Flux Health Forum

Thoughts on PEMF Manufacturers

PEMF Basics
#47

Most of what you pay for with these things is multiple layers of marketers. These types of devices could be built and sold at a profit for less than 1/10th of what they charge the consumer. But typically everyone in the marketing and sales loop gets a $500-$1000 cut for each sale. They don’t spend any of that on real science or advanced engineering. I have been asked to consult for several of these companies: not one of them has a scientist or engineer on staff. Out of sheer frustration, I asked an overseas company to tell me who on their staff had any knowledge of their technology for a similar product. After some research, they told me their entire staff was comprised of:

managers: 3 people
sales and marketing: 22 people
… and only one junior level, part-time technician to fix broken stuff.

And in my opinion, this was one of the better companies.

That is what you are paying for when you spend that much.

2 Likes
#48

would it be feasible to build a higher quality, high powered pemf device to complement your low powered devices? it’d be great to just purchase from one trusted source for high powered pemf as well as what we are already getting from you for low powered.

1 Like
#49

This is a very reasonable question, and I do get this request a lot, so let me share my thoughts on this.

Up until now, I have not really worked on high powered PEMF for several reasons:

1- Based on my testing and experience over the past ~ 20 years, I think that low-powered PEMF is what works best for most people. By this I mean that it has the best long-term clinical outcomes. About 95% of people really benefit most from low-power PEMF from what I can tell. There are people who need more, but I think my efforts best serve the largest majority of people by focusing on low-power, safe, efficient, portable PEMF.

2- High-power comes with greater inherent danger. In the vast majority of cases, it is my scientific opinion that the added risk does not come with sufficient benefit.

3- I have already had an impact on both the cost and quality of a large segment of the high-power PEMF market by simply telling the truth and also making available low-power, much lower cost PEMF. This has really cut into their bloated profits, and some of their most outrageous medical claims. Several marketers of high-cost PEMF products have accosted me at scientific meetings to tell me that I have “destroyed their market”. Plus, most PEMF marketers have been forced to tell a bit more of the truth, for example, you do not see nearly as many false claims about NASA “proving” PEMF, and that only their products were based on this NASA research (this was on every PEMF marketing page up until about 10 years ago when I reported this fraud and started exposing their misinformation). And the price of many of the intermediate-level PEMF systems has dropped sharply over the past decade, largely due (I think) to the competition from my reasonably-priced, truth-based systems. So I think in this way I have helped clean up the high-powered PEMF market without needing to manufacture one myself.

4- Unlike other high-power PEMF manufacturers who almost uniformly buy or pirate systems designed in Eastern Europe in the 1970-1980’s, I would need to research, scientifically test, and basically figure out the science of high-powered PEMF from the ground up. This would cost me 2 or 3 million dollars and would dominate my time for about a decade. I would not be able to spend my time on the many important things I am doing now, to chase after something that would cost me a fortune, that I would never be able to justify financially.

5- Entering the high-power PEMF market would place me in direct competition on their well-established markets, trying to sell truth-based projects in a market filled with lies, misinformation, and fraud. Any examination of current politics or social media will make it blazingly clear to you that fraud and lies and misinformation have a huge advantage these days. It only takes a low-integrity marketer about 30 seconds and costs them nothing to make a false claim about some miraculous cure, whereas it would cost me a fortune (about the cost of an average house) and years (or decades) to simply demonstrate the truth of the matter. I might even consider trying this crusade for Truth, if only the general public actually had a strong majority of people who valued complex truth over simple lies. But that is not the world we live in. So I can not destroy my current progress, and scorch my future, to tilt at windmills and fight a fight for people who will not believe the truth when laid bare before them, at great effort and personal expense.

My opinion on this matter might change, but it would depend on some fundamental changes to our current reality, or at least my understanding of it.

9 Likes
#50

point #5 is so true… i have seen people who aren’t familiar with you or your work scoff at your tech and explanations on some of your posts bc they’re so invested in their 10s of thousands of $ pemf systems…

ok, thanks for sharing. i better understand where you’re coming from.

