That’s an interesting survey. I found the answers for “side effects” very educational.
And yes, the proprietor of the Gerson Therapy center that I attended said the same: it just made everything else about the therapy work more effectively. He put every patient on the Bemer, and encouraged everyone to buy one for home use. Of course, he was a part of the Bemer MLM, so he had a huge bias.
yes, I hear that MLM is pretty much like a cult. Need to be a bit cautious.
Diving into the technical speculation: It’s my scientific opinion that PEMF likely acts at several different cellular/molecular levels by different mechanisms. BEMR is very different from most other PEMF devices, and utterly different from ICES-PEMF. Thus, they may elicit one of the important effects of PEMF, but not all of them. I think that is generally true for the various different forms of PEMF that seem to work, but somewhat differently for different applications.
Here’s a study which adds weight to your experience of PEMF increasing the therapeutic benefit of the vaccine - Enhanced effect of combining bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs) and pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) to promote recovery after spinal cord injury in mice - Huang - 2022 - MedComm - Wiley Online Library
Interesting! I see the parallel!
Pawluk has a device on his website FlexPulse, how does it compare to ICES products? Pawluk is listed on Almagia’s website (endorsement?) and how their tech compare to ICES products? Anyone have experience with either of these companies?
FP was developed by Pawluk’s business partner when they decided not to promote our ICES-PEMF because their profit margin would not be enough. So, they basically tried to knock off our technology, build it cheap in Eastern Europe, put it in a shiny plastic case, and sell it for more than three times our MSRP. I know they had pretty bad technical problems with the FP product because many of their customers ended up contacting us for technical support because they were not responding. They had a very serious quality problem, but I’m just not interested in managing the warranty problems for a competing company that essentially pirated my technology because I price capped it to protect the consumer from price gouging… Anyway, do whatever you want with that information.
Almagia: My opinions - Their tech is based on very out-dated soviet magnetic technology from the 1960’s, and the company itself is one of those that is known to focus on the hustle and hype of PEMF. They have recently done a corporate make-over and the CEO has been trying to connect with me on LinkedIn for some reason, but I have no interest because I believe they bring nothing of value to the table. This is the kind of company that will get PEMF listed as “massage device” with the FDA to take advantage of a regulatory loophole rather than just being honest about what they have.
Either of these product lines probably work (most commercial PEMF does, more or less), so if that is what you want, there is certainly plenty of it out there. Caveat Emptor.
What is best for inflammation and cartilage repair? Radio-wave frequency (rife pemf) or something else?
We should definitely know the answer to this (and many similar) questions by now… but we don’t.
Why?:
Marketers have filled the information space with fraudulent claims about this topic.
Mainstream scientists have pretty much ignored it.
Clinicians claim that whatever device they happen to have in their clinic works pretty well (?), and they will be happy to treat you for about $100 for a 20-minute session.
My opinion:
Radio frequency energy might have some benefits, but any solid evidence for this is sketchy and inconsistent. The biological effects of radio frequencies remains very controversial.
Rife… maybe, I have my doubts, but some clinicians swear by it.
PEMF in general (all forms) seems to be helpful, but once again, evidence is sketchy and inconsistent. There is a huge body of published scientific work on the subject of PEMF, but I have evaluated it in detail and I conclude that approximately 97% of all published scientific papers on PEMF are irreproducible, meaning that they do not include enough methodological detail for anyone to actually repeat and verify the experiment, meaning that these papers are essentially useless.
This is my biased opinion based on solid, repeatable experiments done at a third-party certified testing laboratory (CRL):
ICES®-PEMF reduces inflammation by at least 62% in the rat carageenan challenge model, which is the gold standard for identifying new anti-inflammatory drugs and devices. These results are further supported by subsequent dose-response testing of ICES®-PEMF in a certified testing laboratory. The conclusion of the Director of Inflammation Studies at CRL was:
“Your device (ICES®-PEMF) has a much greater effect on the reduction of inflammation than any other electro-magnetic device we have tested, which is pretty much all of the commercially available ones”.
Note: this was their conclusion when the studies were conducted (2013), but better PEMF systems have entered the market since then. Also, I do not think they comprehensively tested all PEMF devices on the market. So, I would caution that their conclusions apply only to those PEMF systems that had actually been submitted for testing before 2013.
These test results meet the highest scientific standards (independent, certified, GLP testing to accepted industrial and scientific standards) and are all verifiable, so why don’t I post them all over the Internet? Because the moment I do so, PEMF marketers will take a screen shot of them, then post them on their website as “proof” that their PEMF product works, even though this testing had nothing to do with their specific PEMF device. Therefore, I make these independent ICES-PEMF test results available in full only to legitimate scientists, not the general public. These studies have been published in part as a doctoral dissertation, and I will eventually publish these results in a scientific paper, but that takes time and there are more details to finish before it is ready. But the results are very solid:
ICES-PEMF significantly reduces inflammation.
