So I used the M1 on the P2 setting at level 2 around my eyes for about a 45 minute session and I’ve have pressure and pain in my eyes overnight? Feels like a eye headache? What did I do???
It could be a number of things, some of which are not related to PEMF at all, such as mechanical pressure from the coil rings around your eyes. Since I have no way of knowing exactly what you did, I cannot say.
As far as PEMF is concerned, I would suggest you may have started with a session that was way too long. The low intensity you started with was probably about right though.
I always advise starting at low intensity and only for very short periods (such as 5 minutes) to make sure you tolerate the PEMF well. Then build up cautiously from there.
As far as I am aware, there are no long-term negative effects of PEMF (I have not heard of any cases in more than 25 years of studying PEMF). Some clinicians that I know say that some initial discomfort is to be expected, and that it will go away in a few days or sooner. That is what clinicians tell me, and they typically use much larger and more powerful systems.
1 Like
“Increased circulation causes increased pressure.”
This statement is not a fact. The other statement about not being good or safe for the eyes contradicts available science and evidence.
The lack of circulation is what causes the increase of pressure in the eyes. Glaucoma results from a lack of microcirculation, increased inflammation, and/or obstruction. PEMF addresses at least two of the three issues.
Also, glaucoma pressure is virtually undetectable. Patients may not know if their pressure is low or high unless it is checked.
There are numerous studies demonstrating PEMF at various frequencies have positive effects on the eyes which are found in PubMed.
Bisvas Shutanto Kumar, Listopadova NA. Possibilities of magnetotherapy in stabilization of visual function in patients with glaucoma. Vestn Oftalmol. 1996 Jan-Mar;112(1):6-8.
- Study of PEMF therapy - 1.0 to 1.5 Hz for 10 minutes
- Vision acuity improved .16 diopters
- Visual field deficits decreased 10% in 72% of eyes and 22% versus overall in those treated
- Results stabilized after 4-5 months
Magnetotherapy designed to affect cervical sympathetic ganglia for the treatment of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Veselova EV, Kamenskikh TG, Raĭgorodkiĭ IuM, Kolbenev IO, Myshkina ES. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult. 2010 Sep-Oct;(5):21-4.
- Better results with patients in stage I and II of POAG compared to medication
- Applied to cervical spine in area of sypathetic ganglia
Tsisel’skiĭ IuV. Oftalmol Zh. 1990;(2):89-92. The effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on ocular hydrodynamics in open-angle glaucoma.
- Study flow of fluid in eye
- Rectangular pulse form frequency 50 Hz (80-85 gauss) intensity
- 7 min procedure for 10 sessions
- Increase amount of flow of fluid through outflow canals in front of eye
A possible mechanism of retina dystrophy treatment by electromagnetic field. Shlygin, V. V.; Arnautov, L. N.; Maksimov, G. V. Biofizika 38(3):507-510, 1993.
- PEMF not same in all patients
- 15-30 min treatment last for one week
- Back of eye dilates capillaries or micro circulation and gradually increases over time
- Need more sessions to achieve results
The impulse electromagnetic field in the treatment of dystrophic lesions of the retina. Skrinnik, A. V.; Kovalchuk, A. S. Oftalmol Zh(8):459-462, 1989.
- Positive influence on pathologic process of eye
- Repeat course of treatment every 3-5 months to prevent progression of damage
- Long term treatment critical for sustainable results
The characteristics of the geroprotective action of magnetotherapy in elderly patients with combined cardiovascular pathology. Abramovich SG, Fedotchenko AA, Koriakina AV, Pogodin KV, Smirnov SN. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult. 1999 Sep-Oct;(5):7-9.
- Restore overall circulation
Verzin AA. Action of gentamycin against a background of magnetotherapy of the anterior chamber in a traumatic infected erosion of the cornea. Antibiotiki. 1982 Oct;27(10):774-5.
- Repair and reduction of inflammation in the eye in general
- PEMF treatment 50 gauss, 50Hz 9 minutes
- Promoted inflammation suppression and accelerates tissue regeneration
Verzin, A. A.; Kolesnikova, L. N. Changes in the hydrodynamic parameters of the eye after exposure to a constant magnetic field. Vestn Oftalmol (1):13-15, 1981.
-
Constant magnetic field (200 Gauss) on fluid flow in eye
-
3-10 minutes exposure and reduced IOP
-
Brain stimulation on eyes, eye socket
-
Frequencies ranging 8-25 Hz - 25 min to 50 minute
-
Identified 5 spectral bands Delta 1-3 Hz, Theta 3-7 Hz, Alpha I - 7-14 Hz, Beta 14-30 Hz
-
Alternating current stimulation
-
Bernhard Sabel
-
Patients using 10 Hz nonrectangular current pulses (100 A) reduced IOP 26%
-
Patches on eyes and middle of forehead
-
40 minute treatment for 10 days and twice per week for four month visit (alpha wave)
-
https://bioelecmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42234-022-00089-9
-
Electrical neurostimulation, optic nerve stimulation
-
10 daily sessions 80 minutes each
-
Frequency pulses 5 Hz to 34 Hz
-
Pulse duration 14 to 20 miliseconds
-
Eyetronic device - Germany - stimulation via goggles
-
Improved visual field after 1 year
- Blockage inflammation in fluid channels in eye
- Can restore fluid balance and decrease eye pressure
- PEMF can reduce inflammation in back of eye and regenerate nerve tissues
3 Likes
thx for thinking this one through, supporting the perspective, and sharing 
Thank you so much for sharing such detailed information.
Based on my understanding, ICES tech does not have the potential downsides of some of these other PEMF devices that utilize a tremendous amount of energy. Those devices may potentially cause other issues, but ICES does not with such low power. In some cases, it appears that less may provide more of a beneficial biological effect. ICES has done a great job. The challenge clinically is identifying which therapeutic protocol is right for every individual. There is some experimentation but hopefully the more information that is presented with proper testing (ie IOP checks when running specific protocols over a period of time along with checking the optic nerve via OCT) we can come up with a reasonable recommended protocol for most people. Based on the evidence it appears a range of pulses have produced effective results. Thus that may be why cycling through has potential. It also appears from Sabel and Verzin research, the spectral bands may have efficacy. This remains to be seen if a combination produces benefits.
1 Like
Hi there. New to this forum. I am a normal tension glaucoma patient. I am looking into purchasing either Pemf/ ices devices to help manage my eyesight. Thank you to the person who documented the studies. My question is. Which one of the ICES devices perform the recommended wavelengths and frequencies. Thanks. Any info is greatly appreciated
You would probably want the M1 system. With that, you could follow the recommendations and observations of people on this forum.
I find that using PEMF for eyes is very helpful. I think you have to turn the power down to maybe 4.
It appears that most of the studies for eye issues (esp front of eyes) uses 30-50 Hz and all got some good results. I would like to use a device that can stay in those ranges for corneal issues. Can @Bob or any of you with experience recommend an ICES device and the correct protocol for this?
M1 or C5 in Gamma Wave mode:
1 Like