Flux Health Forum

Thoughts on Cancer

I have about 6 different reports from people, unsolicited, that they used PEMF on cancer of various types. The results they told me about were pretty unbelievable, but this is such a serious topic, I am concerned that I might be hearing only the positive. They were not specific about how they used it, so I will refrain from speculating until I know more.

3 Likes

I know many alternative cancer centres use high power PEMF, and have also heard some stories but its not a magic bullet. I know some one who used it at a center, she wasn’t really into it, just went along with what her husband suggested and she didn’t make it. I also know that the guy that has the popular Truly Heal website loves PEMF and teaches using it to his students and in his presentations…he also uses it a lot himself. He also still has cancer. He has had it for many years and uses it as a barometer to let him know when he is off track with diet and lifestyle as it get larger!!

I think PEMF is often used directly over tumours as a stand alone treatment, but more for its apparent ability to cause increased circulation and electroporation. (I wanted to ask you about that on another thread). Some use it before Vitamin C infusions as they say it increases uptake into the tumour, I heard one doctors speaking…can’t think of the name right now, but he spoke about using PEMF before chemo to impact the tumour more effectively.

Would be good to heard directly from some one that has done it regular. In time im sure this forum will fill up and we will hear from some doctors.

Thank you for being careful.

I find it challenging to talk about it with cancer. My dog was diagnosed with cancer. He was expected to die within the weekend with a month max, and he is doing exceptionally well 10 months later. The problem I have is that I tried a lot of things. Water fasting blew me away. That is what I would do if I had cancer symptoms again. I used the ICES with the water fasting, but water fasting sped things up so fast that within 2 weeks, my dog went from barely being able to stand up to where I had to yell at him to get out of the neighbor’s yard. Radical, swift results. I used this with it and believe that it would help because water fasting gives people and dogs a brand new immune system within a week and brings down heme oxygenase-1, which is what they believe tricks the immune system into protecting the cancer, rather than getting rid of it. It seems to me that most of the truly exciting research in cancer nowadays involves the immune system. That includes nutrition where you can eat blueberries and double your natural killer cells and eat cardamom and have those natural killer cells work twice as effectively and broccoli releases the toot soldiers of the immune system and there is a broccoli receptor in our immune system. That, plus turkey tail mushrooms or maitake mushrooms or all types of mushrooms and garlic and onions and cruciferous or even people getting healed of prostate cancer eating tomato paste every day. For me, I see PEMF as an adjuct therapy for cancer, mostly because if it works like Tumor Treating Fields, those took a full year to get rid of a glioblastoma. Most people are not consistent enough to do that long of a process.

That is my opinion.

1 Like

Just based on my understanding of the science, I think fasting is extremely potent against cancer, and I suspect PEMF will amplify that effect as well as other nutritional benefits when eating. Not based on direct knowledge, just my scientific opinion.

2 Likes

Have any lab tests been done with the ICES for the various mechanisms?

For me, who has brain problems and limited understanding of the science, I have been pondering the potential mechanisms.

  1. Does it prevent cancer from dividing the way the tumor treating fields do? What is the difference between it and a tumor treating field set up?

  2. Some of the alternative cancer communities see a mechanism of the blood bringing oxygen into the cells because they aren’t stuck together. Is there information on how long that affect on the blood lasts? The fact that hyperbaric oxygen improves the effect of Keto by 30%, increased oxygen might be a mechanism.

  3. Does it enhance immunotherapy is my question? Does it lower heme oxygenase-1? Lots of people cannot water fast and if this accomplished any of the similar immune system effects, those would be powerful.

What I mean is that fasting causes people to have their immune system renewed in the space of a week. It would be very interesting to me if the ICES lowered heme-oxygenase-1 or caused an immune system renewing to happen faster or longer. Mimicking fasting, which does those things causes chemotherapy to be less toxic to the body and causes immunotherapy to be more effective.

  1. There is a doctor or chiropractor who said that he was able to use structured water to heal cancer patients. (They did show that the blood didn’t stick together after drinking it.)

  2. You mentioned alkalizing in your list of reasons people use it and I ask if there is any data on that?

Okay, those are my thoughts. If any lab people could prove it did any of the things useful to make chemo less toxic or immunotherapy more effective, those would be huge.

