Flux Health Forum

Suggestion: M1 or C5 for Rett Syndrome (targeting chromatin dysfunction)

Brain Injury and Neurodegenerative Diseases
#1

Hi,

This is my first “real” journey into PEMF devices. I currently have a second hand Bemer that hasn’t done much so I am looking to purchase either an M1 or a C5 specifically for helping my 3 yr old daughter’s Rett Syndrome (r133c mutation).

From the studies I have read, it looks like this specific mutation is highly affected by chromatin/mitochondria dysfunction and I was wondering if
@Bob or anyone else :slight_smile: have come across any protocols for treating chromatin or mitochondria dysfunction/Rett syndrome or suggestions on which device/protocols could be helpful.

Reasons I am looking at M1 vs C5 is the number of coils that can be used as I am looking to place them under a pillow when she is sleeping. Daytime therapy is not an option as she will not tolerate having anything on her head. I was thinking the M1 with a 2x2 or single coils could be good to target specific brain regions but might be difficult to put in place when she is sleeping. The C5 with the pad coil would work nicely under a pillow but is stimulating the entire head a good/bad idea?

Regarding protocols, I understand low and slow is the key but my daughter is non-verbal and quite “autistic” so the only feedback I could get would be observational. Any suggestions as to which protocols could be a good start?

I plan on diving into the literature to see what protocols are being used once I decide on which unit to purchase.

Thanks for any help!

What Perplexity AI has to say when asked “Can PEMF improve chromatin dysfunction in r133c” :

PEMF (Pulsed Electromagnetic Field) therapy shows potential in improving chromatin dysfunction, including conditions associated with mutations like R133C in the MeCP2 gene. Here are the ways PEMF may help address chromatin dysfunction specifically related to this mutation:

Mechanisms of Action

  1. Epigenetic Modifications:

    • PEMF therapy has been shown to induce epigenetic changes that can enhance gene expression and chromatin structure. Studies suggest that PEMF can promote neurogenesis by affecting regulatory sequences of genes involved in stem cell proliferation and differentiation, potentially counteracting the dysregulation caused by the R133C mutation[4].

  2. Cellular Stress Reduction:

    • The R133C mutation can lead to increased cellular stress and inflammation, which negatively impact chromatin integrity. PEMF therapy is known to reduce oxidative stress and enhance cellular health by modulating ion fluxes and improving mitochondrial function, thereby potentially alleviating some of the stress effects on chromatin[1][5].

  3. Enhancement of Gene Expression:

    • By promoting a more favorable chromatin environment, PEMF may facilitate increased accessibility for transcription factors, thereby enhancing gene expression. This is particularly relevant for genes that may be downregulated due to the R133C mutation’s impact on MeCP2 function[4][6].

  4. Neuroprotective Effects:

    • In models of neurodegenerative diseases, PEMF has demonstrated protective effects against cognitive decline and neuronal damage. These neuroprotective properties could help maintain neuronal health in conditions affected by MeCP2 mutations, potentially improving overall chromatin function within neuronal cells[6].

  5. Stem Cell Activation:

    • PEMF has been shown to influence stem cell biology positively, promoting neurogenic and osteogenic processes. This activation could help restore normal cellular functions disrupted by chromatin dysfunction associated with the R133C mutation[4].

Conclusion

PEMF therapy may improve chromatin dysfunction related to the R133C mutation in MeCP2 through mechanisms such as inducing beneficial epigenetic modifications, reducing cellular stress, enhancing gene expression, providing neuroprotective effects, and activating stem cell processes. These actions collectively contribute to restoring normal chromatin dynamics and cellular function, which could be particularly beneficial in managing conditions like Rett syndrome associated with this mutation.

#2

This may be true, Generally I think Perplexity AI is pretty good, so long as you check the references for bias and accuracy.

My suggestion is to consider using a lower pulse rate protocol, such as Alpha Wave, Delta, or Theta.

#3

Thanks for the protocol suggestions.

Do you have a suggestion/opinion if the smaller M1 single 2x2 could would provide enough of an area to be effective or would the C5 with larger taped coil pad be better?

#4

The M1 does not run a 2x2 array very well, so I would suggest getting the new P9, which is better for that application. It runs exactly the same programs as the M1, but handles larger arrays better:

#5

You may try it with a tripple-folded “Buff” as shown in the picture. This is a migraine-setup where the coils can be moved to the affected points. This is super-lightweight with the M1. As @Bob suggested the P9 may be better for the 2*2 coil, but that I find impractical for the head as the P9 is more bulky there.