#51

Bob, when I randomly found you a few years ago, you were promoting the M1. What came across was your honesty, no frills, legitimate knowledge of your product and good intentions. I’m glad I purchased the M1 back then and have purchased more products I enjoy.
I’m not tech savvy and don’t know what “high-power PEMF” are. What is an example of this high power vs your unit? Thank you for sharing.

1 Like
#52

There are many, and they come and go, some quickly, some linger in the market for years, so I will not make specific comparisons using brand names, but rather I will offer general guidelines that can be applied to these devices as they come and go, and as they morph into other guises in an attempt to appear "new’ or cutting edge.

“High-Power PEMF” is basically any PEMF system that must be plugged into a wall outlet to line voltage (~ 115 VAC) to operate. These systems tend to be physically large and typically cost from $5,000 to $50,000. They use a lot of voltage (115 Volts or more) and electrical power (typically > 100 Watts).

ICES-PEMF is powered at 5 Volts or less, and generally emits half a Watt, but usually much less. So, compared to “High-Power PEMF” systems, ICES-PEMF is much gentler and has benefits that are similar or better, but only using about 1/200th the power.

Again, I am not saying that “high-power PEMF” systems do not confer clinical benefits. I am saying that they are vastly over-priced and highly inefficient (typically 99.8% inefficient), and therefore radiate a lot of electromagnetic energy (much of it in the “dirty” RFI spectrum) that has no detectable biological benefit and might actually be dangerous. And the marketers of these systems tend to make a lot of fraudulent claims. They will literally claim anything in order to win a sale.

5 Likes
Comparing to other machines
#53

Dr Pawluk mentions intensity as being an important factor for reaching deeper into the body. Yet from what I understand some of the less powerful matts are using a carrier wave to permeate deeper then the magnetic wave form can based on gauss on its own. Have you heard of this as a delivery system for pemf and can you comment on it?

1 Like
#54

Well, it gets pretty complicated mathematically because there is some calculus involved, but generally the steady, unchanging component of the magnetism does not seem to have reliable biological effects (some people disagree, but they have failed to produce a convincing argument or data)

It is the changing part of the magnetic field that matters when it comes to eliciting biological responses. And what really matters is how fast it changes (dB/dt).

But the intensity of the magnetic field is the mathematical product of how fast it is changing, and how long it is changing:

I = dB/dt * t

This is the same as saying that the distance a car travels depends on its speed and how long it drives:

distance = rate multiplied by time (d = r * t)

Keeping in mind that magnetic fields drop off very quickly (~ 1/r^3)

To get the rate of change you need (dB/dt) for a biological effect, you need to quickly achieve a very high magnetic field intensity. As you get farther from the magnetic coils, this gets harder and harder to do.

Therefore, to produce a magnetic pulse with sufficient rate of change (dB/dt) to induce a biological effect, for deeper tissues (farther away from the coils) it is necessary to have very high peak magnetic intensity.

So, it is not that you need high magnetic intensity per se, rather you need to achieve sufficient magnetic field change rate for sufficient time, and the mathematical byproduct of that is the need for a high peak magnetic intensity to reach larger distances from the magnetic coils.

But the use of “carrier waves” to get magnetic fields to penetrate to deeper tissues makes the assumption that it is the peak magnetic field that matters, which is in my opinion incorrect. It is my scientific opinion that this technique is used (or it is just claimed to be used, after all, how would you really know for sure) as a way to attempt to give technical credibility to a PEMF system that has demonstrated that it actually does not work well for deep tissues.

I have done some experiments with this, and with fixed magnets (very powerful ones), and in no case did I see any enhancement of effects by adding either steady or carrier magnetic waves.

I have also never seen any reliable scientific report of the use of carrier waves to enhance the effectiveness of PEMF in any experimental system.

