Flux Health Forum

Thoughts on Cancer

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 The fact that they do not cite specific frequencies with scientific proof, smells to me like they are attempting to sell you a “secret” or special frequency, one they they have discovered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.


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.



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.

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.



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.


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.

1 Like

Any new info to share regarding how this treatment will work on breast cancer metastasized into bone and skeleton? If so, which device would be best?

I don’t have any experience with ICES PEMF and cancer, however, I shared a couple posts on Pectasol-C. Here is one as it relates to helping prevent metastasis of cancer (but I understand this is not the same as situation where metastasis has already occurred): Treating for Depression with Benefit on Arthritis

I have not heard anything more about that lately, sorry.

Bob, could you share some more details on the cancer cases these people shared with you? Just in the interest of documenting the anecdotal evidence here.

What devices were they using? How long were they using them each day, and over how long of a period? What types of cancer were they dealing with? What changes did they specifically attribute to their use of ICES-PEMF? etc.

1 Like

Well, that’s kind of asking for something essentially impossible. It would be like someone asking you:

“For a topic where you are not an expert, and have virtually no personal or professional experience, could you please provide a structured comprehensive summary of every random conversation you have had that touches upon this topic over the past 12 or 14 years.”

Unfortunately, I am not an AI system like Chat GPT with infinite, persistent memory in a relational database.

But, I am a human with a small, wet, imperfect, slightly stroke-damaged brain with a generally good but not flawless memory. The information pool I draw from on this topic ranges from phone calls, emails, random comments in noisy rooms at scientific meetings, and occasional ZOOM discussions more recently. The nature of the discussions is rarely detailed and comprehensive with the information you have requested. More often it is a random comment, or just a question from which I can infer certain probable facts related to the circumstances in question. Often it is a series of very brief discussions, usually at highly irregular intervals, but just as often it is a random comment or observation from a person I have never met before and will never talk to again.

With all of that in mind, I will attempt to summarize what you have requested:

To begin with, at this point in time, the number of people that I know of who have tried using ICES-PEMF technology for cancer is approximately 10. This total includes both people who have used it themselves then communicated directly with me about it, as well as people who are caretakers for others, usually with whom I have not communicated. This has taken the form of many dozens of communications of various lengths over a period spanning about 14 years.

To answer each of your questions:

What devices were they using? - Essentially all of them, many older discontinued versions, and all current versions, often more than one device, sometimes only one, often not specified, but sometimes I can recall what they are using, or might be using, based on my recollection of when they were or on the basis of minute details of their observations. Often, if I ask them, they do not know and can not recall.

How long were they using them each day, and over how long of a period? - Any combination you can imagine. I try to parse this out as people talk to me and ask questions, or as we discuss it, but generally this question is unanswerable until I restructure the information in the context of a current discussion where I can make associations that enable me to recall details relevant to any particular set of circumstances in question.

What types of cancer were they dealing with? - Prostate (2 or 3), Breast (1 or 2), Lung (1 or 2), skin (1 or 2), brain (1 or 2), pancreatic (1 or 2), undisclosed or non-specific (3 or 4)
Some cases were well diagnosed, some were not, some were suspected. Some cases were highly aggressive, some were not. Some cases were very advanced and deemed terminal, some were not, some were unknown.

What changes did they specifically attribute to their use of ICES-PEMF? etc. - Some (with very advanced cases) died shortly after beginning PEMF, some died apparently before being able to try it, some decided not to try it, some reported “spontaneous” remission, usually without further detail, some reported no discernible change, one reported significant worsening of symptoms and discontinued use immediately.

The most recent case of the use of ICES-PEMF related to cancer that I know of (end of 2022) is instructive because it illustrates the kind of information I get, and how that would be difficult or impossible to summarize out of context:

This latter case was the most recent and was a person with very advanced lung cancer where most of the actual tissue damage was the result of the very aggressive radiation treatment, not the cancer itself. They had subsequently been abandoned by the medical system and transferred to palliative care mainly because of their out-of-control pulmonary inflammation resulting from the radiation damage. The oncologists and pulmonologists could not get his lung swelling under control and could not clear his lungs and were afraid to render further treatment. At that point, with no other options aside from palliative care outside the hospital, the family asked me for help.

They already owned a model A9 and had decided to try it as an absolute last-ditch effort to combat the lung inflammation. That is when they contacted me to ask for the best way to set up the device. I did not suggest that they use ICES-PEMF for cancer or related issues since I simply do not have enough knowledge or experience to make such a suggestion. But since they had already decided to try ICES-PEMF and subsequently had reached out to me and asked for set-up instructions, I offered the personal opinion that ICES-PEMF would probably dramatically reduce the swelling and lead to better lung clearance. I strongly advised caution and low-and-slow dosing initially. Of course they cranked it up to full power and proceeded to apply it all night, resulting in a rapid reduction of lung inflammation and violent expulsion of the material they had been trying to clear from his lungs. Understandably the experience was too traumatic for this person, so they discontinued use of ICES-PEMF, even though it had resulted in a “surprising” improvement in their pulse oxymetry from 72% to mid 80% oxygen saturation after the violent coughing was brought under control. Their lung inflammation returned over the next few days and they passed away shortly thereafter.

In summary I would say that there is a fair amount of information in my accessible memory banks, but it is generally only useful when I am asked questions in the context of a specific current case in question, at which time I do my best to recall and organize all relevant facts.


Apologies for sounding like I was demanding a rigorous distillation of years of random conversations. :sweat_smile: I just wanted to hear more about some of the accounts people had relayed to you about cancer and PEMF.

Thank you for sharing these additional details, especially the advice about needing to gently introduce ICES-PEMF in a delicate situation like that lung cancer case.

1 Like

next iteration of AI will be to chat botify bob so he can share his knowledge and free him up to do other tasks at the same time :sweat_smile:

I don’t want to appear like anyone is making unreasonable demands, because I do not feel that way. The way I feel is actually that many people put a lot of trust in my work and opinions, I feel a great responsibility to answer to the best of my ability, and I very often to I worry that my knowledge and skill do not measure up to the trust that people place in me.

Also, when trying to help people, I make a point to not press them for information. At most I gently suggest that more information would be generally helpful. So usually I get very incomplete sets of information.

But then I do my best, in each individual case, to recollect all related facts, statements, and observations and then arrange them into an account that I think will be most helpful in each specific case. This is fairly easy to do for orthopedic injury, for example, but nearly impossible to do for cancer. So, for the latter, I usually refrain from saying anything unless someone asks specifically, and then I do the best that I can.

1 Like

How do you know that I am not an AI bot? :wink:


I am thinking about having the M1 or C5 and other than everything I read, I would like some real example from someone who use it. So, could you tell me what king of thing you did heal, and an idea of how long you put it, how long it taked to heal. Thank you very much

Keep in mind: I am the person who invented and sells ICES-PEMF, so I have a strong bias and a financial interest.

My story (abbreviated): I designed this technology based on work I did at NASA in the late 1990’s to help me heal a badly injured and inoperable lower back. Without this technology, I cannot walk or sit, need the maximum dose of oxy, and am fully disabled.

With this technology I do not need Rx pain meds, I can walk (but wobble a bit) and I am able to raise two children and hold down several professional consulting jobs, teach full-time at a university, build a house from the ground up, run this company (Micro-pulse) and remain active in scientific research.

It works well for me, so I make it available for other people.


Funny, I was just reading this study (posted by @bettereveryday in post 7 of this thread) & was going to post it in this thread. Glad I reviewed the thread first.