, determination, and frankly above average intelligence.
People on this forum seem to get that, and they report that PEMF works for them when they take the time to figure it out. But I honestly do not know how to generalize the positive findings to simple universal instructions that work for everyone for all possible conditions.
Its sort of like this: PEMF is a very powerful and reliable tool if used properly. It is like a hammer. But not everyone can take a hammer and build a house.
What I see when I speak to many people is that many people don’t have a mental capacity for using a research device and attempting to do anything with it.
Even with my brain problems, I immediately saw so many things I could do with it.
This weekend, when I started listing all the things that I have successfully done with it already, my friends were stopping me to ask, “What is it?” and as I showed them the page, which is more like a scientific gadget page they don’t have a self-hacker mentality at all.
I already can do more with broccoli than they can even conceive of. Food is a whole tool kit and PEMF is like a power tool.
I did have a few people mention that they can see a difference in my brain over the past few weeks. That is since I upped things like kale and beets and broccoli sprouts and things like that and upped my Vitamin D and since I went back to using the M-1.
I still haven’t gone back to things like PS-100 or other things like that, so this is just a test of the science behind the vegetables and the ICES and fixing my Vitamin D, after this crazy Spring of no sun for months.
That is my impression too: most people do not understand that this technology is something I developed and used to fix my own serious physical problems, and I am willing to share at low cost if they can grasp that it is just experimental, not a mature, turn-key, approved medical product. This is not something most people can grasp. But some people do get it, and those are the people I can try to help.
All of the other PEMF systems try to advertise themselves as much more than that, and thus appeal to many more people. But the reality is that the entire field of PEMF technology that you can purchase without a prescription is simply pirated, untested, unapproved, technology based loosely (or not at all) on any real science.
So far as I know, the only really approved PEMF technology is based on a 1976 technology core, and it is only available from 1 or 2 companies, and only by prescription (not a simple Internet purchase), and can only make very narrow medical claims (non-union bone repair, for example)
Yes, there are things like TMS, which I wanted to try back when I struggled more with depression, but you can’t self-hack with actual medical equipment and they made the process to get to try one so difficult. You have to try and fail at a few medicines first and from my research, those medicines might help initially, but might make things worse long-term.
That is how I ended up over in the food as medicine group.
Hearing the mechanisms such as depression is often just inflammation. Then, lowering inflammation is a fabulously fun thing to pursue.
For social anxiety, Autism studies gave me mechanisms like heat shock proteins affecting synapses, etc.
For Alzheimer’s and stroke research, even increasing circulation to the brain and increasing oxygen to the brain cells, etc. became “Okay, so what things can I use to increase the circulation to the brain?” “How do I get more antioxidants into my brain>?” etc.
Suddenly, instead of focusing on trying novel exercises, I switched to lowering inflammation and increasing circulation and things like that.
For my eye, learning that my brain was trying to shut down electrical impulses to my weak eye, I figured, what could it hurt to see if the M-1 might increase the electrical impulses and it might do something.
I would never be allowed to experiment if this was in a medical professional setting and the doctors don’t seem to be trying things. Not even the novel repetitions.
Even there, I learned more from places like Flint Rehab and TED Talks and PubMed. Most people don’t do enough repetitions and don’t do enough variety is what my thoughts are.
Being someone who couldn’t figure out how to do enough variety for my eye condition and who wasn’t focused enough on one thing to get enough repetitions, I didn’t succeed very well the way you are succeeding. You are breathtakingly inspiring and I may try to figure out some novel exercises again soon, but I am already just so happy that I am FINALLY having some brain breakthroughs in areas like social anxiety and other areas.
If I were writing a book, I would be telling how many tablespoons of broccoli sprouts to eat and which foods have lutein and things like that.
But the M-1 has supercharged the process and success breeds success.