If it could possibly lower heme-oxygenase-1, the concept of getting the immune system to recognize that cancer is cancer and not protect it would be so powerful.

I used it as an adjunct to water fasting (My logic was that if it took a year for the gioblastoma to disappear, that getting the immune system to see the cancer and to be strong enough to fight it was the way to go.)

Short answer:
Mechanisms are basic science
Basic science requires the infrastructure of a major university
NIH funds basic science at all major universities
NIH thinks PEMF is rubbish
… good luck getting funded

Okay, yes, I understand that. I am simplistic. It really helped my dog. I will find out in a few months whether his tumor is gone, but either way, he was supposed to die quickly and it is 10 months later and he looks great and I am not doing any special diet or anything and haven’t been doing anything except giving him some plant food with his dog food for the past 5 months. I had tried things like CBD oil, which made his tumors grow and turkey tail mushrooms, which I believe in, but the supplements all got expensive until I water fasted him. I couldn’t afford to keep him alive anymore and told the vet that, but then I water fasted him and used the ICES and he improved so dramatically,

Purdue University did a dog study where they just gave raw vegetables to the dog with their kibble 3 days per week and it lowered the rate of cancer by 90%. That is all I am doing now. The ICES is working on my brain and my dog is eating vegetables.

I was just looking at PEMF studies on PubMed and there was one warning which tells me that it is important to get things right when using it for cancer.

Have you any thoughts on what it does with regards to cancer?

Have you read Dr Jerry Tennant book Healing is Voltage : Cancers on/off switches?

I need to say this very clearly: I DO NOT think you are simplistic at all. The problem is that you are an honest person trying to make sense of a broken system (federally-funded medical research).

We definitely need to understand the basic mechanisms of PEMF, but we are not getting any help from the federally-funded grant system. And since all research universities seek their primary funding from that system, this type of research is generally unwelcome there.

So, my opinion is the best method we have available to us now is to observe what happens when using PEMF. Searching for molecular mechanisms is important and would be very helpful, but that route may be closed to us for a while. What we have is what anyone can do: try, record, and observe. At some point there will be a breakthrough or a change to the research system that allows real innovation, and that is when we could start studying the fundamental mechanisms of PEMF. Until then, I actually think clinical and careful observations of organismal responses are the most helpful research tool we have for PEMF.

My comments as a scientist on the abstract for this study:
(engaging my full scientific scrutiny)
–The field strength and waveform shape are probably too low to have reliable effects.
–Sine wave PEMF, if it works at all, is almost certainly very different from square or trapezoidal wave PEMF.
–8, 16, 32, and 64 Hz are probably not different enough physiologically to elicit different biological responses.
–Biological responses are extremely variable, but they give no indication of the variability in the abstract. In my opinion, it is likely they are just reporting random effects that narrowly achieve statistical significance.
–The experiments were conducted in culture with cells in isolation. But the effect may rely upon cells acting within the context of a much more complex living system. For example, this does nothing to show how healthy cells interact with cancerous cells in a complex vascularized tissue.
–The stimulation interval (30 minutes every 12 hours) was probably inadequate for this type of study.

Of course, keep in mind, I do not study cancer, and I know almost nothing about it per se. But I do know about how to test PEMF, and I know about biological models that are and are not appropriate for testing PEMF.

It is almost certain that, if the same people in the same laboratory were to use the same cell types under the same conditions, they would get different results. Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science, and there is not much you can say from (most) individual scientific papers. For the results to really be believable, they need to be repeated by someone else, somewhere else… usually multiple times.

My opinion: it is only appropriate to run such restrictive, in-vitro tests when studying a fundamental biophysical mechanism, not to try to demonstrate a clinical benefit or establish cell or tissue-level behavior. When looking at cellular behavior of a complex disease such as cancer when exposed to something as poorly understood as PEMF, it is essential to study the cells in a more realistic tissue environment. But that is much more complex to do and much more expensive, so scientists often use the wrong type of experiment just to give the appearance that they are making progress.

I never thanked you for this answer.

I was reading what people wrote about PEMF and Cancer and came across this tonight. I also looked up the studies, but the groups which had cancer disappear was using it for so much longer than that other study, but not nearly as long as the nonunion fracture study, where 3 hours or less was so much less likely to succeed.

