In my opinion, this kind of post is perfectly reasonable for this forum. Philosophically, it addresses the issue of how we know what we know and how people formulate their opinions about it. This relates directly to PEMF and many other issues of importance.
I’d like to start by saying that I’ve known Bill Pawluk for about a decade and have a lot of respect for him personally and professionally. Unfortunately, we live in a time where people think that intellectual disagreements are the basis for the justification for uncertainty, contempt and derision. It turns out however that all of the most enlightened periods of humanity, across all times and cultures, has been the result of a healthy attitude toward debate, disagreement, and the rational path toward consensus. I do not want to debate this, it is historical fact.
So, I am happy to cheerfully disagree with my friends and colleagues, and I am very happy to consider evidence in support of their opinions if they conflict with mine, and I will be happy to change my opinion when an error of fact or judgement is brought to my attention.
This being said, I have explained (with ever-increasing mountains of evidence) in public as well as privately to Bill and others, that the key parameters for PEMF are not “Gauss” and “frequency”. Those are secondary to the primary parameters. This is a nuanced argument. It is like asking which is more important: speed, distance, or time?
Well, they are all related by a single equation (d = r t), and which is more important depends on what you are talking about. Given any two, the third can be calculated. But which is more important?
If you are trying to make it home on a gallon of gas, then distance is most important
If you want to get somewhere quickly, then speed is most important
If you want to finish listing to a song, then time is most important
But all three parameters are inextricably connected.
Now consider PEMF. The relationships between variables are not just simple algebra. They involve complex calculus and differential equations. Also, we do not know the molecular mechanisms of what is happening with PEMF, so we do not know exactly what is doing what. And human sensitivity to PEMF varies. Importantly, people have different expectations and needs. Many people want to “feel something” from PEMF, and they want it once and done in 10-15 minutes. These people will generally gravitate to the “more power” explanations.
But the fact is that all of the variables and parameters are interwoven. Higher amplitude pulses generally (but not always) leads to higher dB/dt (the key PEMF parameter), so people will naturally assume that more power = better PEMF. But more is not always better, and this approach leads to horrible electro-magnetic inefficiency (like, on the order of 99.8% inefficiency).
So, why does Bill not see the strength of my arguments about PEMF parameters?
He may:
1- simply disagree (I am fine with that)
2- find them too complex (his background is not in the hard sciences)
3- find them inconvenient from a marketing perspective. People will pay a lot for power, but generally not for subtlety.
I like Bill, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.