Hi Bob, have you tested a randomized pattern that would be similar to a tRNS (transcranial random noise stimulation)? Is there a possibility it would be a feature on future devices?
Yes I have. But it did not seem to confer a benefit more than a deterministic series of pulse patterns, so I do not include that feature in current ICES-PEMF devices. Reason: The internal microcontroller has limited memory. I already use the largest memory capacity variant of the microcontroller, and the current firmware pretty much uses up all of the available memory, so any feature that is added means that I have to remove another feature. It’s an endless trade-off.
Hi Bob, I have had an M1 for approx 5 years and have been using it on and off for a variety of applications with solid results. It’a a great little unit, keep up the great work. Earlier this year we bought a BCX ULTRA DELUXE Plasma / Rife Machine from (https://whitmantec.com/plasma-detox-therapy/). We are thinking of adding their PEMF (https://whitmantec.com/mat-therapy/) Solution. We are wondering if you had time to run through the specs and provide some feedback on its merits. Especially pros/cons of being able to run any frequency (with limitations) through the PEMF mat. Thanks for your consideration in advance. Thanks John
Hi @jrb1743, I am very glad to know that the M1 was helpful for you. Thanks for letting everyone know.
Answering your question about a RIFE machine:
Clinical effectiveness: There is no way to really know whether or not any electro-magnetic device is biologically effective unless people use it, especially clinically, and then are willing to share their unbiased observations.
Technical specifications: This consideration is entirely separate from clinical effectiveness. Most electro-magnetic devices currently on the market seem to be of at least some clinical value. But the claims and technical specs of these machines generally are deeply fraudulent. There is no way to know what they really do compared to what they claim to do from an electro-magnetic perspective (not clinical) unless you do a thorough technical reverse-engineering and assessment. This would cost about as much as a nice house in a nice city. Also, it is well known among people in this industry that the technical specs of these devices are off by a factor of 10x to 100x at best at least 90% of the time. So, it is basically impossible to know anything based solely on the published specs of any electro-magnetic health-related product.
And since I have zero personal or clinical experience with any RIFE device, I would suggest that the only way for you to make a decision before you buy is to get as many opinions from people who have used the device, from as many people as you can who you trust. Testimonials are utterly useless - think: “cherry-picked paid or placebo biased statements”.
I suppose your other option is to Buy and Try. Make sure to get, in writing, a solid return policy that refunds all expenses including return shipment to strange and distant lands in Eastern Europe (a common barrier-to-refund tactic of these companies).
I wish there was a better way, but the fraud in this space is far worse than any reasonable person would believe.
Thanks for your feedback Bob… more food for thought…
Penetration depth question
On Dr. Pawlak’s PEMF website he has a chart stating gauss intensity needed to get an effective inflammation response (1.5mT) at various depths of penetration. He presents a chart to justify needing 1.5mT to get a significant response from Adrenal receptors over 30 minutes. From his chart, 240 gauss is required to get 1.5mT at a penetration depth of 1.2 inches. I do not know the source of his data but it seems to be comparing different manufacturers products of different frequencies, power levels (gauss), wave forms & durations.
If I ever need deeper penetration, how would I configure stacking all 4 pairs of coils as stated above? (First pair smooth side out bumpy sides together, 2nd pair same configuration and just place on top of the other pair wire connections aligned?
In your estimation, how deep would 4 stacked pairs of coils be able to penetrate?
I recently purchased an M1 to help heal from stem cell treatments on my knee (torn medial meniscus), lumbar back (disc compression due to stenosis), & neck (due to a broken neck/fusion).
Torn Meniscus –Moderate to intense pain prior to PEMF treatment. In addition to heat & ice, I used the M1 omni 8 intensity 11, but my knee began to burn. Backed off intensity to 5 and in 2 hrs the pain was reduced significantly. I am continuing to treat daily at least 1 hr and the pain has not returned at the level it was before. As Bob says sometimes less is more.
I am also doing overnight treatments on my lumbar spine/neck where I had multiple stem cell injections. (Omni 8 intensity 8 - 11). PEMF is giving little relief but I think that is expected because the stem cells are creating inflammation to heal the discs. I also have tried other programs without improvement (A9, Schumann 5, gamma)
In addition to treating the stem cell injected areas, I also used the M1 on recently developed hip pain. The M1 with stacked coils Omni 8 intensity 14 made my pain go away in only 2 – 6 hour sessions. Boy does it ever drain batteries on high settings/
I am trading in my M1 for a c5 to treat multiple area at the same time.
Asking the “penetration depth” question is perfectly reasonable for PEMF users. We all want to know: Is PEMF system “X” powerful enough to reach deeply enough to have desired effect “Y”.
This is a very reasonable question, but it attracts a lot of misleading answers from people trying to market PEMF.