Scroll down to Cancer as topic.

https://www.amtcare.com/pulsed-electromagnetic-field-therapy-pemf-in-cancer.html

1 Like

Wow that’s really good stuff! Thank you for posting that link.

This link from above-https://www.amtcare.com/pulsed-electromagnetic-field-therapy-pemf-in-cancer.html
mentions “tumor specific PEMF frequencies”
But they don’t specify how they determined what frequencies they mean, or how they determined them.
I have a B5 which is very programmable to try different frequencies, but how can I determine the frequency of my kidney tumor?

1 Like

Crabbman, I want to help you but the first part of this requires me to give you some “tough love”, some difficult truths that will seem cold and dismissive, but my intent is to inform, not discourage.

We face four problems that act anti-synergistically to make the situation regarding PEMF far worse than any one problem alone could. First, the incentive to monetize PEMF and similar technologies is ferocious. Second, our scientific understanding of the mechanisms of action of PEMF are very poorly understood. Third, draconian regulatory practices prevent the truth from being widely and clearly asserted. Add to this a simple fact: it is much easier to spew out made-up pseudoscience than it is to carefully measure and test and build up scientific facts.

These four things together have resulted in a Wild-West type of market for PEMF where dis-information and greed and bad science dominate the discussion.
Marketers and profiteers pretend to be knowledgeable about the science (which mostly does not really exist) in order to build enough credibility to make a sale. Technical words such as “Gauss” and “frequency” and “resonance” and many others get abused and misused, and the result is a torrent of pseudoscientific jargon and nonsense. People who are ill and crippled and desperate spend the last few years of their lives trying to untangle this mess in an attempt to find the truth. Eventually, they conclude that the best thing to do is to just write a check for the product from the best-sounding PEMF salesman. And, sadly, this is how the PEMF market works.

It is my opinion (and bear in mind, I have been wrong before), that such claims as “frequency-specific” PEMF are nothing more than marketing fraud. I have written and spoken about this kind of thing extensively, and there are no short explanations or “proofs” because of the four core problems we face (as above), but briefly, I see absolutely no convincing scientific evidence for “frequency-specific” PEMF effects. The fact that they do not cite specific frequencies with scientific proof, smells to me like they are attempting to sell you a “secret” or special frequency, one they they have discovered through their murky “science”, and that ultimately, the only way for you to get access to their “secret” is to buy it from them by buying their machine.

Regulatory agencies were created to prevent this kind of behavior, but ironically, by suppressing the voices of those who are trying to tell the truth, they inadvertently strengthen the voices of people who are willing to break the law and violate the basic principles of human decency and integrity by committing acts of intentional fraud.

Until this fundamental problem is fixed, we must face the fact that the voices of greed and fraud are much louder than the voices of scientific truth and honesty.

With all of that on the table, here is what I think I know:
PEMF does not act through the use of precise “frequencies” or massive “Gauss” levels. All of the available evidence scientifically and anecdotally suggests to me that PEMF acts broadly over a wide range of frequencies that may vary somewhat for different tissue systems (brain vs. bone, for example). The focus on “Gauss” is the result of a common scientific mistake that I have discussed in detail in many places. The reality of PEMF seems to be that it can work from pretty well to amazingly well for a wide range of conditions, even when using a wide range of different frequencies and without the need for excessive “Gauss” levels. And the truth is that no one is sure why. This lack of scientific knowledge is also true for a lot of other medical technologies, more than anyone wants to admit, but it is particularly true for PEMF.

What matters most, and I have discussed this at length in many other places, is the pulse shape, not “frequency” or “Gauss”. There are solid technical reasons why this might be true, and careful experiments support this finding. This is a matter of ongoing study, so it is not fully understood or “proven” yet.

But the bottom line is this: if someone uses PEMF approximately correctly (basically any waveform that approximates a “square wave” at a pulse rate in the range of about 1 to 100 Hz), they will get a beneficial effect for just about any condition they try it on. Great! They think they have discovered something, so now how do they distinguish it from other forms of PEMF and sell it? Well, they start to make stuff up, pseudo-scientific rubbish…special frequencies… nonsense like that.

So now, to answer your question: how do you use your PEMF system to achieve their “special frequency”?

