talks about frequency, slew, pulse, etc…
1 Like
Interesting, thanks. I am happy to be having at least a modest impact on the PEMF discussion.
1 Like
Hi Dr. @Bob Dennis:
Would your ICES devices be sufficient to cover the same type of PEMF effectiveness as using a high powered PEMF unit? For example, i think MagnaWave puts out high powered PEMF. Or would you say your ICES devices are more comparable in therapy/efficacy as low powered PEMF devices?
Just wondered if your devices covered BOTH categories or just low powered units for covering results.
Well, that is very hard to say actually. Some of the “high powered” devices are claimed by the manufacturer to be 10x to 100x higher power than they actually are… after all, who is going to check… when was the last time you actually measured a “Gauss”?
Then again, even if they deliver a huge amount of total power; is the waveform correct? Is it efficient or just over-powered? In many experiments, I was able to show enhanced biological effects while reducing power. This got quite extreme, to the point where I am getting better and more reliable effects when only using 0.2% of the power originally used at NASA. So, that’s a 99.8% reduction of power with a noticeable improvement in biological effects.
So… is more power a good thing? not necessarily.
I have done my best to make the system as efficient and optimal as possible. but comparison with other commercial systems is really pretty much impossible, sorry. Their systems do work, apparently, most of the time. But ICES-PEMF is in some ways unlike these larger systems.
Interestingly, clinicians who use both tell me that most of the time (~67% of the time) they see positive synergistic effects when they use both: large PEMF at their clinic a few times per week + ICES-PEMF daily at home.
My opinion: I don’t think one replaces the other. I would try them in synergy and separately, see what works best for you as an individual, and go with that.
5 Likes
This was really helpful to me as I was trying to reconcile these two views, too, so thank you!
Fair warning: The following doesn’t quite fit in the realm of “sharing about the use/impacts of PEMF” specifically (it’s more about the politics of scientific knowledge, I guess), so I hope it’s not inappropriate to add to this thread. I’m happy to delete it, if it is! 
I hesitate to ask this because I hope this doesn’t inadvertently hit at any sensitive interpersonal dynamics, but I’d be really curious to know if Dr. Pawluk was also amenable to this reconciliation–namely, that the defining variable appears (understandably) to be “intensity” but is actually a number of other variables (many of which are, like Bob noted, beyond clinicians’ control).
Personally, I’m generally more convinced when well-informed and experienced researchers (like Bob) are able to break down the “how” of a given process/treatment rather than just the “what,” as I tend to think this leaves less room for (un)intended distortion. I’m also compelled when they disclose their financial interests up front. This is why I find myself putting a lot of trust in Bob’s insights and opinions. My aim in asking about this isn’t to identify who is “right” (Bob or Pawluk), but just to better understand how many folks–even those who are clearly well-meaning and have both extensive experience and insight–might come to embrace (and later defend) less-than-empirically-verifiable arguments.
I know you’ve spoken to these dynamics before, Bob (I’ve really enjoyed listening to those talks, and they’ve been SO helpful–so thank you!), so I completely understand if you’ve already shared all you’d like to share about this point. I’d of course love to hear any updates to your thinking on these matters, and would also love to hear others’ opinions, too. As a user of these technologies, trying to sift through the sea of conveniently-distorted “facts” is quite time-consuming and confusing, but I find it really helpful when I can understand HOW/why folks might be making arguments that don’t align with the (verifiable/repeatable/transparent) scientific research.
I’m genuinely enthralled by PEMF/ICES technology itself but also find it to be such a fascinating (and important) case study of the politics of (scientific/medical) knowledge production. Granted, I’m superbly biased about that and know others might not in any way share that interest–so again, I’m happy to remove this post if it’s not a good fit for this forum:)
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.
4 Likes
I’m sorry for my awful delay, Bob. It seems that in addition to your PEMF-related wisdom, I might also benefit from your ways of juggling many things at once in “the academy” and elsewhere!
And thanks so much for this thoughtful reply. It was quite helpful–it seems to me like so many unnecessarily contentious debates come down to a (usually unspoken/unrecognized) difference in what one is truly trying to do (e.g., trying to make it home on a gallon of gas, to get somewhere quickly, etc.).
Understanding how these different perspectives arise is really helpful in getting the general “lay of the land” – so thank you again!