So, I could be wrong, but I think the use (or the claim) of carrier waves is just wishful thinking or deceptive marketing on the part of some PEMF manufacturers.

3 Likes
#55

Thank you for the reply. I found it interesting since I had seen carrier waves referred to on a couple PEMF devices as well as Rife and Nano VI device. Did not really understand how they could be using a carrier wave to implement effect. Nano VI seems to be using light frequency to effect I am guessing water into the “4th Stage” to be inhaled, but they mention a carrier wave in the range that is an ol CB bandwidth. It is interesting to hear the different marketing of products and theories.

Thank you for your input and advice.

#56

Hello! I bought a ICES M1 and these days I’m reading a book called “Power Tools for Health” to understand more about the underlying mechanism and how PEMF therapy works. Reading the book it seems two things are very important: a trapezoidal wave and dB/dT. I’d like to know if the ICES M1 has the trapezoidal wave and what is the dB/dT and how it compares with other manufacturers! Thanks a lot!

#57

It is really the core ICES-PEMF technology that forms the basis for that understanding described in the book and in many recent PEMF products. So, it is the book that reflects recent PEMF research and the technology in ICES-PEMF: the technology is built-in to our technology, and the book describes it.

The book was written by William Pawluk MD. Bill is a friend and colleague of mine, and he is the recognized global clinical expert on the medical uses of PEMF. But he is not a scientist. For about the past 12 years I have been sharing the results of my research with Bill. He had been mired in the confusing swamp of disinformation and false marketing claims about how PEMF works. There had also been some good scientific evidence in support of the Faraday Induction mechanism of PEMF (the theory that emphasizes dB/dt and trapezoidal waveforms) since 1968, but it had been lost in the noise surrounding PEMF technologies. Since then the electro-magnetic induction-based theory of PEMF was very strongly supported by my research for NASA-JSC and DARPA in the mid 1990’s and early 2000’s.

https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/5
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/27

Briefly, I think it is fair to say that Bill Pawluk emphasized trapezoidal waveform shape and dB/dt in his book because of my explanation to him of the physics of that mechanism (Faraday Induction), and the fact that he pointed out many times that from his clinical perspective ICES-PEMF technology (which is based on that theory of operation) was vastly superior to other forms of PEMF that had been available since about 1975. (much more efficient and clinically effective).

So, it is fair to say that trapezoidal waveforms and dB/dt are in Bill Pawluk’s excellent book because of his understanding of the ICES-PEMF technology that I have been developing, and not the other way around. In recent years the other competing theories of PEMF have fallen to the wayside, since the science does not really support them as reliable and effective. As a result, many other manufacturers, including Bill’s PEMF company, have recently started using the inductive-based technology that I developed for ICES-PEMF since my work for NASA in 1996-1998.

4 Likes
,M1 how to use
#58

Thank you for the reply, it was very helpful! I have one last question: what’s your take on intensity? From what I could understand the magnetic field is less and less strong the more distance it has to travel from the point of contact…so for deep tissues it seems higher intensity is better. I use it primarily in my brain and gut…would the ICES be able to reach deep tissues (such as the hypothalamus) the same as a more powerful PEMF device?

#59

Intensity of magnetic fields does drop off very rapidly; in general it will be 1/r^3 to 1/r^4.

To reach the deepest tissues, try using our Deep Field Coils if you have a model C5 or B5, or use stacked coils if you have an M1 or A9.

Optionally, with ICES-PEMF you can use coils on opposite sides (bumpy sides away from the skin) of the area to be stimulated, which also greatly increases the magnetic field penetration distance.

4 Likes
#60

Do you have a round about depth that the two coils when stacked will reach with the A9 vs the deepest coils you talk about using the c5? Curious the depth penetration vs the two and if I should invest in a c5

#61

The driver circuit for the model M1 is identical to each channel (of four) on the model C5. And generally, when you double the number of coils that are synchronized and properly stacked, the depth for any given pulse intensity increases by about 60%. So, if you double stack the coils on a model C5 you will get two the depth as a pair of stacked coils on an M1. And if you properly stack all four pairs of coils on the C5 you will get about a 120% depth increase (a bit more than double) compared to a pair of coils stacked on the M1. This is based on direct measurements, not just theory or calculation.