First, let’s calibrate our expectations:
I know I say this all the time, but this is the honest starting point for questions like this because the “data” and claims from almost all PEMF marketers are almost always fraudulent and baseless.
One exception to this is (sometimes) Dr. Pawluk. In my opinion, he does actually know quite a lot about PEMF from the clinical effectiveness perspective. The problem is that he does not, in my opinion, understand electro-magnetism. I have tried to explain it to him many times, but he resists the fact that “Gauss” is the wrong parameter to use when discussing biological effects of PEMF. The problem is that, as a clinician, one of the only PEMF parameters he has access to from any given PEMF product is the “Gauss” claim from the manufacturer. When you clinically compare manufacturer claims of “Gauss” with clinical effectiveness, there will usually be a correlation because “Gauss” will correlate with the correct electro-magnetic parameter even for hyper-inefficient PEMF systems.
This gets extremely difficult to explain to non-scientists because, honestly, electro-magnetism is perhaps the most difficult thing to understand in all of science. It’s not something you can grasp from watching a few YouTube videos. And bio-electro-magnetism has the added problem that it is simultaneously:
1- Just about the most complex field of knowledge known to humanity
and
2- Not well understood even by the smartest people who have ever lived because we have incomplete scientific knowledge about its biological mechanisms.
Here is the proof of the real complexity of electro-magnetism:
If a person fails out of college or graduate school when studying physics or electrical engineering, it will be because they failed their first comprehensive course in electro-magnetism. It is that complex and difficult. Really. And that is before you add the nuance and complexity of “Bio-…”
I have been hammering on this for over 25 years, and I think I might be starting to get a glimmer of understanding. Maybe. Just a tiny bit.
So in general we all have to accept the fact that there are no simple answers, and a lot of unknowns. In my opinion, when someone makes specific claims using specific PEMF parameters, it is nothing more than marketing B.S.
Now that we are calibrated:
I think your insights are correct where you say “I do not know the source of his data but it seems to be comparing different manufacturers products of different frequencies, power levels (gauss), wave forms & durations.”
You are spot-on correct. Add to this the fact that for almost all PEMF systems, not even the manufacturer knows each of the parameters of their own products on your list. Basically, we have a lot of “known-unknowns” but even more “unknown-unknowns” when it comes to PEMF.
My opinion: Dr. Pawluk’s chart of penetration depth is the best he could do given the paucity of reliable and complete data and lack of understanding of fundamental biophysical mechanisms. But I also do not think it is exactly correct for at least two reasons:
1- He uses the wrong electro-magnetic parameter.
2- Individual human variability in their sensitivity to PEMF does not allow us to assign a single number to this question.
But I think his information has some value because it is based on clinical observations of what works and what does not. I think it would be correct to say that this is based on his clinical observations and educated guesses. I am actually OK with that, given that the alternative is total ignorance. On the other hand, I would not accept this educated guess from anyone other than Dr. Pawluk, such as a marketer who has little or no clinical experience with PEMF by comparison.
BOTTOM LINE: We should not look for a single number to describe “penetration depth”.
To address your practical questions and observations:
Deeper penetration, stacking coils: yes, go ahead and stack coils as you describe, and then be sure to check between each pair of coils using the hexagonal coil tester to be sure that the intensity is increasing, which will be indicated by increasing brightness of the flashing green LEDs. If the brightness decreases, just flip over one of the coils and test it the same way again.
“In your estimation, how deep would 4 stacked pairs of coils be able to penetrate?”: In my experience (and based on many reports to me from other people) it seems to penetrate pretty deeply with good effect at least 5 or 6 inches. Keep in mind that the anti-inflammatory effect will be stronger on tissues closer to the coils, which will have a compounding effect on the anti-inflammatory effect at the deeper target tissue.
Your observations following “Torn Meniscus” I think are very important. Sometimes PEMF will cause joint pain, so it is necessary to use reduced intensity and duration. This happens to me all the time. I keep making the same mistake. It’s human nature. Too much is too much.
Neck and Stem cells: I think you are correctly looking at this as a long process where the tissue will be regenerating, so you should expect a long period with some level of discomfort, and using PEMF daily but at a low intensity is probably the best strategy. I would suggest trying Omni-8 at very low intensity. If you are not feeling any effect, that is probably doing the most long-term good.
M1 on hip - Yes, high settings unfortunately burn through batteries much more quickly. It’s all a design trade-off.
Hi Dr. Bob
I recently received my M1 after several weeks of research on your website. Your sincerity is quite apparent and you have the experience and education to back up your claims.
I am literally astounded by the immediate results I’ve seen in two chronic injuries I suffer with. While I can provide details of the injuries as well as the protocols I utilized on my M1, I intend, for the sake of your readers, to elaborate on my professional background as well as just how applicable your technology is.