Answer: do not waste your time searching for their special frequency. It is just made-up nonsense. The only special function it does perform is the one where you get your check book out.

Caveat: some experienced PEMF clinicians have found that certain ranges of pulse rates do seem to work somewhat better than others for some types of tissues or conditions. They base this on decades of clinical experience. You can tell these people by the fact that they share these “frequencies” openly. They want people to have this knowledge. In these cases, their advice is probably helpful.

My opinion: try your device using any reasonable pulse pattern. For our devices (C5, B5, A9, M1) these are set as the defaults, but in general these are patterns such as; Omni8, Schuman4, Alpha Wave, B5-C5. These patterns seem to work well for most people for most things. Crucially, all of them use the same individual pulse waveform, even though the pulse pattern varies. So, my opinion would be to try these, try to find a way to keep track of the changes that result, perhaps improvements that can be tracked with laboratory test results, and be persistent. But do not alter or discontinue your other medical treatments in the hopes that you will discover a special secret frequency.

3 Likes

Thanks Bob, for your detailed reply. I don’t mind the “tough love” at all. I’m familiar with the conditions you describe. I still keep an optimistic attitude that someone may make a breakthrough in this area. We’re in the beginning stage of a promising therapy, which is why I don’t get discouraged easily.
But until we have more specifics, I will take your advice to try different default modes, Schumann, B5 etc. that you have programmed in. Do you have any advice for power levels for kidney or should I just try mid range?
Also you mentioned that some clinicians have freely shared settings they found helpful for cancer. Can you direct me to any of that information?
I don’t have a long window in mind for this until I get re-checked, and if I don’t see results, I will get surgery because it is a small tumor, and I want my kidney to stay functional. Thanks again.

1 Like

OK, I am glad you get the spirit and meaning of my reply. Occasionally I encounter people who have a “paralysis of perfection”, needing a precise frequency before they will try anything. I have seen the sad consequences of paralysis by analysis. I have watched a few people very stubbornly delay any action for up to 18-24 months waiting for a solid answer that simply does not exist. I really do think, based on many thousands of individual anecdotal reports on a huge range of conditions, that it is best to start early and experiment and take note as you progress.

For power level, I would stay in the range 8 - 11, and pay attention to your response. You may find that your sensitivity and responsiveness change over time, and it could go either way. Over time, you may feel that you need more, or you may feel that it needs to be reduced a bit in intensity.

Clinician information: the best source for your specific questions might be William Pawluk, M.D. He is easy to find on the internet (drpawluk.com) and he does give consultation (for a fee) I believe, but you would have to ask. I am not sure what he is doing right at this time.

He recently (2017) wrote a pretty comprehensive book (PEMF: Power tools for health) which is available on amazon. That is a good resource to get started I think.

I really hope this helps you, and if you have any relevant observations as you go, please let us know.

3 Likes

Bob,

Firstly, I wanted to thank you, and commend you on creating a great business, platform, and products based on science, integrity, and compassion, in order to find, differentiate, and determine the truth.

Regretfully, per the subject of this thread, I have a couple of inquiries regarding PEMF treatments and cancer.

My wife is currently battling Stage IV Breast Cancer that has metastasized to her bones/skeletal system, liver, and multiple lymph nodes.

She has extensive bone involvement and pain, which is one of the major reasons we’re looking into purchasing the M1 or C5 units.

I’m aware of other “potential” benefits regarding the effects of PEMF treatments on one’s health, even potentially cancer, however, are there any contraindications that an individual should be concerned or aware of when using said devices on or around areas that have surgically implanted titanium rods, screws, or other forms of metallic implants/“hardware”.

We currently have access to the A9 model. Would using this device be advisable on, around, or for individuals with medically implanted metallic devices? Specifically, my wife has a titanium rod and screws placed within her right femur and the head of the trochanter, and I hope to determine the safety, or any contraindications of using any PEMF devices, including mats, on or around those areas.

Lastly, any additional sources of information or links you can provide related PEMF and cancer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

In health,

1 Like

Thanks for your kind words. OK, this is a very difficult topic and I am not an expert in oncology, but I will do my best to answer each question in turn, keeping in mind of course that this is just my opinion, and is not clinical advice.

