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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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!!
7 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
I’m also a Chiropractic Physician and I use PEMF in my clinic. Particularly for bone injuries and to follow-up after ozone injections. I bought out the practice and it came with the PEMF unit which is from PEMF Systems, Inc.
We use it for a short period of time on patients and I’m wondering what the carry-over to your ICES-PEMF would be. As I look through how people are using it I see that it’s a long treatment time (like all night long).
So, would it not be beneficial to have my patients use it for 5-15 minutes? Am I missing the boat on what these different PEMF technologies are doing? I did have a vendor at a recent exhibit tell me that my unit is using 2 different poles and that his fancy digital unit was the only one that used parallel waves.
Just my opinion, but “2 poles”, “parallel waves”… 2 poles might mean bipolar pulses, in which case that is one key (patented) feature of ICES®-PEMF
Parallel waves… That is not a term generally used by scientists other than maybe in the description of laser coherence… maybe.
Would it be useful for your patients to wear 5-15 minutes?.. maybe, but that is not the best way to use ICES-PEMF, which is designed specifically for low-dose, longer session daily use. This is why ICES-PEMF systems are designed to be portable and wearable.
These were my thoughts. I appreciate the low and slow approach.
What would you say the minimal effective dose is?
Minimum effective dose: depends on a lot of things, maybe everything related to inflammation.
Individuals vary, and even different injuries on the same individual vary. So really, there is no one-size-fits-all rule of thumb that works for everyone.
In my opinion, for orthopedic injuries the best thing to do is:
Start with default settings: Omni-8 pulse pattern, Intensity = 9
Do this for a day or two, observe response, adjust, repeat.
Yes, that all makes sense. Thanks
I think ICES or PEMF in general make no sense in a fashion that uses them 15-30 minutes 1-2 times a week, where people come to a practice. Devices like BE**ER are marketed for that, I know therapeuts who do that because it it easy money, but I personally think that mobile units like ICES are the way to go. I do judge the therapeutic affect of full body mat devices not very high.
Maybe a “rental” model makes sense - where the patient gets an M1 for 4 weeks. Since the price of an M1 is friendly, and the device is sturdy this could be an option. The coils would be the only “fixed” item, that would stay with the patient after the usage.
Best,
Hans
1 Like
I generally agree with @hcf (Hans). I have discussed this with clinicians, and taken surveys on this type of question at scientific/clinical meetings:
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/69
Some clinicians have tried both weekly clinical short-session PEMF in addition to daily wearable PEMF. All of them see a good benefit for one or the other type of PEMF, but when combined, the clinical outcome seems to be better than either one alone. This is not a common practice, but it seems to be very advantageous according to those who have tried it.
2 Likes
Yes, and in terms of making money, I’m a failure because I make it an included service. Yes, a rental model is what I have been considering.
Why would the coils need to stay with the patient instead of used by the next individual?
I would use new ones for hygienic reasons. You never know of the hygiene “details” of other people 
Best,
Hans
1 Like