Here is my P9-Review: Click me! - in the review I have links to my other reviews -> M1 and C5. Maybe they are helpful to you, because I’ve also summarized some application tips out of the forum.

And as a side-note: We have the C5, 2 * M1 and a P9 here. We use them as appropriate. C5 is cool for larger stationary setups.

As a side-note: Bemer uses sinus waves. And when you look to the NASA studies, partly carried out by @Bob himself, you will find that they have basically no effect in comparison to the other wave forms. This does not mean, that Bemer does nothing, but - I think you know what I mean :wink:

Best,
Hans

ices-headband2
ices-headband21614×418 58.9 KB

ices-headband1
ices-headband1505×650 21.3 KB

#6

@Bob and @hcf - Thanks so much for the tips on the P9 and the buff headband technique. That might actually work when she is watching a show.

@hcf Thanks for the blog link. I read through the comparison of the P9 vs M1 and found it really useful. I will look at other posts you have regarding general ICES. I was wondering if the P9 you have is still for sale? I will send you an email too :slight_smile:

Happy holidays and I appreciate all the help.

#7

@Bob I was wondering if you have any data on how deep the magnetic field penetration is (ex. Skulle or chest) for the M9 with and without coils? And how to calculate the intensity with distance. I recall from you youtube video on Parkinsons that the signal decay is a 1/d^3 but does material density have any effect on that value?

Just trying to gauge if the M9 with/without coils would penetrate the entire skull for a toddler as well as adult

#8

@nola

Issue is, that the intensity of the field will not be equal anyway and no one knows the right position. The P9 has 20% more “ompphhh” then the double-coils on a M1/C5. With a C5 you can stack 8 coils according to @Bob . But this may be a bit drastic!

With the head - start slow! My wife uses Omni / Alpha at 15 with single coils with migraine. But this is the only time she does such a drastic thing, because a real migraine is a drastic thing.

No one knows how to do “targeted” epigenetic expression modulation with PEMF.

There is some medically approved russian low-power MMW/EHF tech, using “scanned” bioinformation and feeding them back as resonant background signal, which some claim it does cause good epigenetic changes, but I’ve seen no effect from that stuff up to now.

#9

@hcf is correct and probably explains it better than I can.

Basically, and I hope you take this the right way, PEMF marketers have put decades of effort into making the general public believe that PEMF is an exact science, and that anyone can understand it. Neither of these is true of course, but they weave this illusion to play on people’s ego and their hope for a cure. But honestly, all such representations are essentially just marketing fraud in my opinion.

Having read essentially every paper on PEMF, published in every language (over 2000 total), and having done a lot of replication and novel experiments myself, I think the best we could say is that:

  • With the correct waveform shape, PEMF seems to have broad beneficial effects on biological systems, mostly complex organisms (plants and animals), but not so much on simpler microorganisms outside of symbiotic relationships with complex organisms, so far as I can tell.

  • The dosage of PEMF seems to be related to the number of edges of each wave pulse that exceeds a threshold value measured in Gauss/second.

We do not know exact values, and it does not seem to depend directly on Gauss, so it does not relate directly to such concepts as “penetration depth”.

But crucially, even focal PEMF has regional and even whole-organism effects. This seems to be true for most things in medicine and biology: food, sunlight, medicines, many things. Sunlight, for example, influences the entire body, not just the skin to a certain depth.

So, with all that said, the best we can do is to find the most effective and energy efficient pulse waveforms possible (I have been working on that for about 25 years), then apply them, then see what happens. As @hcf points out, no one really knows how to do targeted and specific anything with PEMF. Even if you had PhDs in physics and biology, and studied PEMF all your life, you could not calculate what you are asking for based on measured electro-magnetic field values. No one can calculate it. There is not even a simple scientific consensus that PEMF works at all… not even a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Calculating targeted effects are way beyond anything anyone can actually do at this time.

So, unfortunately that’s the reality as I have come to understand it.

But nonetheless we do know quite a lot about PEMF by direct experience, trial, and experiment. What numbers we do understand are already baked into the ICES-PEMF waveforms, so you do not need to worry about that any more than you need to know the physical dimensions of the magnetron in your microwave oven. Beyond that, the best we can do is try, observe, use common sense and consider the observations of others who have done so.

So, in my opinion:

  • Start at low intensity and short duration
  • Do not try to calculate a dosage or precise targeting of effects.
  • Do be very cautious, observe closely, take written notes, make small adjustments every few days, and look for subtle changes that may result

My opinion: I would probably use a P9 at low intensity (5 or 6 at most) for 10 minutes to start. Increase duration first and closely observe to detect any resulting discomfort. Repeat and adjust daily.