I can’t point you to any specific scientific references that prove the following, but if you spend a lifetime studying PEMF and reading every paper available in every language, you will begin to formulate the following opinions. But keep in mind, scientific papers don’t “prove” anything, they rarely even tell you what they say in their title, and they almost never point you to a practical, useful, reliable solution for anything. Trust me, if there was any nugget of really rock-solid information on PEMF and any difficult disease state, it would be all over every form of media. But there isn’t. It is mostly a growing consensus, based on many disconnected data points, usually in agreement that PEMF can really help. But you are not going to find an uncontested paper that says unequivocally:
“PEMF will cure X if you do Y.”
Marketers say that kind of rubbish, scientists do not.

So, if you spend 20+ years combing over every bit of information on PEMF that you can lay hands on, you will likely form the following opinions:

1- When properly applied, PEMF does not seem to have any contra-indications. Some systems are ultra-over powered, some are entirely fraudulent, and some are just poorly designed, and to that extent, the use of PEMF may be harmful. But if you use a reasonable PEMF system in a reasonable way, I do not know of any reports of serious or permanent harm.

2-IMPLANTS: Originally I had concerns, but the use of PEMF with metal implants seems to have an overall beneficial effect: reduced swelling, reduced or eliminated pain, faster healing, and better engraftment of implants with bone are the four leading ones in my opinion. Sometimes people report tingling on or near implants when they first try PEMF, but they say it is not entirely uncomfortable, and they feel better afterward, and the feeling does not return after a few days of daily use.

3- A9 SAFE? Nothing is safe. Nothing. Absolutely, positively, categorically nothing. People can hurt themselves with anything (water, air, bad advice), and you need only visit the FDA website to see pages and pages of drugs and devices that were withdrawn from the market after having been approved as “safe and effective”, but were subsequently found to be unsafe. With that being said, many people, including myself, have used an A9 (as well as other Micro-Pulse devices) on titanium implants. Every report, including my own personal experience, has been positive. I have heard no reports of negative consequences.

4-Additional Sources/Links. The best source of honest information is right here. You should also read the book by Pawluk (PEMF: Power tools for health), and his blog. There have been some papers on PEMF and cancer (just type in the search terms PEMF cancer and you will find many papers). But you will also find a lot of marketing. Lots and lots and lots of marketing. And even if you did track down these sources, you will ultimately find them unsatisfying, like chasing a rainbow. This is because they never, ever, tell you what you really want to know: “How can I be assured that using PEMF to cure X will be safe and effective?”

There are simply no assurances, no clear answers. This is immensely frustrating to me, because people have been studying PEMF for 5 decades and have published about a thousand scientific papers on it. And mostly the results are astonishingly good. The anecdotal evidence is beyond counting. And yet, no one knows anything for sure.

BOTTOM LINE:
There is no assurance, no secret knowledge, no hidden link. But if you look at the Big Picture, clearly PEMF is helpful for very many things, it does not seem to be harmful, not in a detectable way at least, and in each individual case, the only way to know is to decide for yourself whether the risk is worth it, and then, if you decide to, try it for yourself.

Especially with very advanced cases of cancer, it is difficult to say anything. And I have not tried it on myself because I have never had cancer. But I have had seven people now, several of them close friends, try ICES-PEMF on their cancer and they have all told me that it was helpful. Their responses ranged from help with swelling and pain management, all the way to astonishing outcomes. I still find some of it hard to believe. The cases that people reported to me were typically advanced and aggressive cancers.

But I can tell you one thing absolutely for sure: when the day comes that I am personally faced with cancer I will not delay one millisecond. I will see first-hand, for myself, how well it works (or not), and if this forum is still active, I will post it here.

4 Likes

Bob,

Thank you for the timely and detailed response!

I trust and greatly appreciate your knowledge and opinions.

I’ll continue researching per your recommendations, and look forward to continued learning and correspondence with all contributors within this forum.

Appreciatively,

1 Like

I definitely agree that using ICES-PEMF is a great tool and I will try it immediately for any health condition. After using the M1 for a year I am convinced how powerful and useful this tool and the technology is. I have treated different conditions and areas on myself and the results are always surprising. I get the results I want, but other beneficial things happen along with them. I definitely agree that having a C5 would be very useful though. While the M1 is very powerful and amazing, it only has one output. I would very much like to have more active coils running simultaneously. I think that would be amazing.