I had a 38 year career as a Chiropractic Physician specializing in both traditional conditions of the spine as well as non-disruptive sports injuries. The first 25 years of my practice, I applied traditional modalities such as EMS, ultrasound, massage and manual tissue therapy. Results were, for that period of time, as to be expected and nothing more. My practice changed about 12 years ago when I was introduced to Low Level Laser Therapy. I saw a tremendous increase in patient response with Laser Therapy. My treatment protocols were literally cut in half as far as duration of care for conditions I had been treating for the prior 25 years. While the traditional therapies were still applicable for many common conditions, my Laser proved to be an incredible discovery for the treatment of conditions in my sports injury practice. Rotator cuff injuries, tennis elbow, hamstring/quadriceps sprain/strains and the most remarkable results of all, although I haven’t a clue why, was at the feet!! Heel spurs and plantar fasciitis would no longer cause weeks of missed playing time.
I report all of this because I feel at this early juncture of use that your ICES Technology, M1 device appears to be light years ahead of what I have come to expect from my laser.
In retirement, I took up PickleBall 4-5 days per week. On my dominant side, I suffered a triangular fibrocartilage rupture of the wrist. Since I am retired I had to visit a colleague for laser treatments. The results were less than acceptable. I received immediate minor pain relief that abated after my next time playing. It unfortunately did not help the way I was hoping it would.
I utilized the M1 on my wrist, the day I got it for the length of the battery life while sleeping. I utilized a ventral/dorsal placement right over the TFC. I was completely blown away the next morning. I could elaborate but by now I’m sure you are accustomed to hearing these remarkable reports. I used it for three nights in a row with different electrode placements. My pain went to a 2 from 9 before treatment. And pain is only one measure of response. As a Sports Chiropractor, function is as important as pain. What good is a wrist that can’t flex or extend even if there is no pain in it. My ROM improved dramatically as well.
Following my wrist, I immediately went to my right knee. I suffered a deceleration injury approximately 10 weeks ago. MRI reported a torn Medial Meniscus as well as torn Posterior Cruciate ligament. Surgery was NOT an option for me. I am 63 years old and readily accepted a path of PT and home care. Following 6-8 weeks of treatment I was cleared to return to PB, however my knee was not close to as good as I was hoping. I experienced 2-4 pain daily but my ROM was only 65%. Oh well, right? What do I expect I am 63. I started my M1 treatment on the knee this week. After only 2 treatments, the ROM has improved moderately and the post-exercise swelling that was becoming a regular event, is now markedly reduced.
I will rap up my long discussion here by saying that I wish I was still in active practice. I believe this technology is the tip of the iceberg at least as far as the conditions I’ve treated the past 38 years. I have practical and personal experience at hand. It is truly very exciting.
Thank you for your expertise and your tireless efforts to fine tune your technology for the greater good.
You are to be commended Dr. Bob!!
Thanks @DocV, this is all very interesting to hear. I am glad to know that you had such a great response for a range of injuries. I think your post will be helpful to a lot of people. Again, thanks.
Wow, this an interesting thread.
I may contribute a thing. I inspected a PEMF full body mat system. Doing some analysis I discovered that the Mat uses at 64 Hz base frequency using a basic sawtooth and bursts/packets of the 64 Hz signal followed by pauses. The frequency pattern of 64Hz signal bursts and pauses are varied over the day to resemble the brain frequencies.
The local applicators use a 30 KHz square signal in burst of some milliseconds followed by pauses and subsequent burst periods following a larger pause. Signals are unipolar and polarity is reversed all several minutes.
Using a Gaussmeter I could determine, that the T/s per pulse (both medium setting) seems to be lower than at the the M1 - and that from a 230V powered device.
The results of this product are mixed for me. Its good to relax (mat) but the applicators to not have the effect in regard of pain and suspected inflammation like the M1.
What I think to be an issue is the of 30 KHz for the “Spot” applicators. I think, this is not anymore a real PEMF “frequency”. May be that is the reason the effects are, for me, much less than from a M1 at Powerlevel 9 and B5-C5. Also the T/s per single 30 KHz pulse have to be estimated dramatically lower than on an ICES.
Does some here have an opinion about this?
I’d be curious what the waveform looked like coming off the coil at 30kHz. Do they reference an studies regarding why they use a higher frequency?
On an oscilloscope, measured inductively coupled, the signal still look quite “square”. The local applicators have quite large copper coils. There are no references to studies given that I am aware of. I have the plan to ask the manufacturer.
II think that they try do introduce other lower harmonics with a special pulse-train that pauses the 30 KHz in a specific pattern.
Still, I researched that 30 KHz is also used by Hulda Clarks “Zapper”, which I haven an ambivalent feeling with. Maybe that was what the initial developer of the frequencies had as “speculative” base. Also RIFE protocols use that frequency, but that is quite esoteric to me.