Well, direct comparisons are actually almost impossible. There are huge differences in the basic design of many PEMF systems, and many do not make consistent products, so comparing against one manufacturing batch would not necessarily be the same as comparing against a different batch. But the bottom line is this: the comparison of technical details is probably much less important than the comparison of actual long-term human clinical results.
Unfortunately, this is impossible, because all PEMF marketers will cherry-pick “testimonials”. We have had our ICES-PEMF systems tested independently for humans with various types of pain (https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/14), but you could always question: “Is this honest, or is it just more marketing?” And since commercial PEMF is generally not approved for pain management, it is almost impossible to study any of the PEMF products anyway.
And this ignores the question: Are different PEMF products good for different clinical problems? I think that remains mostly unknown.
But I have tried to shed some light on this general question. I surveyed a few hundred clinicians about 2 years ago," what approach to the use of PEMF has the best long-term clinical results", and the answers were pretty well divided into three groups:
About 1/3 say the best results occur when you use both ICES-PEMF daily, as well as in-clinic treatments using more powerful PEMF.
About 1/3 say the best results they have seen have been from the use of only ICES-PEMF daily.
And about 1/3 say the best results are from high-powered, in-clinic PEMF systems, without the use of ICES-PEMF.
This pretty well reflects the diversity of clinical applications, clinical outcomes, and human responses in general. However, there is still a bias, because most clinicians in the survey had already committed to one of the three clinical uses of PEMF above, and they will naturally tend to favor their clinical approach (and their financial investment).
Also, I have evaluated IMRS and BEMER products. People have loaned their systems to me, and I have tested them (and several other PEMF products as well) in my laboratory. I can tell you, based on my measurements, the systems do not generate the whole-body fields that they claim. However, many people still report that these systems have been very effective for themselves or their patients. So, I think the problem has been that many forms of PEMF actually work, but no one really knows why, so marketers just make stuff up to try to sound like they are “experts”.
My approach has been very different:
-
I just try to be honest about it. I do not spend money on marketing, and I do not just make up marketing fluff. This is hard science.
-
I have been doing basic research on PEMF for 25 years.
-
I am an actual scientist, not a marketer.
-
I started as a “PEMF skeptic” as a consultant for NASA, but I followed the data, even when I had to change my opinions, which I have done many times.
-
The device needs to work for me, or I can not walk. Period. So I have skin in the game, and it must work or I am in real trouble.
-
I am happy to share my findings with others, but I spend nothing on marketing. My approach is to simply tell the truth, do the science, admit when I don’t know something, keep the claims conservative, keep the prices low, and keep the scumbags away from the marketing.
As a result, if you compare ICES-PEMF with others on the market, the things you may hear will be partly driven by marketers who cannot make money on our products. So, naturally, they are against them.
One very prominent PEMF marketer had tried ICES-PEMF about 8 years ago. He said, many times, that it was the best form of PEMF he had ever tried, period. He said that it clearly was working far better than the competitors, and that it would entirely change the global PEMF market. He made a point of going on and on about it. But when he discovered there was really no money in it for him, it became a serious problem, because I was driving down the average cost of PEMF systems globally by making effective PEMF available for less than $1000. Typical systems at that time were about $15,000 - $25,000. Some were less expensive, but prices for reasonably good systems were very high. He got very angry and verbally abusive about the fact that I was “destroying the market”, and has never said anything positive about ICES-PEMF again.
While I was writing this, I had to turn down, yet again, another marketing offer. I get 4 or 5 every week. I always turn them down. Our products are for people who understand what I am trying to do without a lot of fluff or marketing.
Here is the deal: I am just trying to make PEMF as simple, safe, affordable, and effective as possible. I do no marketing, but I am happy to help people if they can see past the hype and understand who I am and what I am trying to do. I am not trying to make a fortune on this. I do not hire stable of ghost writers to answer questions according to marketing guidelines. I do not have all the answers, but I try to tell the truth, even when it is hard to do so.