4 Likes
#62

Thanks for the reply. This makes sense and I may also purchase a c5. I also have been thinking about purchasing a super pulsed laser in conjunction with using the PEmF for ligament healing. Do you see any reason why the two couldn’t be used together to treat an injury?

#63

I think you can certainly use the two together. Many clinicians regularly do so:

https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/69

#64

THIS. People are so quick to throw around terms that sound plausible, but have no precise, much less quantifiable scientific meaning. ‘Negative’ magnetic fields? What is that even?

In the academic sense, a negative field, charge, current, etc can mean the opposite direction or orientation in a given spatial reference frame, such as a cartesian or spherical coordinate system that describes 3 dimensional space. Negative can also indicate the opposite direction of movement, or perhaps the opposite phase of a wave.

First, using a term like ‘negative’ requires a defined and understood framework first to define the terms and orientation of things. You can’t just allow people to use terms such positive and negative without such a framework and have it mean anything.

In this thread, what does a positive field even mean, much less a negative one? Do these simplistic labels define a direction, orientation, flow, movement, or shape of something? Who knows. So, for me, it’s meaningless.

I see amateurs using terms like this all the time without context and an established framework of understanding to communicate anything that can be understood, rather relying on the simplistic presuppositions of the hearers’ understanding to mean that positive is good, negative is bad, etc. I assure you I can create a technically correctly labeled positive EMF that, in the right conditions can be terribly bad for you. Said positive EMF field can put you in a very negative emotional state by harming you or others. But saying that it’s a positive thing because the correct term to describe the field is ‘positive’ is nonsense.

The term du jour that people love to use now is ‘quantum’. They are using it to imply a certain level of scientifically proven rigor to otherwise unproven, unquantifiable things like emotional and spiritual states. It’s also used to inappropriately describe things such as technologies and even financial systems, without any framework of understanding what quantum means. And they do this all the while disregarding the scientific established meaning of quantum (i.e. physics) that generally in lay terms means something is fundamentally discrete and indivisible (energy state). But people have coopted the term to impute all manner of futuristic Sci-Fi qualities to all kinds of things that have no business being described with the term quantum.

So it goes. And so is the end of my linguistic rant. I rant because our language must be precise to communicate ideas clearly, especially in the realm of science. Other wise we might as well call EMF’s good and evil.

  • List item
#65

Are Dr. Pawluk’s recommended devices list on his website good recommendations or are they tied in with sponsorship. I noticed on his YouTube videos many years ago he seemed to like Earthpulse for sleep. Now he seems to be mentioning the Flexpulse for sleep purposes. He says he had a input in the device. So does that influence his opinions because of involvement with Flexpulse?
I am only asking this as I read another post on here regarding the Ben Greenfield fiasco. Which Mr Greenfield should be ashamed of. As you are one of the leading experts in PEMF.

1 Like
#66

I think in general they are good recommendations. I know Dr. Pawluk well, and he is constantly evaluating PEMF products and their clinical benefits. Just like anyone else, his opinions will change over time with new information.

Full disclosure: Dr, Pawluk has asked me to work with him to develop an even better sleep-promoting PEMF system, so his opinions may change yet again based on how well that works.

But overall, I think you are correct to be concerned because most (all?) PEMF marketers are driven by one thing: personal profit. Many will claim otherwise, but very few marketers are involved in a product for any reason other than their desire to turn a quick profit. Bill Pawluk is first and foremost a clinician, and his entry into PEMF sales was driven primarily by the need to have someone who could understand and represent PEMF products accurately with an eye toward their demonstrated clinical benefits. I know he sometimes sells systems that do not make him a lot of money. Most marketers would never do that.

3 Likes